Ahmed faiz – Minivan News

Dismissed Supreme Court Judges to receive extensive privileges

Former Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz and former Justice Muthasim Adnan, dismissed due to the reduction of the Supreme Court bench to five judges, are to receive extensive privileges according to a new regulation compiled by the Supreme Court.

The regulations on the privileges of judges who retire with honor awards the two judges financial benefits, security officers, a car and a driver, medical insurance in the Maldives, SAARC, and ASEAN countries, and VIP services at state offices.

The financial benefits are dependent on the length of their service to the state.

They are to receive half of their salary for a period of service of 20 years, two-thirds for a service period between 20 and 25 years, and three-quarters for over 25 years of service.

The state is to bear expenses for the driver and fuel for the car.

Faiz and Muthasim are to be addressed with the title of ‘Justice Retired’. They will be given the title at a special ceremony, the regulations said.

Faiz and Muthasim’s sudden dismissal in December garnered international condemnation, with the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers saying their removal would have “a chilling effect on the work of the judiciary at all levels”.

The People’s Majlis removed the two judges after revising the Judicature Act to reduce the seven-member Supreme Court bench to five.

The watchdog Judicial Services Commission (JSC) promptly selected Faiz and Adnan for dismissal, though the reasons for their selection were not shared with MPs who subsequently voted to dismiss both on December 14.

Critics have said the removal contravened Article 154 of the Maldives Constitution that says a judge can only be removed if the JSC finds them guilty of gross misconduct or incompetence.

The rapporteur has called for a reconsideration of the pair’s removal, noting that it had been characterised by a “lack of transparency and due process”.

“The fact that the grounds for removal were not publicized is particularly unacceptable,” added Knaul in a December 22 statement.

Commonwealth organisations said the move had “severely jeopardised” the independence of the judiciary, while the International Commission of Jurists said the “astonishingly arbitrary” decision had “effectively decapitated the country’s judiciary”.

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) had challenged the legality of the JSC’s recommendation to dismiss the judges at the Civil Court, but the Supreme Court took control of the case.

Three lawyers also mounted a challenge to the Judicature Act revisions at the High Court, but the registrar threw the case out claiming the the original jurisdiction lay with the apex court.

The lawyers have re-submitted the case at the High Court, arguing the Supreme Court bench had a conflict of interest in the case.

The MDP meanwhile expelled MP Reeko Moosa Manik from the party and ordered five MPs to apologise for their absence from the vote on the judges’ dismissal. The party had issued a three-line whip.

Moosa has since said he refused to support Faiz after the chief justice had caused significant harm to the party in recent years, not least for his swearing in of Dr Mohamed Waheed as president following the controversial resignation of Mohamed Nasheed in February 2012.

Related to this story

Removal of Supreme Court judges will have “chilling effect” on work of judiciary: UN special rapporteur

Majlis removes Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz, Justice Muthasim Adnan from Supreme Court

ICJ says Majlis has “decapitated the country’s judiciary”

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Judicial independence, rule of law “severely jeopardised” in the Maldives, says Commonwealth organisations

The sudden removal of former Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz and Justice Muthasim Adnan has “severely jeopardised” the independence of the Maldives judiciary and the rule of law, three Commonwealth bodies have said.

The Commonwealth Lawyers Association (CLA), the Commonwealth Legal Education Association (CLEA) and the Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association (CMJA) in a statement on Tuesday said the judges’ removal was unconstitutional and constituted a clear breach of the Commonwealth Principles to which the government of Maldives has subscribed.

Faiz and Muthasim were removed by a two-third majority of MPs present and voting at an extraordinary session on Sunday following amendments to the Judicature Act that reduced the seven-member Supreme Court bench to five judges.

Expressing concern, the CLA, CLEA and CMJA said the removal contravened Article 154 of the Maldives Constitution that says a judge can only be removed if the watchdog Judicial Services Commission (JSC) find the judge guilty of gross misconduct or incompetence.

The JSC did in fact rule the two judges unfit, but the ruling has not been made available to MPs or the public, despite repeated requests by opposition MPs.

