Tag: arrest of judge

Former Defense Minister denies charges in Hulhumale Magistrate Court

Former Defense Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu has denied the charge of arbitrary detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdullah Mohamed, during the first hearing of his criminal trial held in the controversial Hulhumale Magistrate Court.

The Prosecutor General has charged Tholhath for arresting the judge in January 2012, during his tenure as the minister of defense under former President Mohamed Nasheed’s administration.

Others facing the same charges include former President Mohamed Nasheed, former Chief of Defense Force retired Major General Moosa Ali Jaleel, former Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) Male Area Commander retired Brigadier General Mohamed Ibrahim Didi and Colonel Ziyad.

During the first hearing of the trial held on this Monday, State Prosecutor Abdulla Raabiu claimed that following orders from the Commander in Chief – President Mohamed Nasheed – Tholhath had orchestrated the plan to arrest the judge and had arbitrarily detained Judge Abdulla Mohamed from January 16, 2012 until February 7, 2012.

Tholhath should therefore be charged for the offense of arbitrarily detaining an innocent individual as stipulated in article 81 of the Penal Code, Raabiu added.

The article 81 of the Maldives Penal Code states: “It shall be an offense for any public servant by reason of the authority of office he is in to detain to arrest or detain in a manner contrary to Law innocent persons. Person guilty of this offense shall be subjected to exile or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding MVR 2,000.00”.

Denying the charge, the former defense minister claimed that charge pressed against him was “not legitimate”, but did not state his reasons for the claim.

Speaking on behalf of Tholhath Ibrahim, his defense lawyer Mohamed Ibrahim argued that the trial lacked the necessary impartiality, contending that same charges should be pressed against former Home Minister Hassan Afeef and Commissioner of Police Ahmed Faseeh, as they were responsible for maintaining law and order within the state.

Detention of the judge

Minister Afeef at the time of the judge’s arrest accused him of “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist”, listing 14 cases of obstruction of police duty, including withholding warrants for up to four days, ordering police to conduct unlawful investigations and disregarding decisions by higher courts.

Afeef accused the judge of “deliberately” holding up cases involving opposition figures, and barring media from corruption trials, ordering the release of suspects detained for serious crimes “without a single hearing”, maintaining “suspicious ties” with family members of convicts sentenced for dangerous crimes, and releasing a murder suspect “in the name of holding ministers accountable”, who went on to kill another victim.

Afeef also alleged that the judge actively undermined cases against drug trafficking suspects and had allowed them opportunity to “fabricate false evidence after hearings had concluded”.

Judge Abdulla “hijacked the whole court” by deciding that he alone could issue search warrants, Afeef alleged, and had arbitrarily suspended court officers. He also accused the judge of “twisting and interpreting laws so they could not be enforced against certain politicians” and “accepting bribes to release convicts.”

The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) itself had investigated Abdulla Mohamed but stopped short of releasing a report into his ethical misconduct, after the Civil Court awarded the judge an injunction against his further investigation by the judicial watchdog.

JSC whistleblower Aishath Velezinee has also contended that the JSC’s blanket reappointment of all interim judges and magistrates in 2010 violated article 285 of the constitution guaranteeing an ethical and qualified judiciary, and that as such, the case “is based on a false premise, the assumption that Abdulla Mohamed is a constitutionally appointed judge, which is a political creation and ignores all evidence refuting this.”

The JSC itself had investigated Abdulla Mohamed but stopped short of releasing a report into his ethical misconduct after the Civil Court awarded the judge an injunction against his further investigation by the judicial watchdog.

Military assisted police

During Tholath’s trial, his lawyer argued that the military did not conduct intensive legal reviews of requests for assistance from the police, and said his client fully believed that the military should act as quickly as it could to assist the police when required.

When the judges sought to clarify as to what part of the charge Tholthath was denying, his lawyer stated that his client had not done anything against the law.

In response to Tholhath Ibrahim’s denial of the charges, the state produced witnesses in support of its claim.

This list of witnesses included current Chief of Defense Force Major General Ahmed Shiyam, former Police Commissioner Ahmed Faseeh, former Vice Chief of Defense Force Farhath Shaheer, former Military Intelligence Chief Brigadier General Ahmed Nilam, former Deputy Commissioner of Police Ismail Atheef, Colonel Wise Waheed and Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) Media Official Colonel Abdul Raheem.

Along with the witnesses, the state also produced as evidence a list of text messages sent from Tholhath Ibrahim’s mobile phone, video footage of the arrest of the judge and a transcript of a cabinet meeting in which the issue was debated.

State prosecutor Raabiu said the state was willing to produce more witnesses and evidences to court if the need arises as the trial progressed.

When the evidence was produced in court, Tholhath lawyer requested the court give a period of one month to review the evidence put forth against his claim.

Dismissing the request, the sitting judges stated that the trial had been put on hold for a long time and that certain documents had already been shared with the defendants, therefore the next hearing would be scheduled for March 13, giving the defendant a period of 23 days.

An investigation led by Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) found the former President Nasheed as the “highest authority liable” for the military-led detention of the Judge. The HRCM also identified Tholhath Ibrahim as a “second key figure” involved in the matter.

In July 2012, Prosecutor General Ahmed Muizz pressed charges against the parties who had been identified in the HRCM investigation as responsible for the arrest.

Following the charges, former President Nasheed’s legal team challenged the legitimacy of the Hulhumale Magistrate Court in High Court, but the Supreme Court intervened and dismissed the claims by declaring the magistrate court was legitimate and could operate as a court of law.

The trial was heard by all three judges of Hulhumale Magistrate Court appointed to look into the case. The panel consists of Judge Shujaau Usmaan, Judge Hussain Mazeed and Judge Abdul Nasir Abdul Raheem.

Contentious court

The Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, which is also trying former President Nasheed for his detention of the Chief Criminal Court Judge during his final days in office, was created by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC).

