Tag: Attorney General

Defence lawyer of minor sentenced to flogging appeals case in High Court

The defence lawyer for a 15 year-old rape victim who was sentenced to flogging after the Juvenile Court found her guilty of fornication, has appealed the case at the High Court today.

Attorney General Aishath Aziam Shukoor told local media today (April 1) that the case had to be appealed because the Juvenile Court had taken statements from the witnesses in violation of procedure.

The Attorney General said the Juvenile Court ruling was in violation of Islamic Sharia as it had not considered psychological reports produced to the court.

The 15 year-old child was now under the charge of the ‘Kudakudhinge Hiya’ orphanage on Villingili, she revealed.

President Mohamed Waheed’s government has previously criticised the verdict, pledging in January to review the use of flogging as a punishment for sexual offences – a practice it alleged in some cases actually serves to punish victims of rape and abuse.

Sources from the girl’s island of Feydhoo in Shaviyani Atoll told Minivan News previously that concerns had been raised by islanders since 2009 that the minor was allegedly the victim of sexual abuse not just by her stepfather, but an unidentified number of other men on the island.

The case has brought international attention to the country’s legal system, including the launch of an online Avaaz.org petition signed by 1.7 million people that threatens to boycott Maldivian tourism, as well as public criticism from British multi-billionaire Sir Richard Branson, founder of the Virgin group of companies.

In June 2012, the girl gave birth to a baby which was later discovered buried in the outdoor shower area of her home. Her stepfather was later charged with child sexual abuse, possession of pornographic materials and committing premeditated murder. Her mother was meanwhile charged with concealing a crime and failing to report child sexual abuse to the authorities.

On February 26, 2013, the 15-year-old was convicted of premarital sex at the Juvenile Court and sentenced to 100 lashes and eight months of house arrest, after confessing to fornication with another man during the investigation.

President Waheed’s  stated on his official Twitter account at the time: “I am saddened by the sentence of flogging handed to a minor. Govt will push for review of this position.”

However, the religious Adhaalath Party (AP) – which largely makes up the ranks of the Islamic Ministry and with which President Waheed’s Gaumee Ithiaad Party (GIP) last week entered into a coalition – has endorsed the sentence.

“The purpose of penalties like these in Islamic Sharia is to maintain order in society and to save it from sinful acts. It is not at all an act of violence. We must turn a deaf ear to the international organisations which are calling to abolish these penalties, labeling them degrading and inhumane acts or torture,” read a statement from the party.

“If such sinful activities are to become this common, the society will break down and we may become deserving of divine wrath,” the Adhaalath Party stated.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Preliminary hearing on GMR-Maldives arbitration case scheduled for April 10 in London

The preliminary hearing of the arbitration case concerning the government’s voiding of its concession agreement with Indian Infrastructure giant GMR is scheduled to take place on April 10 in London, reports local media.

On February 3, the parties announced the appointment of arbitrators for the case.  According to the Attorney General’s office, the Maldives will be represented by Singapore National University Professor M Sonaraja, while former Chief Justice of the UK, Lord Nicholas Addison Phillips, will represent GMR.

The arbitrator mutually agreed by both GMR and the government is retired senior UK Judge, Lord Leonard Hubert Hoffman.

Speaking to the newspaper, Deputy Solicitor General Ahmed Usham said that the meeting will take place at the presence of three arbitrators appointed to hear the case along with lawyers representing the government of Maldives, Maldives Airports Company Limited (MACL) and GMR.

“It is not an official hearing of the arbitration case. It is a hearing in which a date for the commencement of the hearings would be agreed and to agree as to how the case should proceed. Decisions concerning how the proceedings should take place will be agreed,” Usham told Haveeru.

He also said that although the preliminary hearing was to take place in London, the official hearings of the case will be heard in Singapore.

In 2010, GMR-Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad (MAHB) consortium, government of former President Mohamed Nasheed and Maldives Airport Company Limited (MACL) entered into a 25-year concession agreement worth US$511 million (MVR 7.787 billion) – in which the GMR-MAHB Consortium was contracted with the management and upgrading of Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) within the 25 year contract period.