In passing the revisions to the Judicature Act and removing the two senior judges, the Government of Maldives have breached the Commonwealth (Latimer House) Principles on the Accountability of and the Relationship between the Three Branches of Government (2003), said the statement.

“As a result the independence of the judiciary and the Rule of Law have been severely jeopardized”.

The Principles state that “Judges should be subject to suspension or removal only for reasons of incapacity or misbehavior that clearly renders them unfit to discharge their duties.”

They further state that disciplinary procedures must be fairly and objectively administered and should include appropriate safeguards to ensure fairness.

“The Associations urge the Government and Parliament of the Maldives to respect the independence of the judiciary and to comply with the relevant constitutional provisions, Commonwealth Principles and other relevant international standards,” the statement urged.

President Abdulla Yameen appointed Justice Abdulla Saeed as the new Chief Justice on Sunday. Faiz has condemned the Majlis vote as unconstitutional, and said the move raises doubts over the separation of powers and the continuation of judicial independence in the Maldives

Three lawyers mounted a challenge to the Judicature Act’s amendment at the High Court on Sunday, but the court’s registrar has thrown the case out claiming it has no jurisdiction over the matter.

Acting registrar Mariyam Afsha said the complaint’s original jurisdiction lay with the Supreme Court.

Critics have pointed out the High Court registrar’s decision effectively means only the Supreme Court can now hear the challenge and have pointed to a Supreme Court’s conflict of interest in the case.

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party had also lodged a complaint with the Civil Court challenging the legality of the JSC ruling, but the Supreme Court on Sunday took control of the case minutes after the first hearing began.

The Supreme Court’s writ of prohibition ordered the Civil Court to “to hand over case files, with all relevant documents, to the Supreme Court before 20:45 tonight, 14 December 2014, and to immediately annul any action that may have been taken on the matter.”

The decision followed a declaration by Civil Court Chief Judge Ali Rasheed Hussein, and Judges Aisha Shujoon, Jameel Moosa, Hathif Hilmy, Mariyam Nihayath, Huseein Mazeed, and Farhad Rasheed in which they declared the move to dismiss the two judges to be against principles of natural justice and several international conventions, and could “destroy judicial independence” in the Maldives.

“We believe we are obliged to comment on the issue for the sake of the democratic and judicial history of the Maldives, and we believe keeping silent at this juncture amounts to negligence” the bench said.

Related to this story

Supreme Court takes control of MDP’s Civil Court complaint on Faiz, Muthasim dismissal

High Court claims “no jurisdiction” in Supreme Court bench reduction challenge

Abdulla Saeed appointed as new Chief Justice, dismissed Justice Faiz laments “black day”

Civil Court condemns move to dismiss Chief Justice Faiz and Justice Adnan

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

High Court claims “no jurisdiction” in Supreme Court bench reduction challenge

The High Court on Tuesday threw out a challenge to Judicature Act amendments that reduced the seven-member Supreme Court bench to five judges and resulted in the sudden removal of Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz and Justice Muthasim Adnan.

High Court Registrar Mariyam Afsha said the complaint’s original jurisdiction lay with the Supreme Court, and not the High Court.

The case lodged by Lawyers Shaheen Hameed, Hassan Ma’az Shareef and Mohamed Faisal, contended the revisions to the Judicature Act were unconstitutional as they forced the removal of sitting Supreme Court judges without due process.

According to Article 11 of the Judicature Act, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in controversies that may lead to a constitutional void, cases where two branches of the state or two institutions of the state disagree on interpreting the constitution, and in constitutional matters that affect public interest.

Article 37 of the Judicature Act gives the High Court original jurisdiction in controversies where a law or part of a law is unconstitutional or where regulations or part of a regulation is against laws and the constitution.

Removal of judges

According to Article 154 of the Constitution, a judge, once appointed, can only be removed if the watchdog Judicial Services Commission (JSC) found the judge guilty of gross misconduct and incompetence, and if the Majlis subsequently removed the judge by a two-thirds majority of MPs present and voting.

Within hours of the amendment’s ratification on Thursday (December 11), the JSC in an emergency meeting recommended the two judges unfit for the position.