The JSC, which includes several of Nasheed’s direct political opponents including rival presidential candidate Gasim Ibrahim, also appointed the three-member panel of judges overhearing the trial.

Parliament’s Independent Institutions Oversight Committee has previously declared that the JSC’s creation of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was unconstitutional.

However, the Supreme Court declared parliament overruled, issuing a statement that “no institution should meddle with the business of the courts”, and claiming that as it held authority over “constitutional and legal affairs” it would “not allow such interference to take place.”

“The judiciary established under the constitution is an independent and impartial institution and that all public institutions shall protect and uphold this independence and impartiality and therefore no institution shall interfere or influence the functioning of the courts,” the Supreme Court stated.

A subsequent request by the JSC that the Supreme Court bench rule on the court’s legitimacy resulted in a four to three vote in favour. The casting vote was made by Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed, also President of the JSC.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Hulhumale Magistrate Court schedules trials of former Defense Minister and other senior military officials

The Hulhumale Magistrate Court has scheduled hearings against former Defense Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu, former Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) Male Area Commander (retired) Brigadier General Ibrahim Mohamed Didi and Colonel Mohamed Ziyad.

All three are facing the same charges as former President Mohamed Nasheed, concerning the former administration’s arrest of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, Abdulla Mohamed, in January 2012.

Department of Judicial Administration (DJA) official, Mohamed Zahir, told Minivan News that the hearings are to take place from next week.

According to Zahir, Tholthath’s trial is scheduled to take place on February 16, while both retired Brigadier General Didi and Colonel Ziyad’s trial will be held on February 25.

Zahir said that a date has not yet been set for Nasheed’s hearing.

Nasheed meanwhile failed to appear in court for his scheduled hearing on Sunday. Nasheed was on an official visit to India and arrived back in the Maldives this afternoon. The hearing was cancelled in Nasheed’s absence.

Zahir told Minivan News that the bench would meet to decide on a date to hold the hearings.

Background

An investigation led by the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM), on the order of the Prosecutor General (PG), found that the former President was the “highest authority liable” for the military-led detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Along with Nasheed, the report concluded that the former Defence Minister, Tholhath, was a second key figure responsible for the decision to detain Judge Abdulla.

The commission stated that the judge was not physically harmed during the 22-day detention at the military training island of Girifushi.

However, the HRCM did claim that the government had “violated his human dignity” and made attempts to manipulate the judge through a psychologist who visited him at the facility where he was detained.

In July 2012, the PG filed charges based on the findings of the HRCM investigation.  The accused stand charged with violating Article 81 of the Penal Code, which states that the detention of a government employee who has not been found guilty of a crime is illegal.

If found guilty, parties may face a jail sentence or banishment for three years or a MVR 3000 fine (US$193.5) at the discretion of the judge.

The PG pressed charges against Nasheed in the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court on the grounds that holding the trial in Male’ at the Criminal Court represented a conflict of interest on behalf of Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed, whom the case concerned.

The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) appointed a three-member panel of judges to oversee the trial of the former president.

The Commission’s members include two of Nasheed’s direct political opponents, including Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid – Deputy of the government-aligned Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP) – and Gasim Ibrahim, a resort tycoon, media owner, MP and leader of the Jumhoree Party (JP), also a member of the governing coalition.

During the first hearing of Nasheed’s trial, his legal team challenged the legitimacy of the court and several other inconsistencies, however was this was dismissed.

Nasheed’s legal team then appealed the matter in the High Court. Despite its initial rejection, the High Court subsequently accepted the team’s appeal over the procedural points and issued a injunction on the case.

Following the JSC’s request that it look into the legality of the magistrate court, the Supreme Court ruled that the magistrate court was formed in accordance with the law and therefore could operate normally.

Meanwhile, High Court upheld the rulings of Hulhumale Magistrate Court in the appeal case filed by Nasheed’s legal team, and ordered the court to proceed with the hearings.

Arrest of the judge

The chief judge was detained by the military after he opened the court outside normal hours and ordered the immediate release of current Home Minister and deputy leader of the Dhivehi Quamee Party (DQP), Dr Mohamed Jameel.

Jameel had been arrested after the President’s Office requested an investigation into “slanderous” allegations he made that the government was working under the influence of “Jews and Christian priests” to weaken Islam in the Maldives.

Nasheed’s Home Minister Hassan Afeef sought to justify the arrest claiming that the judge had taken the country’s “entire criminal justice system in his fist“.

Afeef meanwhile listed 14 cases of obstruction of police duty by Judge Abdulla, including withholding warrants for up to four days, ordering police to conduct unlawful investigations and disregarding decisions by higher courts.

Afeef also accused the judge of “deliberately” holding up cases involving opposition figures, and barring media from corruption trials.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP accuses Home Minister of influencing former President’s trial

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) have accused Minister of Home Affairs Dr Mohamed Jameel of attempting to influence an ongoing court case against former President Mohamed Nasheed.

The party has previously alleged the charges against Nasheed – of illegally detaining Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed in the final days of his presidency – are a politically-motivated attempt to prevent him competing in the upcoming election.

Jameel was reported in local media as stating that it was “crucial to conclude the case against Nasheed before the approaching presidential elections, in the interests of the nation and to maintain peace in it.”

Jameel, who served as Justice Minister under the tenure of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, said that delaying the trial against Nasheed for “the abduction of a judge” risked “compromising national interest”.

He alleged the delay was due to “various reasons”, and would very likely have “adverse effects on the political and social fabric of the nation”.

“If things happen  this way, people will start believing that it was due to the failure to address some issues in the Maldives’ judicial system, which need to be looked into. And in my opinion, the courts will have to take responsibility for this,” Jameel said in his interview with news website Haveeru.

Expressing concern that it would be an “extremely worrisome matter” if people started speculating that the reason for the delay in prosecuting Nasheed was that the country’s judiciary was not performing to par, Jameel said, “Every single day that goes by without the case being concluded contributes to creating doubt in the Maldivian people’s minds about the judiciary.”