However in November 2012, the government of President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik declared the developer’s concession agreement void and ordered it to leave the country within seven days.

A last minute injunction from the Singapore High Court during arbitration proceedings was overturned on December 6, after Singapore’s Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon declared that “the Maldives government has the power to do what it wants, including expropriating the airport.”

GMR is seeking US$800 million in compensation for the sudden termination, while the Maldivian government is contending that it owes nothing as the contract was void ab initio – meaning the contract was invalid from the outset.

Should the argument of void ab initio fail, the government have claimed that its second legal ground on which it would argue in favour of termination of the contract would be that the contract had been ‘frustrated’.

‘Frustration of a contract’ is an English contract law doctrine which acts as a device to set aside contracts where an unforeseen event either renders contractual obligations impossible, or radically changes the party’s principle purpose for entering into the contract.

“The government has given a seven day notice to GMR to leave the airport. The agreement states that GMR should be given a 30 day notice but the government believes that since the contract is void, it need not be followed,” said Attorney General Azima Shukoor at the time of announcement of the contract.

The awarding of the bid in 2010 was overseen by the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC), which the Waheed government has accused of being “negligent” and “irresponsible”.

Should the matter be decided in the government’s favour, uncertainty remains as to the potential impact on foreign investor sentiment given the prospect of sudden asset seizure under the ‘void ab initio’ precedent.

If decided in GMR’s favour, the outcome of the case could potentially see the Maldives facing sovereign bankruptcy, with millions of dollars in additional debt emptying the state’s already dwindling reserves, crippling the country’s ability to obtain further credit, and potentially sparking an economic or currency crisis.

In December 2012, the Maldives government paid back US$50 million to the State Bank of India, after it refused to extend the period of the treasury bonds issued by the bank during the previous government. India has called in further installments of US$50 million, forcing the government to draw on the state reserves.

Finance Minister Abdulla Jihad has said the government is yet to come to an arrangement to pay the next US$50 million installment to SBI, explaining that the money will have to come from the Maldives Monetary Authority (MMA).

“The US$50 million due in February will have to be paid from the reserve. We have been ordered to pay the amount. There has been no change to the order so far. So it must be paid,” Jihad told local media at the time.

At the start of 2013, state reserves had shrunk to MVR 4.9 billion (US$317.7 million), according to the MMA.

“Gross international reserves at the MMA have been declining slowly, and now account for just one and half months of imports, and could be more substantially pressured if major borrowings maturing in the next few months are not rolled over,” an International Monetary Fund (IMF) delegation observed during a mission to the Maldives in November last year.

Moreover, one of GMR’s lenders, Axis Bank, is also seeking the repayment of loans for the airport project, which were guaranteed by the Ministry of Finance and approved by the Attorney General’s Office under the former government.

Attorney General’s office was not available for a comment at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Attorney General files case requesting Supreme Court prevent dissolution of smaller political parties

The Attorney General has filed a case at the Supreme Court requesting it declare that existing smaller political parties would not be dissolved following the ratification of the new Political Parties Act.

On March 2013, a similar case was filed by the attorney general requesting a writ of mandamus against the Elections Commission to prevent dissolution of those political parties which failed to maintain the required 10,000 members as stipulated in the Political Parties Act.

Following the case, Supreme Court issued a temporary injunction against the Elections Commission ordering it to withhold the dissolution of political parties that did not have the required membership.

During the hearing of the new case filed as an ex parte case on Wednesday, state attorney Ahmed Usham contended that there were legal issues with the Political Parties Act.

Usham argued that although the constitution states that a fundamental right could be limited only through legislation, the state was not of the view that the right to association and form political parties be limited as strictly as stipulated by the act.

He added that political parties were also separate legal entities under both the political parties’ regulation that was in place prior to the enactment of the new act, and therefore would have conducted commercial transactions and hired employees.

Therefore, dissolution of political parties Usham argued, would compromise the rights of several groups of people.

He also contended that requirement of specific number of members in a political party varied from country to country, but countries with larger populations than the Maldives had a lower minimum requirement for party membership.