However, the JSC’s reasons were not made available to the public or MPs when the vote to dismiss the two judges proceeded on Sunday.

Shaheen, also President Yameen’s nephew, told local media that the JSC had failed to afford Faiz and Muthasim the opportunity to speak in their defense.

“[The JSC] is saying that it is alright to dismiss these first two judges by flouting all procedures, but that due process must be followed in dismissing other judges. This is gross violation of equality before the law,” he said.

The MDP had also lodged a challenge to the JSC decision with the Civil Court, but the Supreme Court took control of the case on Sunday minutes after the first hearing started.

The Judicature Act amendments will also divide the nine-member High Court into three branches, with three members each.

The two regional branches in the North and South will only be allowed to hear appeals in magistrate court verdicts. Only the Malé branch will be allowed to hear challenges to laws and regulations.

Related to this story

Supreme Court takes control of MDP’s Civil Court complaint on Faiz, Muthasim dismissal

Abdulla Saeed appointed as new Chief Justice, dismissed Justice Faiz laments “black day”

Civil Court condemns move to dismiss Chief Justice Faiz and Justice Adnan

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Supreme Court takes control of MDP’s Civil Court complaint on Faiz, Muthasim dismissal

The Supreme Court last night took control of a complaint lodged with the Civil Court regarding a judicial watchdog resolution recommending the removal of Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz and Supreme Court Judge Muthasim Adnan.

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) had filed the complaint with the Civil Court on Sunday morning, ahead of an extraordinary Majlis sitting to vote out Faiz and Adnan.

The first hearing was scheduled at 8:30pm, but the Supreme Court’s registrar Mariyam Sham’a Ismail sent a writ of prohibition at 8:40 pm ordering the Civil Court to halt proceedings on the case.

The writ ordered the Civil Court to “to hand over case files, with all relevant documents, to the Supreme Court before 20:45 tonight, 14 December 2014, and to immediately annul any action that may have been taken on the matter.”

MDP had requested the Civil Court to review the legality of the watchdog Judicial Services Commission’s (JSC) letter to the Majlis declaring the two judges guilty of misconduct and incompetence. The complaint also asked the court to issue an injunction against the Majlis vote.

However, a two-third majority of MPs voting removed the two judges before the Civil Court could examine the request for a stay order.

A lawyer who wished to remain anonymous questioned the legality of the writ of prohibition, claiming such an order could only be issued following a sitting of the Supreme Court bench led by the chief justice.

At the time of the writ’s issue, the position of chief justice was vacant. The Majlis only approved Supreme Court judge Abdulla Saeed to the position at an extraordinary vote at 9:30pm.

The apex court’s registrar cannot issue orders on the Civil Court in the absence of a chief justice, the lawyer claimed.

The Supreme Court also had a conflict of interest in the case as it asked for the review of a JSC ruling on the removal of two Supreme Court judges, the lawyer said. Further, Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed heads the JSC – the defendant in the case, leading to further conflict of interest, the lawyer said.

Faiz and Muthasim’s dismissal follow amendments to the Judicature Act reducing the seven-member Supreme Court bench to five judges. The revised law ordered the JSC to recommend two judges for dismissal within three days of its enactment.

Judicial independence

The Civil Court had on Saturday night condemned the move and said the Majlis had “forced” the JSC to deem Faiz and Adnan unfit for the Supreme Court bench without due process.

The Civil Court Chief Judge Ali Rasheed Hussein, and Judges Aisha Shujoon, Jameel Moosa, Hathif Hilmy, Mariyam Nihayath, Huseein Mazeed, and Farhad Rasheed said the move was against principles of natural justice and several international conventions, and could “destroy judicial independence” in the Maldives.

However, the ruling Progressive Party of the Maldves (PPM) maintains the bench reduction would facilitate judicial reform and strengthen the judiciary.

Faiz and Muthasim often formed the dissenting opinions in several controversial cases including the decision to annul the first round of elections held in September 2013. Muthasim was the only judge with a background in common law on the bench.