Jameel stated that the case has a direct relation to the interest of the upcoming elections since the arrest of Abdulla Mohamed was a criminal case which involved citizens’ rights, trust of the judiciary, as well as the the running of the state.

Stating that the conclusion of the case was imperative for the sake of maintaining peace in the country in the upcoming days, Jameel added that it was constitutionally mandated for all involved to find methods to expedite such cases.

Minister attempting to influence courts: MDP

Following Jameel’s remarks, former President Nasheed released a statement condemning “attempts by the sitting Minister of Home Affairs, Dr Mohamed Jameel, to exert undue influence on the courts over the trial against President Mohamed Nasheed.”

The statement further expressed concern that a representative of the government had made such remarks while it had failed to date to act upon the recommendations of international organisations, including the UN Human Rights Commission (UNHRC), the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG), to reform the judicial system.

“Just days after Commonwealth envoy Sir Don McKinnon left the Maldives, Dr Jameel calls on the judiciary to sentence the MDP’s presidential candidate,” said former Chairperson of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), MP Mariya Ahmed Didi.

“MDP members believe Sir Don’s silence on the issue of Nasheed’s prosecution emboldened the Home Minister to make his comments,” she said.

“Jameel’s call on the courts to sentence President Nasheed prior to the presidential elections adds to the impression that the charges are politically motivated. We urge the Home Minister to refrain from intimidating and exerting undue influence on the the judiciary,” she added.

Nasheed  has previously alleged that the objective of the trial was to obstruct him from contesting the upcoming presidential elections.

“The Prosecutor General’s only objective is to ensure that I cannot contest in the next presidential elections. To do so, he has identified an article which would provide just the required period of detention to cancel my candidacy,” Nasheed told an MDP rally in October 2012.

Nasheed is being tried under Article 81 of the Penal for the arrest of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Article 81 of the Penal Code states that it is a criminal offence for any employee of the state to use the constitutional powers to arrest vested on him to deliberately arrest a person who has not committed a crime. The article further details that the maximum penalty for this offence is either a jail sentence or banishment for a period of up to three years, or a fine of up to MVR 2000 (US$130).

Home Minister Mohamed Jameel Ahmed was not responding to calls at the time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High court rejects Nasheed’s appeal challenging legitimacy of Hulhumale’ magistrate court

The High Court has rejected former President Mohamed Nasheed’s appeal challenging the legitimacy of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, and its summoning of him in connection to the detention of Chief Criminal Court Judge, Abdulla Mohamed.

The former President’s legal team appealed the  court’s summoning order issued to police to summon him to a rescheduled hearing to be held on Sunday at 4:00pm.

Nasheed and his lawyers did not appear at the court hearing, and police made no attempt to arrest the former President.

The trial, which has been described by present Home Minister and former Justice Minister Mohamed Jameel on twitter as a “historic criminal trial” has escalated political tensions in the country.

Nasheed’s legal team earlier on Sunday challenged the legitimacy of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, claiming that the court was formed in contradiction to the provisions stated in the Maldivian constitution.

Speaking to local media , member of Nasheed’s legal team and the former Minister of Human Resources Hassan Latheef said the Hulhumale court had “no legal capacity” to issue an order to police to summon Nasheed.

“In the appeal, we also intend to raise the question of legitimacy surrounding Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.  We also hope that the High Court will make a decision on the legality of the formation of this court,” explained Latheef.

The team had filed for a temporary court injunction to halt the trial until the appeal case was concluded.

Former MP and President of MDP Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail echoed similar remarks,raising doubts on the legitimacy of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Writing on his personal blog, Ibra claimed that the constitution had very clearly mentioned that trial courts would be defined and created by a law.

“When Parliament created courts by the Judicature Act, there was no ‘Hulhumale’ Court’ designated as a Magistrates Court,” he wrote.

“The Supreme Court itself is still sitting on the case of the validity of the [Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court]. It was created by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), without authority derived from law. Therefore the validity of any orders or judgments issued by this court is questionable, and the Constitution says no one has to obey any unlawful orders, ie, orders which are not derived from law,” he explained.

He also cast doubts on the legitimacy of the JSC’s decision to appoint a panel of judges to look into the case.

“The Judicature Act does make some provision for Superior Courts (Criminal Court, Civil Court, Family Court and Juvenile Court only) to appoint a panel of judges for some cases. Such panel has to be decided by the entire bench or Chief Judge of THAT court. In this case, a panel of judges from other courts was appointed by the JSC to [Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court]. The JSC does not have that authority by Law,” he contended.

“There is more than ample grounds to contend that the summons was issued by an unlawful panel of judges, sitting in an unlawful court, which had already issued an unconstitutional restraining order which was ultra vires,” he added.

Nasheed was initially to appear at the Hulhumale Magistrate Court on last Monday but instead decided to depart on his party MDP’s campaign trip ‘Vaudhuge Dhathuru’ (‘Journey of Pledges’) to southern atolls, defying a previous court order that he remain in the capital.

On September 26, Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court ordered that the former President be confined to Male’, ahead the court case.

The court officials claimed that such a travel ban was the “standard procedure” followed by all courts to “necessitate those accused in a case to obtain permission from the relevant court to leave the country”.

Following Nasheed’s failure to present himself on last Monday’s hearings, Hulhumale Magistrate Court asked the Maldives Police Service to “produce” Nasheed for the rescheduled hearings but was “not to be detained”.

Initially upon reception of the Hulhumale Court’s request, Police Media official Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef said the authorities would enforce the “court order” to summon Former President Mohamed Nasheed to the court.

However, police on last Saturday said in a statement that, given the phrasing of the request made by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, Nasheed could only be produced to the court with his consent and the request did not mention to detain him.

The statement by the police stated that “producing someone out of his will” would mean to “limit his freedom” and therefore it amounted to an arrest which was not mentioned in the court’s request.

Hulhumale’ Magistrate court initially rejected the case forwarded by the Prosecutor General against former President, stating that the court did not have the jurisdiction to look into such cases as stated in the Judicature Act.