Though the case is being heard as an ex parte case, tourism magnate Ahmed ‘Sun Travel’ Shiyam’s Maldivian Development Alliance (MDA) also intervened in the case.

Speaking during the hearing, MDA’s lawyer Maumoon Hameed contended that following the enactment of the Political Parties Act, several rights of the political party had been compromised.

He also said that the requirement of 10,000 members was too large compared to the population of the country.

Hameed contended that the bill’s stipulation that newly formed political parties would have a three month period to gain membership, while existing parties did not have the same opportunity, was unfair.

The MDA also requested the Supreme Court declare that existing smaller political parties would not be dissolved according to the law.

Today’s hearing was heard by the full seven member bench of the Supreme Court, and concluded without mention of a further hearing on the matter.

Passage of the bill

The Political Parties bill was passed on December 2012 however, President Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik – whose own Gaumee Iththihaadh Party (GIP) is among those set to be dissolved – refused to ratify the bill and sent it back to parliament for reconsideration in January.

On March 5, with unanimous support from both parliament’s minority leader and majority leader, the bill was forced into law, overruling the presidential veto. Out of the 67 members present during the vote, 60 voted in favour of the passage of the bill while six voted against the bill and one MP abstained.

Article 11 of the law states that at least 10,000 signatures are needed to register a party with the Elections Commission (EC), which would be mandated to monitor that membership does not fall below the figure.

Parties unable to sign 10,000 members would be dissolved.

Immediate dissolution of smaller political parties

Following ratification, President of the Elections Commission (EC) Fuad Thaufeeq stated that the commission’s interpretation of the act suggested that political parties that did not have a minimum of 10,000 members could be abolished immediately.

He stated that once the act was gazetted, the commission was of the view that smaller political parties would immediately be dissolved. However, he said the EC’s legal team was currently reviewing the act and would make a decision based on its report.

“Our legal team is currently reviewing the law before it actually is enacted. That the bill has passed with such a strong majority means that the commission will make all the necessary arrangements to begin enforcing the law,” he said.

He added that the law gives the Elections Commission additional powers to regulate and discipline political parties, and powers to take action against parties violating the law.

Despite several parties facing being dissolved, Thaufeeg said that he hoped to see several parties registered under the new law.

Following the enactment of the act, several smaller political parties including President Waheed’s GIP, his Special Advisor Dr Hassan Saeed’s Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP), MDA and religious conservative Adhaalath Party criticised the Act, stating that they would take the matter to the Supreme Court and seek invalidation of the bill.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament notifies Gasim of case to remove him from JSC

Parliament has sent a notice to Majlis-appointed member to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), Gasim Ibrahim, regarding a case to remove him from his post.

Deputy Speaker of Parliament Ahmed Nazim told local media on Friday (March 22) that a notice had been sent to Gasim, who is also the presidential candidate for Jumhoree Party (JP), as per parliament procedures.

Nazim stated that the case submitted by the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) to remove Gasim from the JSC would be put on parliament’s agenda only after speaking with leaders from various political parties.

The notice follows a meeting held last week by Parliament’s Independent Commissions Oversight Committee, in which the entire JSC board was summoned to attend.

Throughout March, the oversight committee has been speaking with members of JSC in regard to the manner in which judges were appointed to the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench. The court is currently hearing the trial of former president Mohamed Nasheed, who is Gasim’s presidential rival in the upcoming elections in September.

Oversight Committee member and MDP Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor told Minivan News that during the meeting held on Wednesday (March 20), Gasim had lacked integrity when faced with questions from the committee.

“The focus of my questions was on the integrity of the JSC members and of the independence of judges.

“When I asked Mr Gasim whether he had announced his [presidential] candidacy before or after he was nominated to his post within the JSC, he said ‘I am not sure’,” Hamid claimed.

Gasim’s presidential rival and leader of the MDP, former President Mohamed Nasheed, is currently facing charges at Hulhumale’ court over the controversial detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

The MDP has maintained that the charges against Nasheed are a politically motivated attempt to bar him from the election in September.

Despite the JSC Chair and Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed declaring that the commission refused to discuss matters regarding the Hulhumale’ Court, individual members of the JSC still attended the oversight meetings.