Faiz has since called his dismissal unconstitutional, and said the move raises doubts over the separation of powers and the continuation of judicial independence in the Maldives.

“Today will be written down as a black day in the constitutional history of the Maldives. I state this is a black day for the constitution. Taking such a vote against the constitution is, I believe, disrespectful to the constitution,” he said.

The Human Rights Commission of the Maldives has also sent a letter to Speaker Abdulla Maseeh and Attorney General Mohamed Anil expressing concern over the sudden dismissal of Faiz and Muthasim

How the state acts in the case sets an important precedent in establishing public trust in the judiciary, the commission claimed.

President Yameen’s nephew Shaheen Hameed and two lawyers have also asked the High Court to annul the amendments to the Judicature Act.

Related to this story

Majlis removes Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz, Justice Muthasim Adnan from Supreme Court

MDP asks Civil Court to halt Majlis decision on judges’ removal

Majlis to vote on Chief Justice Faiz, Justice Muthasim dismissal on Sunday

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Abdulla Saeed appointed as new Chief Justice, dismissed Justice Faiz laments “black day”

President Abdulla Yameen has appointed Supreme Court Justice Abdulla Saeed as the Maldives’ new Chief Justice within an hour of Majlis unanimously approving him for the position.

Opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MPs staged a walk out prior to the vote, accusing the ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) of burying the country’s 2008 democratic constitution.

MDP MP Imthiyaz Fahmy described the PPM and its coalition partner Maldives Development Alliance (MDA) as “enemies of democracy bent on taking revenge on the people after having assumed power through brute force.”

Tonight’s extraordinary session at 9pm followed an extraordinary morning session during which a two-third majority of MPs voted out incumbent Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz and Justice Muthasim Adnan.

Speaking to local media today, Faiz condemned the Majlis vote as unconstitutional, and said the move raises doubts over the separation of powers and the continuation of judicial independence in the Maldives

Faiz and Muthasim were voted out after the Majlis amended the Judicature Act to reduce the seven-member Supreme Court bench to five judges.

The ruling coalition maintains the move will strengthen the judiciary and facilitate judicial reform.

Black day

Former President Mohamed Nasheed had appointed Faiz as the country’s first Chief Justice in 2010, days after he ordered the army to lock up the Supreme Court premises when the interim Supreme Court bench illegally declared themselves judges for life.

Faiz and Muthasim have formed the dissenting opinion in several controversial cases, including the decision to annul the first round of presidential polls in September 2010.

“Dismissal of a country’s Chief Justice against the constitution is no small matter,” Faiz told CNM today, adding “MPs are mandated to uphold democracy. But today there are doubts over how they perceive democracy.”

Faiz said he had decided not to speak in his defense prior to the vote due to conflict of interest and because he did not want politicians to benefit from any of his statements.

Muthasim was the only Supreme Court Judge with a background in common law.

New Chief Justice

Saeed, who served as the Chief Justice of the Maldives’ first interim Supreme Court from 2008 – 2010, was voted in with 55 votes.

Jumhooree Party (JP) MPs Gasim Ibrahim and Hussain Mohamed voted for Saeed despite having opposed Faiz and Adnan’s removal this afternoon. JP MPs Ali Hussein and Abdulla Riyaz, who had voted against the two judges’ dismissal, did not participate in the vote.

The watchdog Judicial Services Commission (JSC) had recommended that the two judges be dismissed for gross misconduct and incompetence on Thursday. But details of the ruling or evaluation criteria have not been made available to MPs or the public yet.

The seven member Civil Court last night declared the Judicature Act amendment unconstitutional and said it could “destroy judicial independence” in the Maldives.

PPM MP Riyaz Rasheed said Saeed’s appointment would strengthen the judiciary and facilitate judicial reform as MDP had advocated for.

He described Saeed as an educated and capable candidate with a master in Shari’ah and law. Saeed had also committed the Qur’an to memory, Riyaz claimed.