The state then appealed the decision in High Court and won its case where the Hight Court invalidated the decision.

Deputy Prosecutor General Hussain Shameem, dissenting the decision of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court claimed that the court did have the jurisdiction to hear the case of former President.

He contended that should the court maintain its decision against hearing the case, there were few other judicial alternatives in trying to ensure a “fair trial”.

The High Court ruling stated the case was based on the “unlawful detention” of a person, adding that magistrate courts have the jurisdiction to proceed with such cases.

Following the High Court ruling, Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court decided to re-accept the case and proceed with the hearings.

On January 16, Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed was detained by the military, after he had opened the court to order the immediate release of former Justice Minister, current Home Minister and deputy leader of the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP), Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed.

The former Home Minister Hassan Afeef said at the time that military assistance was sought for “fear of loss of public order and safety and national security” on account of Judge Abdulla, who had “taken the entire criminal justice system in his fist”.

Judge Abdulla’s arrest sparked international criticism of the Nasheed administration as well three weeks of anti-government protests in January, leading to Nasheed’s controversial resignation on February 7.

Along with Nasheed, former Defence Minister Tholhath Ibrahim as well as three other senior military officers are facing charges over the arrest of the judge.

Nasheed has meanwhile vowed to his supporters that his name would appear on the ballot paper of the next presidential election, and that he was “not in the mood to be straitjacketed and put in a dungeon.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court re-accepts ex-President Nasheed’s prosecution case

Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court has decided to re-accept the prosecution case of former President Mohamed Nasheed, who has himself called for any trial against him to be expedited.

Nasheed along with former Defence Minister Tholath Ibrahim kaleyfaan and three Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) officers are being charged for their alleged role in detaining Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Abdulla Mohamed, who was a central figure in the downfall of former President Nasheed, was brought under military detention after Nasheed’s government accused him of political bias, obstructing police, stalling cases, having links with organized crime and “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist” to protect key figures of the former dictatorship from human rights and corruption cases.

The three MNDF officers facing charges are former Chief of Defense Forces Moosa Ali Jaleel, Brigadier-Retired General Ibrahim Mohamed Didi and Colonel Mohamed Ziyad.

General Didi, who was serving as the Male’ area commander at the time of Judge Abdulla’s arrest, penned his“premature” resignation” after 32 years of service in the military upon the PG’s decision to prosecute him.

Ex-Chief of Defence Force Jaleel had also retired following the controversial transfer of power on February 7, while Colonel Ziyad has maintained he would be present in his uniform to defend himself in the court.

Initially the magistrate court refused to proceed with the trial stating that it did not have the jurisdiction to deal with such cases under the Judicature Act.

Magistrate of the court, Moosa Naseem at the time told Minivan News that they had “studied” the case and had identified that the court “did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the case” referring to article 66 of Judicature Act.

According to article 66(b) of the act, Naseem contended that the Hulhumale’-based court could only accept the case after the Chief Justice issued a decree in agreement with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and the Judicial Council.

Article 66(b) of the Judicature Act states that: “in accordance with section (a) of this article, if additions or omission to the jurisdictions stipulated in schedule 5 of this Act has to be carried out, the modification has to be done in agreement with the Judicial Service Commission and the Judicial Council and by a decree issued by the Chief Justice.”

The Magistrate court’s decision to overturn its initial refusal follows the High Court’s invalidation of its decision, following appeals from the authorities.

In invalidating the magistrate court ruling, the High Court stated the case was based on the “unlawful detention” of a person, adding that magistrate courts in the country had the jurisdiction to proceed with such cases.

The ruling also said that as the incident occurred in Male’ area, the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court again had the jurisdiction to proceed with the case.

An official from the Prosecutor General’s Office told Minivan News today that the case was submitted yesterday afternoon along with that of the other MNDF officers.

The Judicial Administration department today announced that the hearings of the case will be conducted in the Justice Building, located in Male’.

An official from the department told local media that the decision was made after considering the fact that holding the trials in the Justice Building would ease the administrative process and that the facilities available would also be an advantage.

“The trials will proceed at the hall in the ground floor of the building,” he added.

The letter

Following High Court’s decision, ex-President Nasheed stated in a press conference held last Friday that he had sent a letter requesting the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court to expedite the case.

Initially, the magistrate court denied the receipt of Nasheed’s letter but later in a press statement acknowledged the reception of the letter and stated that steps were being taken to commence the trial as soon as possible.

Nasheed maintained that he is willing to be present at court to defend his decision to arrest the Judge, reiterating that if he should return to power again, he would still do the same, alleging that Judge Abdulla was central to the flawed criminal justice system of the country.

In April, Nasheed told the UK’s Guardian that he did not like arresting a judge, but he “just couldn’t let him [Abdulla Mohamed] sit on the bench.”

“There is a huge lack of confidence in the judiciary, and I had to do something and the constitution calls upon me to do that. It’s not a nice thing to do. And it’s not a thing that I would want to do. And it’s not a thing that I liked doing. But it had to be done,” he added.

Nasheed, who is also now the presidential candidate of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), stands charged with violating Article 81 of the Penal Code, which states that the detention of a government employee who has not been found guilty of a crime is illegal.

If found guilty, Nasheed and Tholhath will face a jail sentence or banishment for three years or a Rf 3000 fine (US$193.5), a sentence that would bar him from contesting the elections.

The opposition MDP has claimed that the case is politically motivated by Nasheed’s opponents in an attempt to bar him from running for future elections.

Home Minister Mohamed Jameel in a post on social media service Twitter has said the “historic criminal trial” is the “first step towards the national healing process.”

Meanwhile, the MDP claimed it expects the trial – whether in Hulhumale’ or another court – to go ahead regardless of legality.  The party has alleged the case serves solely as a mean to convict the former president and potentially prevent him from contesting in the next presidential election.

MDP Spokesperson MP Imthiyaz Fahmy did not respond to calls at time of press.

