The Parliamentary oversight committee for Independent Commissions has once again cancelled a meeting scheduled with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), calling an hour before the meeting set for 11.15am this morning [Wednesday, December 15].
The JSC has remained dysfunctional for weeks, since in-fighting on Article 285 disrupted the Commission earlier this year. A serious concern, as the JSC is the only constitutional body to check judges’ misconduct and impunity. Over a 100 complaints remain unchecked.
The Parliament has failed to hold the JSC accountable despite repeated complaints and appeals by member Aishath Velezinee since February 25, 2010, when concerns were raised that JSC had unconstitutionally abolished Article 285 as symbolic.
The last appeal on the matter to Parliament was on August 4, 2010 requesting an injunction order to prevent the JSC from going ahead with the symbolic oath-taking before the Parliamentary oversight committee for Independent Commissions had looked into pending complaints.
Since then, member Velezinee has publicly accused the Speaker Abdulla Shahid and MP Dr. Afraasheem Ali, both ex-officio members of JSC, of unlawfully abolishing Article 285 of the Constitution and using the JSC as a tool in a covert coup attempt to derail constitutional democratic government through denying independence to judges, and preventing the establishment of an independent judiciary.
The Majlis, as well as media, has remained silent on JSC and Article 285, despite the very public declarations.
On December 1, 2010, the Secretary General of the Majlis sent a letter of invitation to JSC stating that the parliamentary oversight body, the Parliamentary oversight committee for Independent Commissions, requested a meeting with members of JSC on 6 December 2010.
Another letter arrived on December 5, 2010 informing that the said meeting was postponed to 9 December 2010.
Another letter arrived on December 9, 2010 informing the JSC that the Parliamentary oversight committee for Independent Commissions had decided to postpone the said meeting indefinitely, and that a date would be informed at a later date. No reason for the summons was specified in any of the letters sent by the Majlis, nor was a reason specified for the indefinite postponement.
Late afternoon on December 14, 2010 an urgent letter arrived from the Parliament Secretariat, informing that the Parliamentary oversight committee for Independent Commissions requested to meet with JSC members.
That is now cancelled, the cancellation letter informing once again that “a date for the said meeting would be informed at a later date”.
Earlier, the parliamentary oversight body failed to respond to a number of requests for intervention, first made in writing by Member Aishath Velezinee on 25 February 2010.
On Sunday, Dec 12, 2010, JSC member Velezinee sent a 34-page letter to the Parliament refusing to appear before any Parliamentary committee and explaining the reasons for her decision.
When the Parliamentary oversight committee for Independent Commissions met JSC on August 2, 2010, the first and only time it did to date, JSC members was informed halfway into the meeting that it was not in relation to complaints on Article 285. It was a “routine check”.
What the meeting was about, no one, neither members of the Parliamentary oversight committee for Independent Commissions nor JSC understood. It was mentioned that the matter of Article 285 was a serious issue and was being studied.
The matter of audio tapes on Article 285 having been edited at the request of certain members of JSC before they were submitted to Parliament was dismissed with the words, “We are not talking about audio tapes today”.
The matter of JSC members paying themselves despite a clear constitutional clause that specified no ex-officio member would be paid, was ignored.
The fact that JSC had not adopted Standard Operation Procedures and other regulations despite Article 40 of the JSC Act stating they be adopted within six months of appointment, a deadline which passed on January 26, 2010, went unnoticed.
The matter of JSC having censored its own Annual Report for 2009, removing information the JSC Act required to be included in the report, had not been noticed by any member of the Parliamentary oversight committee for Independent Commissions.
The question perhaps is, who can hold the Speaker accountable?
Aishath Velezinee is a member of the Judicial Service Commission of the Maldives (JSC). She holds a Diploma in Journalism (IIMC, India; 1988), BA in Government; and in Women’s Studies (University of Queensland, Australia; 2000) and a Masters’ in Development Studies (Institute for Social Studies, Netherlands; 2004).
http://www.velezinee.aishath.com/content/why
All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected].
(0)Dislikes
(0)Related Posts
Comment: We are criminals- Vice President says improving standard of education is top priority
- Home Ministry announces events to commemorate 2004 tsunami
- MDP calls for suspension of February 8 cases until coup investigation is complete
- Prison conditions “unchanged since Gayoom’s time”: detained blogger
- Police disclose details of raid on local drug network seizing nine kilograms of drugs
Minivan Team - nothing on yesterdays protest? Wonder what happend?