Supreme Court Justice Ali Hameed, implicated in a series of sex tapes, administered Saeed’s oath of office.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Civil Court condemns move to dismiss Chief Justice Faiz and Justice Adnan

The seven-member Civil Court and several prominent lawyers have condemned the judicial watchdog Judicial Service’s Commission’s (JSC) recommendation to remove Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz and Justice Muthasim Adnan from the Supreme Court bench.

In a resolution passed last night, the Civil Court said the People’s Majlis had “forced” the JSC to deem Faiz and Adnan unfit for the Supreme Court bench without due process, through an “unconstitutional” amendment to the Judicature Act.

The amendment, passed on Wednesday and ratified on Thursday, reduced the seven-member Supreme Court bench to five judges.

It also mandated the JSC to deem two judges guilty of gross misconduct and gross incompetence and recommend their dismissal within three days.

The People’s Majlis is currently holding an extraordinary sitting to vote on the recommendation.

The People’s Majlis had failed to provide the JSC with any instructions on recommending judges for dismissal, the Civil Court claimed.

The Civil Court noted the United States of America in 1886 had voted to reduce their ten-member Supreme Court to seven, by deciding the state would not appoint new members to the bench when a judge’s seat became vacant.

Meanwhile, President Abdulla Yameen’s nephews, lawyers Shaheen Hameed and Maumoon Hameed, have spoken out against the ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives’ (PPM) attempt to dismiss the two judges.

Shaheen told CNM that the JSC had failed to provide Faiz and Muthasim to defend themselves against charges of misconduct and negligence.

“[The JSC] have said it is alright to dismiss these first two judges by flouting all procedures, but that due process must be followed in dismissing other judges. This is gross violation of equality before the law,” he said.

The ruling party’s “unacceptable” attempt to dismiss Faiz and Justice is the epitome of injustice, and appears to demonstrate that the Supreme Court “is a coat tailored for a specific individual,” Maumoon has said on his Facebook status.

The JSC’s sudden ruling, without an investigation and without any evidence within hours of the amendment’s ratification shows it was a pre-decided conclusion, Maumoon contended.

He also questioned why the JSC had found Supreme Court Judge Ali Hameed, implicated in a series of sex tapes with three foreign women, fit for the bench.

Lawyer and Jumhooree Party MP Ali Hussein in an interview with Haveeru called the attempt at dismissals an “atrocity.” Criminals are guaranteed a fair trial, but the two judges’ right to speak in their defense had been violated, he said.

“The two were appointed because they are capable. If there has been no changes, it is an issue if they are judged incapable because of an amendment to the law. This means those who hold a majority in the JSC can get rid of judges they do not like, not because they are incapable,” he said.

MPs have not yet been given details of the JSC ruling. Speaking to Minivan News on Thursday, JSC Secretary General Abu Bakr said the commission had decided to keep proceedings confidential until a Majlis vote.

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has said it will vote against the amendment. The Jumhooree Party (JP) has not yet taken an official stand while Adhaalath Party Anara Naeem said she will wait on details of the JSC verdict before she takes a stand.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Chief Justice calls on Majlis to hasten PG appointment

Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz has called on the parliament to hasten the appointment of a new prosecutor general (PG).

Speaking at the inauguration ceremony of the Drug Court’s development structure, the Chief Justice noted that parliament had been conducting extra sittings to conclude unfinished work, and that it was possible to appoint a PG during one of those sittings.

The Criminal Court decided in January that it would not accept any cases submitted by the PG’s Office, and that it would halt all existing cases as the PG position had been vacant for over 30 days.

Deputy Prosecutor General Hussein Shameem today said that he was yet to receive any response from the apex court regarding an appeal for assistance in the matter, made over two weeks ago.

Faiz noted that each day that passed without a PG was a day on which he felt concern. He expressed regret that one half of the criminal justice procedure was now ineffective, and that the constitutional time frame to appoint the new PG had passed.

Furthermore, Faiz said that if the constitution mandates to do something during a specific duration of time it has to be done in that period. The constitution states that if the position of PG becomes vacant a new person must be appointed in 30 days.

Faiz presided over Supreme Court proceedings during the annulment of the 2013 presidential election first round – though the chief justice himself opposed the ruling. The delays resulting from the verdict’s guidelines subsequently led to the extension of the legally mandated presidential term of office, prompting fears of a constitutional crisis.