The Arrest

The chief judge was detained by the military, after he had opened the court to order the immediate release of the current Home Minister and deputy leader of the Dhivehi Quamee Party Mohamed Jameel Ahmed.

Jameel was arrested after President’s Office requested an investigation into “slanderous” allegations he made that the government was working under the influence of “Jews and Christian priests” to weaken Islam in the Maldives.

The judge’s whereabouts were not revealed until January 18.

As Judge Abdulla continued to be held, Prosecutor General (PG) Ahmed Muizz later joined the High Court and Supreme Court in condemning the MNDF’s role in the arrest, requesting that the judge be released.

The police are required to go through the Prosecutor General’s (PG) Office to obtain an arrest warrant from the High Court, Muizz said, claiming the MNDF and Nasheed’s administration “haven’t followed the procedures, and the authorities are in breach of law.They could be charged with contempt of the courts.”

He then ordered the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) to investigate the matter.

Judge Abdulla’s arrest sparked three weeks of anti-government protests, beginning in January, while the government appealed for assistance from the Commonwealth and UN to reform the judiciary.

As protests escalated, elements of the police and military mutinied on February 7, alleging Nasheed’s orders to arrest the judge were unlawful. A Commonwealth legal delegation had landed in the capital only days earlier.

Nasheed publicly resigned the same day, but later said he was forced to do so “under duress” in a coup d’état. Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has taken to the streets in recent months calling for an early election.

Judge Abdulla was released on the evening of February 7, and the Criminal Court swiftly issued a warrant for Nasheed’s arrest. Police did not act on the warrant, after international concern quickly mounted.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed and Defense Minister responsible for arrest of Judge Abdulla: HRCM shadow report

The Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) has publicly revealed the names of those it considers responsible for the arbitrary arrest and detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed, despite previously stating that it did not wish to reveal the names for risk of prejudicing any court action.

In the shadow report on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in response to the Maldives initial state report submitted by the commission to UN Human Rights Committee in June, HRCM explicitly blames those responsible for the arbitrary arrest.

Article 71(iv) of the report reads: “It is conclusive to the investigation that the President and the Minister for Defense and National Security have to take the responsibility for arbitrary arrest and detention of the Chief Judge.”

Article 71(v) reads: “It is conclusive that it was the orders of the President to arrest Chief Judge as there was no action taken against the MNDF for disobedience to the orders of the Courts.”

However, in a press conference held on Wednesday, President of HRCM Mariyam Azra declined to give the names of those involved in the alleged abuse of the judge’s human rights. HRCM also declined to give any other details at present that it felt could influence any potential trials after charges were filed against Nasheed and several senior figures in the Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) this week.

During the press conference, commission member Dr Ali Shameem spoke of the importance of having at least a “presence” of international human rights organsations at a time where the country was seeing violent political turbulence.

“I think it is very important that international human rights organisations have a presence – at least an office here in the Maldives – which we could easily reach on matters regarding human rights,” he said.

However, commission President Azra spoke against the views of the commission member, stating that she was of the view that it was “a domestic thing which we want to tackle ourselves.”

“I do not think we need an international presence. I believe the matter is a domestic thing and I am of the view that a local can be found,” she said.

During the press conference, members of the HRCM stated that their investigation had uncovered evidence that the judge, who was detained during the administration of former President Mohamed Nasheed over allegations that he posed a threat to national security, had faced attempts to remove him from his post and send him abroad.

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), who had been in government during the time of Judge Abdulla’s detention, today raised concerns over what it claimed was the “complicit irresponsibility” of the HRCM – a body it alleged was biased towards the political interests of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

Furthermore, the commission used the press briefing to publicise its concerns that “efforts” had been made to “coerce” the judge to commit unspecified actions that would have contravened his human rights.

Speaking to Minivan News, Azra stated that she did had not declined to reveal the names of those who were found responsible, but said she had declined to suggest against whom the Prosecutor General (PG) should press charges.

“It is not my duty to say against whom the charges should be pressed. It’s the PG who will decide it,” she said.

“We have also sent a copy of the report to President Nasheed, the Defence Minister and all the concerned authorities,” she added.

She also stated that she had been unable to answer calls from Minivan News yesterday at time of press.

“Serious Concerns”

Responding to the press briefing, the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) – of which Nasheed is the current presidential candidate – said it held “serious concerns” in the selective nature of the HRCM’s investigations.

MDP MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor alleged that the HRCM’s investigation had now formed the basis of criminal charges filed against Nasheed.  The case was yesterday returned to the Prosecutor General’s (PG’s) Office after the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court said it did not presently have jurisdiction to hear such a case.

In March, the Prosecutor General Ahmed Muizz told Minivan News that the completion of the Nasheed cases was being delayed whilst police reviewed certain aspects of the investigation.

Ghafoor claimed that the decision to move ahead with the charges this week raised questions about allegations of political influence on the HRCM and the information it made available to the PG’s Office.

“I believe there is a very strong link between the HRCM holding this media briefing today and Islamist factions linked to [former President] Gayoom,” he added. “This week this faction has been very active in lobbying the HRCM, the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) and even the president himself.”

Just last month, Deputy leader of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Umar Naseer has expressed his confidence that the Prosecutor General’s (PG) investigation into charges against former President Mohamed Nasheed will see his imprisonment before the scheduled elections in July 2013.

“We will make sure that the Maldivian state does this. We will not let him go; the leader who unlawfully ordered the police and military to kidnap a judge and detain him for 22 days will be brought to justice,” local paper Haveeru reported Naseer as having said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Don’t withdraw the charges – I will not back down from this case,” Nasheed vows, as PG files charges for judge’s arrest

Ousted President Mohamed Nasheed last night responded to criminal charges pressed against him by the Prosecutor General (PG), for the arrest of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed in the closing days of his presidency.