Mrs. Velezinee. In one of your comments you asked supporters of judicial reform to go onto your own site to support your efforts. I would like to do that. Please let me know is there a petition on there to sign or something? I would like to offer my support, please let me know how I can do so?
I believe the Supreme Court will have the final say on this, as it appears to be the ONLY functioning body of the Maldivian State right now.
The Parliament has been dysfunctional since it was elected. The Executive has been dismembered and totally incapacitated by Parliament! The Courts and its judges are ruling with impunity, since there's no one to oversee what they are doing.
Democracy, we have! What shall we get next?
Am sure GOD will make them Accountable
It is not ethical for you (Velezinee) to write on this issue, sicne you are a member of JSC.
It is not ethical for you (Velezinee) to write on this issue, since you are a member of JSC.
May be Islamic Foudation
@ Aishath Velezinee
"Who will hold the Judicial Service Commission Accountable?"
Secularist extremists?
Keep up all your good work Velezinee.
We are happy that your are here, fighting with a voice of reason.
I guess Valezinee's ramblings has many readers totally confused on what exactly she is talking about!
Let us try and put things in perspective for the layman to understand what this is all about.
When the new Constitution was drafted, the members of Special Majlis realized that it was necessary to spell out as to how we were to "smoothly migrate" from the previous Constitution [our old "operating system"] to the new Constitution ["the new operating system"].
Therefore, once the "actual chapters of the Constitution was complete", the members of the Special Majlis drafted and adopted an "Inthiqaalee or Transition” Chapter to specify as to how the transition is to be made. The Transition Chapter was auto timed to expire upon completion of the specified transition functions within the specified period of two years from the date the New Constitution came into existence. Always keep this in mind.
The writer Valezinee has an educational background in journalism, Women’s Affairs and Development Studies. She is not an expert or a recognized authority on Constitutional Law.
Article 285 which she is writing about , is a clause in the “Transition Chapter” of the New Constitution which mandated the JSC to screen and decide if all the sitting judges (at the time the New Constitution came into force) did indeed have the qualifications and met the criteria for judges as specified in the New Constitution.
Article 285 “went out of existence” once the “Transition Period” mentioned in the Constitution expired, as article 285 was a clause within that Transition Chapter.
The “in fighting that disrupted the Judicial Services Commission” that Valezinee is referring to in her article was the clash that occurred between pro Government forces (Valezinee and AG) vs. The Speaker of the Majlis and those Judges representing the Judiciary within JSC.
The Clash was a direct result of both the Government and DRP (represented by way of the Speaker) trying to influence the “final composition of the judiciary” using Article 285 as a pretext to appoint the judges that MDP or DRP wanted. And to dismiss those judges that they felt were unsympathetic to their respective causes. This is a serious matter since judges once appointed, will be serving for life time (unless impeached).
This is how JSC became political and failed to carry out its constitutionally mandated duties during the Interim Period. Carrying out a witch-hunt to root out those judges that major political parties did not like was not the purpose for which Article 285 was drafted.
During the JSC deliberations on Article 285, the various factions ie: the Government/MDP (represented by Valezinee and the Attorney General) and DRP (represented by the Speaker of the Majlis Abdulla Shahid) and members representing the judiciary and the legal profession failed to agree on the “standard to apply” to determine if those “sitting judges” complied with the criteria specified in the Constitution. They failed to do so within the Interim Period. Isn’t this a fact?
My few questions to Madam Valezinee are simple:
1. Do you believe that the Judiciary is the third Independent Branch of the State? (Leaving aside the Majlis and the Executive Branch
2. Is it the mandate of JSC to play politics and influence the Judiciary for political purposes?
3. If a few members of the JSC (where DRP and MDP is represented) can dictate and influence the composition of the Judiciary, how can we ensure the “independence “ of the judiciary?
I fully agree that some of the present judges had allegations made against them in the past which were not investigated. Similarly, some of them have poor qualifications. But if the JSC were to truly and honestly serve the best interests of the nation to help reform the Judiciary, there are better ways to go about than playing politics and going on a witch-hunt.
In spite of all the challenges we faced, we now have a Supreme Court. We have a newly elected President. We have an elected Majlis (however much dysfunctional it is!).