“It is like a domino effect – the chair of the JSC has lost his authority. We believe this is the first step of the JSC being shaken to its core,” Hamid said. “Even on Wednesday the chair was still resistant to being questioned.”

Statements from individual JSC members given to the oversight committee revealed there had been concern as to how the Hulhumale’ Court bench had been appointed.

Furthermore, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul raised concerns over the politicisation of the JSC last month.

“I have heard from numerous sources that the current composition of the JSC is inadequate and politicised.

Because of this politicisation, the commission has been subjected to all sorts of external influence and consequently has been unable to function properly,” Knaul stated last month.

JSC composition does not allow independence of judiciary to be maintained: Shakoor

On Wednesday (March 20), Attorney General and JSC member Aishath Azima Shakoor told local media that the current composition of the commission did not allow it to maintain independence of the judiciary.

“I believe that, even though JSC has been composed according to constitution, it does not allow [it] to maintain the independence of the judiciary.

“I do not believe that JSC’s configuration is based on the most effective model. But JSC is how the Constitution says it should be, so we have to function like that,” Azima was quoted as saying in local media.

In regard to Gasim, who voted in favour of establishing the Hulhumale’ Court bench, Azima told local media that if she had been in Gasim’s position when the vote for the court bench had been undertaken, she would not have participated in the vote.

“I believe that the Parliament Committee on Independent Institutions’ review or investigation of the manner in which Hulhumale’ Court bench of judges was established will affect the trail that is currently proceeding in that court,” Azima was quoted as saying in Sun Online.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Elections Commission to respond after Supreme Court issues injunction on dissolution of parties

The Elections Commission (EC) is to decide on how it is to proceed following Supreme Court’s temporary injunction on the dissolution of political parties.

The court issued the temporary stay order on Thursday (March 14) after Attorney General (AG) Azima Shukoor filed a case claiming that sections of the recently ratified Political Parties Act were in contradiction to the constitution.

Local media reported that Supreme Court had asked all authorities not to consider any party as dissolved until the case is decided.

President of the EC, Fuad Thaufeeq revealed that the commission would make a decision regarding what action would be taken in response to the Supreme Court’s order.

“The commission will sit tomorrow (March 17) to discuss and decide on how we shall proceed. We have to respect and obey court orders,” Fuad told Minivan News via SMS.

The Political Parties Bill – ratified by President Mohamed Waheed on Tuesday (March 12) – states that parties must now meet a minimum of 10,000 members before they can be recognised as such.

Following the bill’s approval by President Waheed, a total of 11 parties were removed of the EC’s political party registry, leaving five to compete in upcoming presidential elections later this year.

When asked whether the EC would now reinstate the parties removed off its registry prior the Supreme Court’s final decision on the case, Fuad stated: “We will follow the court’s orders.”

Out of the 16 parties that had previously existed prior to the ratification of the bill, only the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), Jumhoree Party (JP) and Adhaalath Party (AP) remain registered in the Maldives.

EC Vice President Ahmed Fayaz previously told Minivan News that the EC had removed parties that did not meet the required membership amount in “accordance to the law”.

“We followed procedure in accordance to the [Political Parties] bill. Within that bill there is a clause that clearly states, that when a party that has less than 10,000 members it is to become null and void,” he said.

It had been previously reported that upon ratification of the bill, political parties with fewer than 10,000 members would have three months to reach the required amount or face dissolution.

When asked about the clause, Fayaz stated it only applied to registered parties in accordance to the bill, and that therefore if a party does not meet the 10,000 limit it cannot be classed as such and is therefore exempt from the three-month clause.

Attorney General (AG) Azima Shukoor, Director Department of Judicial Administration Ahmed Maajid and Vice President of Elections Commission (EC) Ahmed Fayaz were not responding to calls from Minivan News at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

UN Special Rapporteur criticises “arbitrary” appointment of judges in Nasheed trial

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, has criticised the appointment of judges presiding over the case against former President Mohamed Nasheed, for his controversial arrest of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in 2011.

“Being totally technical, it seems to me that the set-up, the appointment of judges to the case, has been set up in an arbitrary manner outside the parameters laid out in the laws,” Knaul said, while responding to questions from media after delivering her statement on Sunday.