Speaking to his supporters at the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) protest camp Usfasgandu, Nasheed stated that he is “very prepared” to justify the reasons for the arrest of Judge Abdulla, and said he was ready to appear in court and prove his actions were valid.

“Even if [the court] asks me to be present tomorrow, I would be present. The court has to be place where justice should be served. The trial system has to be reformed to ensure that it provides justice,” he said.

Nasheed claimed that his political opponents were of the belief that “destroying” him through the court would “kill” the ideology of the MDP, but challenged that this would never happen in the country.

“You can torture me. You can chain me to a chair. You can put me in solitary confinement. You can isolate me from my family. You can harass me and torture me. You can destroy me through the court. But tell you what: you can never kill the ideology of the Maldivian Democratic Party in this country anymore,” he said, as supporters roared in support.

The ousted president stated that the MDP had sought to reform the country, and that these reforms had been steadily carried out.

He further stated that he was steadfast and confident he could “stand up in the courts of law” and prove that his actions reflected the nation’s best interests.

He also emphasised that he did not wish to see the charges now presented against him withdrawn for any reason.

“I, as the president of this country and as the presidential nominee of the MDP, worked for the benefit of the Maldivian people, for their wellbeing and to fulfill the needs of the people of the Maldives. I have not done anything to further my own interests during my tenure as president,” Nasheed said.

Nasheed also dismissed the accusation made by the High Court, Supreme Court and the Prosecutor General (PG) that he had ordered the military to arrest Judge Abdulla unlawfully.

“I did nothing unlawful during my tenure,” he challenged.

He also called on the population to be present at his trial and witness what happened in the court, alleging that the whole case was politically motivated and that his opponents were seeking to gain an unfair upper hand from the “political scandal”.

“This case is a case that I wanted to see coming. This is a case that I want to face myself. I will not back down from this case,” he said.

Nasheed also added that the charges will not keep him from engaging in the All Party Talks, and said that he would be present.

“Even if they imprison me, I am willing to take part in the talks even while in prison. They will never be able to defeat us,” he said.

Nasheed also maintained that an early election will take place by the end of this year.

“We will continue our peaceful protests. Day by day the protests will increase and intensify,” he said.

“We will not give up. Our determination will not weaken. By the will of god, we will bring the good governance that the people of this country want.”

The controversial detention of Judge Abdulla

The Chief Judge was detained by the military, after he had opened the court outside normal hours to order the immediate release of former Justice Minister and current Home Minister and deputy leader of the Dhivehi Quamee Party (DQP), Dr Mohamed Jameel.

Jameel had been arrested on successive occasions for allegedly inciting religious hatred, after he published a pamphlet claiming that the government was working under the influence of “Jews and Christian priests” to weaken Islam in the Maldives. The President’s Office called for an investigation into the allegations, and requested Jameel provide evidence to back his claims.

In late 2011 Judge Abdulla was himself under investigation by the judicial watchdog for politically bias comments made to private broadcaster DhiTV. The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) was due to release a report into Judge Abdulla’s ethical misconduct, however the judge approached the Civil Court and successfully filed an injunction against his further investigation by the judicial watchdog.

Judge Abdulla’s arrest sparked three weeks of anti-government protests starting in January, while the government appealed for assistance from the Commonwealth and UN to reform the judiciary.

As Judge Abdulla continued to be held, Prosecutor General (PG) Ahmed Muizz later joined the High Court and Supreme Court in condemning the MNDF’s role in the arrest, requesting that the judge be released.

The police are required to go through the PG’s Office to obtain an arrest warrant from the High Court, the PG said at the time, claiming the MNDF and Nasheed’s administration “haven’t followed the procedures, and the authorities are in breach of the law. They could be charged with contempt of court.”

He then ordered the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) to investigate the matter.

As protests escalated, elements of the police and military mutinied on February 7, alleging that Nasheed had given them “unlawful orders”.

Nasheed publicly resigned the same day, but later said he was forced to do so “under duress” in a coup d’état. Nasheed’s MDP have taken to the streets in the months since, calling for an early election.

Judge Abdulla was released on the evening of Nasheed’s resignation, and the Criminal Court swiftly issued a warrant for Nasheed’s arrest. Police did not act on the warrant, after international concern quickly mounted.

Investigation

Nasheed became the first president to be summoned before the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) when he was asked to testify regarding his role in the arrest of Judge Abdulla in April. Nasheed used his testimony to claim that he had been informed at the time by the Home Ministry that the judge allegedly posed a “national threat” – prompting his eventual detention.

The former president additionally claimed that the Home Ministry had communicated with the Defence Ministry on the situation, which in turn led to the decision to arrest the judge after watchdog bodies like the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) had raised alleged concerns over his ethical conduct.

“I was told that Abdulla Mohamed would not comply with the police’s summons to investigate allegations [against him],” Nasheed later stated at a press conference following the meeting with the HRCM.

“The Home Minister wrote to the Defense Minister that Abdulla Mohamed’s presence in the courts was a threat to national security. And to take necessary steps. And that step, the isolation of Abdulla Mohamed, was what the [Defense] Ministry deemed necessary.”

The HRCM after concluding the investigation sent the case to the prosecutor general.

A second case involving Nasheed has also been sent to the prosecutor general by the police, that involved the confiscation of bottles of alcohol allegedly found at his residence shortly after his presidency ended.

Charges

PG Muizz on July 15 filed charges against former President Mohamed Nasheed and the former Defense Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu for their alleged role in detaining Criminal Court Chief Justice Abdulla Mohamed in January.

Nasheed and Tholhath stand charged with violation of the Article 81 of the Penal Code, which states that the detention of a government employee who has not been found guilty of a crime is illegal. If found guilty, Nasheed and Tholhath will face a jail sentence or banishment for three years or a Rf 3000 fine (US$193.5).

The case was filed at the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court. In a statement today, Muizz said he intended to levy the same charges against former Chief of Defense Forces Moosa Ali Jaleel, Brigadier-General Ibrahim Mohamed Didi and Colonel Mohamed Ziyad.