Reforms of the judiciary and legal reforms are unnecessary. This need to be carried out by the respective branches of the State without undue influence from other branches of the State.
President Nasheed is doing a marvelous job in reforming the Executive Branch which he heads.
Oops! major typo error!
Second last paragraph of my comment (19 Dec 5:49) should correctly read as:-
"Reforms of the judiciary and legal reforms are NECESSARY" and not as "unnecessary"!
My humble apologies for the error!
@ Ilyas
I advocate your viewpoint on this matter. It is quite appalling that President was incompetent to nominate a well qualified nominee to the JSC on his behalf, while there are many competent graduates out there. The main pitfall in Maldives is that most of the time, candidates to highly technical areas were nominated with disregard to their specialization. This was almost the case in Maumoon's era although he tried to revamp those decisions in his later years in his office - and again President Nasheed who vehemently purported that he will make such radical changes is repeating the same pitfall, and may be more worse this time.
Velezinee's comportment during the transition period was grotesque and even a shame to the goodwill of JSC. The majority of Maldivians do not accept such behaviours although President Nasheed and some of his MDP aides and activists condone such things.
Thank you all for engaging with an issue that is far easier to ignore than address.
Here’s my response to some of the comments received.
@ Supporter
Thank you.
Keep visiting my page and getting the issues raised out onto public platforms for discussion.
It is necessary for the public to get a clear picture first, for an effective remedy to be sought on the matter.
@ Ahmed Bin Addu Bin Suvadheeb
It’s a Catch-22 situation.
Conflict of Interest prevents the Supreme Court from having a say in this matter.
It was Interim Supreme Court Justice Mujuthaaz Fahmy who committed treason, and it is Justice Adam Mohamed Abdulla of the Supreme Court who now continue with the treason.
The Interim Supreme Court not only refused to recognize the damage (ousted) Justice Mujuthaaz Fahmy was committing, but was a party to the treason committed by JSC.
Further, the self-appointed Interim “Chief Justice” Abdulla Saeed did little to educate or prepare the judges for the changes necessary. Instead he was actively engaged in a miseducation campaign to control the judiciary, and maintain the old guard over the judges. A look at the three statements issued by the Judges Association makes it obvious that the fear of a few judges who had reason to dread any check of their conduct was spread to all judges as mass hysteria through misinformation and incitement. Justice Abdulla Saeed’s pivotal role in the whole sordid affair is evident in the historical speech of August 4, 2010 where he addressed 59 judges after they were locked up and forced to take a symbolic oath.
The current Chair of JSC, Supreme Court Justice Adam Mohamed Abdulla’s dishonesty, incompetence and ignorance will not be lost on anyone who has the misfortune to sit down with him, even if it is on a Sultan Park bench.
I have reason to believe Justice Adam Mohamed Abdulla may be suffering from a dangerous psychiatric delusional disorder and the matter of having Justice Adam Mohamed Abdulla undergo a psychiatric evaluation under State Care is pending in JSC whilst he is on medical leave gone abroad for treatment.
A full review of JSC and the work of the interim Supreme Court may yet reveal much.
@Mina,
Surely.
@justice
Ethics? : P
@Makunuvaa
Thank you
@ Ilyas Ahmed
Thank you for attempting a reader-friendly presentation of my ramblings. It is certainly not an easy task.
There is a multitude of evidence is available to back my arguments, and only a full review of the whole issue is required.
The fact that JSC has never produced any evidence to the contrary but intends to prevent exposure by diverting attention and ensuring there is no probe is quite enough to get the thinking mind questioning. The silence of the Speaker, and the failure of Parliament to hold JSC accountable too is enough to get the thinking mind questioning.
Finally, it is important not to dismiss but to refute all arguments with reason and evidence. To be selective and ignore those points that challenge your own assumptions surely takes much away from your argument.
If you are truly concerned and up to a full review of Article 285 and events in JSC, and if you are ready to enter the beehive, fully knowing that you’d get stung, come forward, and send me your credentials with letters of recommendation. It would be my pleasure to provide access to the necessary documentation so that the public can finally get a clear picture.
Until and unless the duties and obligations under Article 285 are fulfilled, the judiciary would remain under the influence of a few politicians, independence of judges cannot be guaranteed, nor will impunity be addressed.
Thank you
Aishath Velezinee
Member of JSC appointed under Article 158(h) of the Constitution