Nasheed is currently facing trial at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, the legality of which has been much contested in recent weeks.

The Special Rapporteur commented on the matter of Nasheed’s trial being conducted by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

“According to the law, the constitutional court which has jurisdiction to hear this case is the Criminal Court. While I understand the concerns of the Prosecutor General’s (PG) Office regarding the possible eventual conflict of interest since Judge Abdulla sits in the court, it is not for the prosecutor to decide if the judge will be impartial,” Knaul stated.

“It is the duty of the judge or judges to recuse themselves when they feel they would not be impartial in presiding over any case,” Knaul said.

Speaking about the case of the detention itself, Knaul stated that judging by the briefings received in her meetings in the country, the detention seems to have taken place outside the parameters laid down by the constitution.

“Regardless of the merits of the allegations of corruption or misconduct on the judge, I do believe that proceedings against judges should also be fair and impartial,” Knaul said.

“I think in disciplinary proceedings, especially disciplinary hearings, a judge should have the right to a fair trial. And all decisions taken should be subject to an independent review.”

In presenting her preliminary findings after the eight day fact-finding mission, Knaul stated that she found the concept of independence of the judiciary has been “misconstrued and misinterpreted” by all actors, including the judiciary itself.

Knaul also spoke about the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) – the body mandated with appointment, transfer and removal of judges – stating that the commission is politicised, subject to external influence, and hence unable to fulfill its mandate effectively.

Knaul also highlighted the lack of transparency in the assignment of cases and the constitution of benches in all courts, including the Supreme Court.

“When cases are assigned in a subjective manner, the system becomes much more vulnerable to manipulation, corruption, and external pressure. Information on the assignment of cases should be clearly available to the public in order to counter suspicions of malpractice and corruption,” she observed.

Knaul asserted again that the composition of the JSC must be revised. She has written in her statement that “an appointment body acting independently from both the executive and the legislative branches of government should be established with the view to countering any politicization in the appointment of judges and their potential improper allegiance to interests other than those of fair and impartial justice.”

Responding to a question posed by a journalist asking if the rapporteur believed it wise for such a ‘high-profile’ case to be delayed, Knaul said that the judiciary should be effective for everyone who seeks justice.

“According to the constitution, the judiciary should not choose cases based on X,Y, or Z person. It should be equal in applying or delivering justice. It is necessary to have an objective criteria for selecting cases and to assign cases in court. If you apply these processes, you make the system work in the least subjective manner possible,” Knaul stated.

Government responds

Attorney General Azima Shakoor received the preliminary findings from Rapporteur Gabriela Knaul on behalf of the government of the Maldives.

“In the discussion the Government also noted the responsibility of international partners in establishing a conducive environment where institutions of the the State, particularly the judiciary, are respected by the public,” an official statement on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website read.

The statement did not include any details of whether or not the government planned to take any action in response to the rapporteur’s findings and comments on the judicial system.

When the question was asked of President’s Office Spokesperson Masood Imad, he referred Minivan News to the Attorney General, saying “she is probably a more relevant person to talk about this matter.”

Attorney General Azima Shakoor said she was unable to speak on the subject once Minivan News posed the question to her.

The government also did not offer any response to the additional comments Knauls made regarding Nasheed’s trial after delivering her written statement.

MDP claims commitment to judicial reform

Responding to the Special Rapporteur’s findings, the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has said it is ready to work with other political parties to immediately begin work on urgent reforms to the judiciary and the judicial accountability mechanisms.

“Establishing a truly independent, professional and widely respected judiciary is central to ending the political turmoil in the Maldives and to consolidating democracy in our country. We have always accepted this. Yet Gayoom, Waheed and others who have benefited and continue to benefit from our current corrupt and biased judiciary never have,” MDP’s international spokesperson, Hamid Abdul Ghafoor, said in a statement.

“Today, as we digest yet another report by an eminent international body that clearly says our judiciary is not fit for purpose, it is time for all political parties to put aside their differences and work together to urgently reform our justice sector. This means immediately halting the political trials launched against President Nasheed and the hundreds of pro-democracy activists currently facing ‘terrorism’ and other trumped-up charges. It also means establishing a caretaker government to oversee judicial reform and to prepare the ground for genuinely free and fair elections,” Ghafoor said.