Speaking to Minivan News today Deputy Prosecutor General Hussein Shameem said that the Supreme Court had still not responded to a letter sent by his office complaining about the Criminal Court’s decision.

‘’We called the Supreme Court today also to ask about the response but we were unable to get a word from the Supreme Court regarding the issue,’’ he said.

He stated that it was not for him to make the Supreme Court and parliament accountable and there was nothing he could do about it.

‘’Next week we will decide what to do,’’ he added.

On November 25, former PG Ahmed Muiz submitted his resignation just as parliament was set to debate a no-confidence motion against him.

Last month, Shameem said that the laws did not prohibit the deputy from taking over the responsibilities of the PG should a new person not be appointed within the required 30 days.

He also expressed concern that there were people held in pre-trial detention who were to be kept there until their trials were concluded.

“So what do they do now, it would not be fair to keep them in there until the parliament comes back to work from recess after three months and appoints a new PG,’’ Shameem said.

On December 10, President Abdulla Yameen proposed his nephew Maumoon Hameed for the post, submitting the name to parliament for MPs’ approval.

The issue was sent to the Majlis independent commissions committee, with the group subsequently deciding to seek public opinion before sending Hameed’s name to the parliament floor. The Majlis is now on recess and will not re-commence work until March.

On January 9, the Supreme Court had ordered the Criminal Court to continue pending trials, saying that the criminal justice system must proceed in order to maintain constitutional rule.

The Criminal Court announced it would not reconsider its decision to stop accepting cases, but decided to continue with cases that were already filed at the court.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Chief Justice silent on Judge Ali Hameed’s sex tape probe

Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain has refused to comment on Supreme Court Judge Ali Hameed’s alleged appearance in a series of sex tapes, claiming the judicial oversight body will investigate offenses committed by judges.

Speaking to the press following the inauguration of a seminar on criminal procedures and sentencing at Nasandhura Palace Hotel, Faiz said: “We are speaking about accusations. The Chief Justice will comment on the matter when relevant authorities decide on the nature of the accusations. How many other’s have also faced accusations?”

However, the judicial oversight body Judicial Services Commission (JSC) has failed to take action against Hameed despite repeated recommendations for suspension by two separate sub committee set up to investigate the matter.

A second subcommittee set up in December requested the JSC suspend Hameed claiming he had refused to cooperate with the investigation.

JSC member and opposition MP Ahmed Hamza said JSC chair and Supreme Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed have refused to schedule the issue on the commission’s agenda.

Hamza has told local media he believes the JSC will delay deliberations on the issue until his membership and the People’s Majlis Speaker Abdulla Shahid’s membership expires with the inauguration of the new parliament in June. Shahid and Hamza both belong to the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

The 10 member commission includes representatives from the legislature, judiciary, executive, and public.

Local media in December reported that the Maldives Police Services had sent a letter to the JSC claiming the sex-tape probe had been stalled due to the Criminal Court’s failure to provide keys search warrants.

The police had allegedly sought two warrants, one to authorise the police to take a photograph of Hameed’s face for comparative analysis, and a second to search his residence.

Neither the police nor the JSC have confirmed the existence of the letter, but the police have said it was still unable to determine if the man in the three sex tapes is Hameed despite several forensic tests.

At the time, Superintendent Abdulla Nawaz said the police were awaiting key information from abroad for more clues.

Spy cam footage allegedly depicting Hameed indulging in different sexual acts with multiple foreign women surfaced on local media last July.

One such video – time-stamped January 24 2013 – showed the judge fraternising with a topless woman with an eastern European accent. At one point the figure alleged to be the judge – who was only wearing only white underwear – leans into the camera, making his face clearly visible.

Afterwards, the woman repeatedly encourages the man to drink wine from a mini-bar. “If I drink that I will be caught. I don’t want to be caught,” the man insists, refusing.

Images and symbols depicting scenes from the sex-tape formed a prominent part of protests against the court’s repeated interference in the presidential election of 2013.