Home Minister Mohamed Jameel in a post on social media Twitter has said the “historic criminal trial” is the “first step towards the national healing process.”

Meanwhile, Spokesperson of the Department of Judicial Administration,Latheefa Gasim, told local media that Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court has accepted the case and the hearings will be held after the first 10 days of Ramadan.

She also said that the magistrate court had space limitations and therefore they have been talking to the Housing Development Corporation (HDC) located in Hulhimale about holding the hearings in the reception hall of the HDC office.

“We have been negotiating with HDC to see if they could give us their reception hall to hold the hearings. After what HDC says, we will decide on a date to hold the hearings,” she said.

President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan’s spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza told Minivan News at the time that the president will not “interfere with the independent Prosecutor General’s decisions.”

In April, Nasheed told the UK’s Guardian newspaper that he did not want to arrest a judge, but he “just couldn’t let him [Abdulla Mohamed] sit on the bench.”

“There is a huge lack of confidence in the judiciary, and I had to do something, and the constitution called upon me to do that. It’s not a nice thing to do. And it’s not a thing that I would want to do. And it’s not a thing that I liked doing. But it had to be done,” he added.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed challenges former President Gayoom to also appear before parliamentary inquiry

Ousted President Mohamed Nasheed has last night responded to allegations levied against him by pro-government political figures, during a rally held at the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) protest camp ‘Usfasgandu’.

Speaking during the rally, Nasheed said that he was willing to give evidence to a parliament inquiry regarding every detail about his three year tenure as president.

While speaking in support of Parliament Speaker Abdulla Shahid’s decision to allow the summoning of former presidents and leaders of political parties to parliament, Nasheed dared his predecessor Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, as whether he had “the guts” to appear and reveal details of his own 30 year rule.

“I just want to clarify with the leaders of these political parties: are they ready to reveal the details of their bank accounts to the parliament?” Nasheed challenged.

“I want to clarify with Maumoon Abdul Gayoom whether he was willing to share with parliament about how much knew of the incidents that took place in the country’s prisons during his 30 year regime. Did he order the shooting of inmates in Gaamaadhoo Jail?” he asked.

Nasheed said he wants to know whether Gayoom was willing to clear doubts about whether prisoner Evan Naseem was “shot dead or not” to the people of the country.

He further said that he would ask the parliament whether they would clarify to the people about how the leaders of the political parties gained funding and how they were spending it.

Nasheed said that he was ready to provide every detail of how he ran the country for three years despite the numerous challenges and obstructions from then opposition parties.

He contended that during his tenure as president, he had never ordered anyone tortured and that he had never embezzled public funds.

“I am prepared to provide every detail of my bank account from the day I opened it up until today, to the People’s Majlis [parliament]. I am even willing to cooperate with the Majlis for them to check whether I had a foreign bank account or whether there is any information regarding such, anywhere in the world,” he said.

He added people did not want to hand over the nation’s top office to political leaders who had misappropriated public funds and tortured them in the process, and that it was a duty of the parliament to investigate such allegations of corruption and human rights violations.

“I also do hope that they would share all the details of their oil businesses, their resort businesses, all those ‘Bonaqua’ bottles, details of all those leaked videos of theirs, and as well as all the information with the police to the parliament,” he said.

‘Bonaqua’ was a reference to current Islamic Minister Sheikh Mohamed Shaheem Ali Saeed, who appeared in a video broadcast by MDP-aligned Raajje TV, holding a water bottle and talking to a woman. The station alleged the footage amounted to a “sex scandal”, and claimed it could not release further footage in the interest of public decency.

Nasheed called his supporters on the islands to come to the capital the day he is summoned to parliament for questioning, claiming that people had the right to know what had been going on.

On June 28, Jumhoree Party (JP) Deputy Leader MP Abdullah Jabir  proposed and passed a resolution assembling a temporary committee to investigate the alleged illegal actions of Nasheed.

The motion to form a seven man committee was passed before the session was halted after vehement protests from the MDP parliamentary caucus.

However, yesterday the seven member parliamentary committee was assembled including just one member from the MDP parliamentary group.

The seven member committee includes MP Ali Waheed from MDP, MP Ibrahim Mutthalib from Adaalath Party (AP), Independent MP Ibrahim Riza, MP Ahmed Nihan Hussain Manik from Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), MP Riyaz Rasheed from Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP), and MP Moosa Zameer from People’s Alliance (PA) as well as Jabir himself, who intends to contest the chairmanship of the committee.

“It is important to understand these activities. If we find he has acted against the constitution, parliament will decide on the process that should be taken after that,” he explained at the time.

Arresting of  judge

Speaking at the rally, Nasheed highlighted the decision he made to arrest the Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, Judge Abdulla Mohamed, stating that he had “every reason” to arrest him.

Nasheed said he had ordered the MNDF to make the arrest after Home Minister Ahmed Afeef and then Commissioner of Police Ahmed Faseeh had said that the judge posed a threat to the national security.

He also added that he had several other “legitimate reasons” to arrest the judge, and that he had realised the “depth of information I received from the police and the military and from several citizens”, and that he was willing to “provide this information [about the judge] to the parliament.”

He further said that the reason for an illegitimate ‘coup’ government to take over the country and the incitement of hatred amongst the people as well as failing of the country’s legal and constitutional system, was

The former opposition had incited hatred – including religious accusations – among the population, benefited from the failure of the country’s legal and constitutional system, and ultimately taken over the government in a bid to protect a judge who posed a threat to the national security and the criminal justice system of the country, he said. Police and MNDF had failed to find a solution to the judge, he added.

Earlier, regarding the charges against Nasheed, Deputy Leader of PPM, Umar Naseer expressed his confidence that the Prosecutor General’s (PG) investigation into charges against former President Mohamed Nasheed would  see his imprisonment before the scheduled elections in July 2013.