The party’s statement also noted Knaul’s concern over the system of appointment of judges, stating “the Special Rapporteur expressed support for the concerns repeatedly raised by Aishath Velezinee, a former member of the JSC and whistleblower (who, in 2011, was stabbed and almost killed because of her outspoken comments), who said that the very starting point of judicial independence – the post 2008 Constitution system of screening and reappointing judges – was marred by malpractice and corruption.”

Referring to the rapporteur’s comments on selectivity in case assignment, prioritisation and bench constitution, the MDP alleged it had led to “hundreds of important cases against allies of former President Gayoom and members of the current government being kicked into the legal ‘long grass’, while the Prosecutor-General, the judicial administration authorities and the courts enthusiastically pursue political trials against President Nasheed and other MDP members.”

MDP echoed Special Rapporteur Knaul in stating that these deep-rooted problems had led to the public having an alarming lack of trust in the judiciary.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Religious NGO Jamiyyathul Salaf recommends beheading, firing squad over lethal injection

Religious NGO Jamiyyathul Salaf has called on Attorney General (AG) Azima Shukoor to amend the government’s draft bill on the implementation of death penalty, urging that convicts be beheaded or shot instead of given lethal injection.

In letter to the AG proposing its recommendations for the bill, Salaf explained that by beheading the convicted murderer, the pain he endured would be reduced while the heirs of the victim would still receive satisfaction.

Salaf argued that Islamic history had precedents for this form of execution, while the purpose of Qisas – an Islamic legal term for equal retaliation which follows the principle of Lex talionis (‘an eye for an eye’) – would be achieved if it acted as a deterrent to others from committing such crimes.

Salaf also expressed support for the execution of convicts through firing squad, noting that scholars of Islamic jurisprudence had spoken in favour of the method.

The Attorney General in 2012 announced that the government had drafted a bill on implementing the death penalty through lethal injection, and presented it to the public for comment.

Salaf disputed the reliability of this method, contending that such injections have been proved ineffective in executing a convict within a single needle.

The NGO argued that due to the West’s opposing stance towards death penalty, the Maldives could face difficulties and restrictions in receiving stocks of lethal injections, which would be a “perfect excuse for any president who does not wish to enforce the death penalty”.

“If that is the case, it is a huge injustice to society. It is very dangerous that the current draft paves way for one government to execute it while another can make excuses to not execute it. It is unacceptable. Even today, convicts in several countries are still un-executed because of the non-availability of such injections,” Salaf said.

Salaf also proposed several other recommendations including barring intoxication as a legal defence for the crime of murder, meaning that even involuntary intoxication would not commute a convict from facing the death penalty. Salaf argued that if intoxication could be considered a defense, the purpose of implementing death penalty would be undermined as an accused could always misuse the defense of intoxication to avoid execution.

The current draft bill stipulates that the death penalty should be given to a convict who has murdered someone while in possession of his senses and conscience. In theory, a murder committed while under the influence of a substance will therefore not attract the death penalty.

Salaf also recommended that the current position of the bill on minors should be abolished and that even minors should face execution as soon as the final verdict is made.

Currently the bill stipulates that should a convict who is a minor, pregnant or in a critical medical condition be found guilty of murder, the execution shall be delayed.

Among other recommendations, Salaf proposed amendments to the number of judges that should hear a case concerning death penalty.

Salaf proposed that at a lower court level, the case should be heard by a panel of three judges, while a four member panel should hear such a case at the High Court and a five member panel at Supreme Court level.

Salaf also urged that such cases concerning the death penalty must be heard by male judges only. The NGO also recommended that a clause be included in which before the execution the convict should be given the opportunity to repent and carry out a short prayer.

According to current stipulations in the bill, a suspect found guilty of murder should also be provided with the opportunity to meet his family on the day of execution and say their last farewell.

Salaf in its recommendations called upon the attorney general to remove the clause in the draft bill giving the President the power to commute any death penalty sentence to a life imprisonment sentence, claiming that such a clause defeated the overall purpose of the bill.