The videos appeared shortly after a film – also involving Hameed – began circulating on social media in which he appeared to be discussing political influence in the judiciary with a local businessman.

Despite public circulation of the videos and widespread media coverage of the scandal, Hameed continues to sit on the Supreme Court bench.

Following the scandal, Hameed was one of the four judges forming the majority in the Supreme Court’s decision to annul the initial first round of the 2013 presidential election, as well as the ruling that unseated two opposition MPs over a controversial case of decreed debt.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Police arrest GIP council member Ahmed Faiz in Supreme Court Justice sex tape scandal

A council member of President Dr Mohamed Waheed’s Gaumee Ihthihaad Party (GIP) and Project Advisor at the Housing Ministry, Ahmed Faiz, has been arrested and placed under remand detention for 15 days, police have confirmed.

According to local media reports, the former Maldives Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) Managing Director and Deputy CEO of the Maldives Ports Limited (MPL) was arrested on Tuesday while trying to sell a sex tape of a Supreme Court Justice.

The Criminal Court on Wednesday afternoon (June 26) granted an extension of 15 days for Faiz’s detention.

A police media official told Minivan News that police could not divulge further details apart from confirming that Faiz was “arrested in connection with a case currently under investigation.”

While local media reports did not identify the judge involved in the case, photos of Supreme Justice Ali Hameed in a hotel room with a woman began circulating on social media in March this year.

President’s Office Media Secretary Masood Imad told Minivan News today that Faiz has been sacked from his project advisor post at the Housing Ministry, to which he was appointed at the deputy minister-level in March 2012.

Masood Imad also confirmed that Faiz is a member of GIP’s executive council.

Faiz was also the GIP representative at press conferences of the unofficial “December 23 coalition” of eight political parties that organised a mass gathering in 2011 against the allegedly anti-Islamic policies of former President Mohamed Nasheed.

Faiz was present at a press event of the December 23 alliance on January 8, 2012 where the group announced plans for a “mass symposium” for February 24, 2012. He was also present when opposition leaders met then-Vice President Dr Waheed in his official residence at 1:00am on January 31 – seven days before the controversial transfer of presidential power – and pledged their allegiance to the vice-president.

Faiz participated in the press conference later that night when opposition party leaders called on the police and army to pledge allegiance to Dr Waheed and “not carry out any orders given by President Nasheed.”

In August 2012, an audio clip of Faiz in conversation with a group of unidentified men was aired on opposition-aligned private broadcaster Raajje TV after it was leaked on social media.

Faiz told Minivan News at the time that the clip was authentic and recorded in March 2012 but claimed that it was cut and edited together.

In the 15-minute audio, Faiz boasts of his influence within the government as a “close confidante” of President Waheed and attempts to hire the men to disrupt activities of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

Faiz claimed in the leaked audio that he was in a position to embezzle large amounts of money from MBC and the State Trading Organisation (STO).

He also spoke of President Waheed’s reluctance to remain allied with former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) and of plans to “take Maumoon out of the political picture.”

“The truth is that there is quite a lot of support for Maumoon too, and we have to accept that. If a political gathering is to be held in this country, at this moment it’s only PPM or MDP that can gather a good amount of people. No one else can do it, ok? This is the political reality of now,” Faiz is heard saying.

“We are not at all aiming to keep them close to us. The real objective is to destroy this… thing… that Maumoon has. This cannot be done by even Anni, or by anyone else in this country, unless we stay within them, and let them into the government. There is simply no other way. Now I’ve gone and said something I was not meaning to share! I have just shared with you a huge secret.”

Faiz also claimed in the leaked conversation that he was “the biggest key” for the transfer of presidential power on February 7, 2012.

“All that was done, all the deals that were made, all that was done, all the people that we met with, within defense, even within police; nothing would have taken place without my knowledge, without my participation,” he is heard saying in a second clip.

“If this is a coup government and there is a death sentence given out, I will be among the first to be sentenced to death. So what even I want is money, do you understand? I’m telling you the truth, it is to gain money that I have come into this.”

First audio clip

Second audio clip

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)