“We will make sure that the Maldivian state does this. We will not let him go; the leader who unlawfully ordered the police and military to kidnap a judge and detain him for 22 days will be brought to justice,” said Naseer, according to local newspaper Haveeru.

Naseer went on to say that after the investigations of the police and the Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM), the pressure was now on the PG to prosecute Nasheed.

“[The PG] is an independent person. I hope he will prosecute this case. He has said that he will. I have no doubt that he will,” Naseer said.

Current Home Minister Mohamed Jameel – also the Justice Minister under Gayoom’s government – spoken in similar fashion, telling local media that he was confident “Nasheed will be imprisoned for a very long period.”

Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed was arrested by the MNDF on the evening of Monday, January 16, in compliance with a police request. The judge’s whereabouts were not revealed until January 18.

However, later the Maldivian National Defence Force (MNDF) revealed that the judge was under their supervision at Girifushi in Kaafu Atoll (an MNDF training facility).

Prosecutor General (PG) Ahmed Muizz later joined the High Court and Supreme Court in condemning the MNDF’s role in the arrest, requesting that the judge be released.

According to Muizz, police are required to go through the PG’s Office to obtain an arrest warrant from the High Court.

“They haven’t followed the procedures, and the authorities are in breach of law. They could be charged with contempt of the courts,” he said at the time.

After the arrest, violent protests erupted as then opposition parties led by the PPM of former President Gayoom took to the streets in the name of “upholding the constitution”.

The 22 day long protest ended after the toppling Nasheed’s government and the releasing Judge Abdulla, after several police and the MNDF officers stood up against his administration and joined forces with the protesters on February 7.

The MDP maintained that Nasheed was forced out of office in what they described as a coup d’état.

PPM’s Spokesperson MP Ahmed Nihan had not responded at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

PG receives charges against Former President Nasheed in Chief Judge arrest

The Maldives Police Service has today sent the case of the arrest of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdullah Mohamed to the Prosecutor General’s Office.

Minivan News understands that under the submitted case, Former President Mohamed Nasheed could stand to face charges for his alleged role in ordering the detention of the judge earlier this year.  Any final decision to press charges will then be down to the prosecutor general.

The country’s judges and their conduct became a major focus for former President Nasheed in the run up to him being replaced by Dr Waheed in February, leading to eventual calls for international assistance on the matter.

Nasheed had at the time raised concerns over allegations of perjury and “increasingly blatant collusion” between senior judicial figures and politicians loyal to the former autocratic President, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

Charges

However, it is the former president who now himself faces criminal charges relating to the detention  of the judge.

According to sources linked to the case, the charges levied against Nasheed relate to the violation of article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives, and for violation of Article 12 clause (a) of Judges Act (Act no 13/2010).

Article 44 of the Maldives Constitution states: “No person shall be arrested or detained for an offence unless the arresting officer observes the offence being committed, or has reasonable and probable grounds or evidence to believe the person has committed an offence or is about to commit an offence, or under the authority of an arrest warrant issued by the court.”

Article 12 clause (a) of the Judges Act states that a judge can be arrested without a court warrant, but only if he is found indulging in a criminal act. The same article also states that if a judge comes under  suspicion of committing a criminal act or being about to commit a criminal act, they can only be taken into custody with a court warrant obtained from a higher court than that of which the judge presently sits on.  This warrant has to be approved by the prosecutor general.

A police official today confirmed that the case regarding the judge’s attention had been submitted to the Prosecutor General’s Office today.

“Today at around 9:30 am, we have submitted the case [the arrest of Judge Abdulla] to the prosecutor general. We have completed all the necessary investigations required,” the police official said.

An official from the Prosecutor General’s Office also confirmed to Minivan News that the charges sent to it by police were against Nasheed.  However, the official refused to explain the exact nature of the charges, stating that the case was still being assessed by their legal team.

Spokesperson for Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Imthiyaz Fahmy said that he would not comment on the issue until after a party meeting scheduled to discuss the issue was held

Judge arrest

Judge Abdulla was arrested by the MNDF on January 16 this year, in compliance with a police request. The judge’s whereabouts were not revealed until January 18.  The MNDF had acknowledged receipt but not replied to Supreme Court orders to release the judge.

As Judge Abdulla continued to be held, Prosecutor General (PG) Ahmed Muizz later joined the High Court and Supreme Court in condemning the MNDF’s role in the arrest, requesting that the judge be released.

According to Muizz, police are required to go through the PG’s Office to obtain an arrest warrant from the High Court.

“They haven’t followed the procedures, and the authorities are in breach of law. They could be charged with contempt of the courts,” he said at the time.

However, following the controversial resignation of  former President Mohamed Nasheed on February 7, Judge Abdulla was released that evening after incumbent president Mohamed Waheed Hassan took over the presidency.

A second case involving Nasheed has also been sent to the prosecutor general by the police that involved the confiscation of bottles of alcohol allegedly found at his residence shortly after his presidency ended.

In a press conference, Deputy Head of the Drug Enforcement Department, Sub-Inspector Ismail Fareed, noted that all  people questioned regarding the case had fully cooperated.

However, Nasheed maintained that he had no part to play in the confiscated liquor bottles.

HRCM

Just last month, Nasheed became the first president to be summoned before the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) regarding his role in the arrest of Judge Abdulla.

Nasheed used his testimony to claim that he had been informed at the time by the Home Ministry that the judge allegedly posed a “national threat” – prompting his eventual detention.

The former president additionally claimed that the Home Ministry had communicated with the Defence Ministry on the situation, which in turn led to the decision to arrest the judge after watchdog bodies like the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has raised alleged concerns over his ethical conduct.

“I was told Abdulla Mohamed would not comply with the police’s summons to investigate allegations [against him],” Nasheed later stated at a press conference following the meeting with the HRCM.

“The Home Minister wrote to the Defense Minister that Abdulla Mohamed’s presence in the courts was a threat to national security. And to take necessary steps. And that step, the isolation of Abdulla Mohamed, was what the [Defense] Ministry deemed necessary.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)