Meanwhile, the attorney general’s office has said that it has looked to procedures followed by Egypt, Malaysia and the US in carrying out the death sentence, while also obtaining the opinions of religious scholars and lawyers.

Push for the death penalty

In October last year, the government announced its intention to introduce a bill in the People’s Majlis to guide and govern the implementation of the death penalty in the country.

“It is currently a punishment passed by the judiciary and a form of punishment available within the penal system of the Maldives,” said Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel at the time.

“But for full guidance and matters governing the matter, legislation is required,” he added.

The last person to be judicially executed in the Maldives was Hakim Didi, who was executed by firing squad in 1953 after being found guilty of conspiracy to murder using black magic.

Statistics show that from January 2001 to December 2010, a total of 14 people were sentenced to death by Maldivian courts.

However, in all cases, the president at the time has commuted these verdicts to life sentences.

Speaking to Minivan News, President of Jamiyyathul Salaf Abdulla Mohamed stated that the current bill by the attorney general was “incomplete” as it had only focused on death penalty, and said that the principle of Qiasas was much broader.

“For instance, the bill does not give a remedy to the victims who are subjected to assault and other bodily harm. They should also get a legal remedy. However the bill is more focused on death penalty,” he said.

Asked if the NGO was of the view that victims could get a fair trial, given the present concerns raised over the impartiality and competency of the Maldivian judiciary, Abdulla Mohamed said the NGO had proposed recommendations to the judiciary on the issue.

“We have previously sent recommendations to the authorities concerning the state of judiciary. We have clearly highlighted the necessary qualifications and standards that a judge should have,” he said.

However, he rejected claims made by critics of judiciary that the judiciary was unprepared to implement death penalty, stating that it was just a “mere excuse” to avoid the laws of Allah prescribed in Sharia’ law.

“There are other laws passed such as the law against the abuse of women and several other laws where the authorities make efforts to ensure they are enforced and that justice is delivered. Why can’t it be the same in a law that lays down the principles of Islamic Sharia’?” he questioned.

He further said that Islamic Criminal Law was very broad and very detailed, such that there are several conditions and requirements that have to be fulfilled before giving a punishment.

“The purpose of death penalty in Islam is to ensure that the orders of Allah are followed. It is an obligation to all of us as Muslims. Secondly, Islam greatly values a human being’s right to life. No one has the right to take the other person’s life. If he does so, he has to be punished,” he stated.

However the death penalty does not always mean one has to be executed, he explained. There are alternatives, as if even one heir decides to forgive the convict, he cannot be executed. Similarly, it is up to the heirs to demand blood money instead of the death penalty, and that even blood money can be forgiven if the heirs wish to do so.

Speaking to Minivan News previously, former Foreign Minister and UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Iran Dr Ahmed Shaheed has identified the “pathetic state of the [Maldives] judiciary” as one of the key human rights concerns he believed needed to be addressed in the country.

“[The judiciary] is not only corrupt, but also coming under the influence of radical Islam, even to the extent of violating codified laws of the Maldives and clear international obligations,” Dr Shaheed claimed.

“Disregard for rule of law has also meant that a culture of impunity is deeply entrenched, rendering many of the human rights of the people meaningless.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Finance Ministry not working to recover funds lost through state incompetence: AG

The Finance Ministry has not been working to recover lost funds from the state, Auditor General Niyaz Ibrahim has alleged.

Speaking to local media, Niyaz said  the state treasury has suffered huge losses due to incompetence from state employees.

Despite audit reports revealing where money has been wrongly spent, Finance Ministry has not been working to recover the funds, Niyaz told local media.

“We are sending a copy of the audit reports from each institution to the Finance Ministry. We recommend the finance ministry to take action against them in which the ministry is involved.

“However there has not been enough work towards taking action against them, especially in the cases where the incompetence of some employees and other loss,” Niyaz was quoted as saying in local newspaper Haveeru.

The Auditor General said that transactions made against the state finance act and violations of travel procedures in government offices were common issues repeated in the audit reports.

Niyaz added that as some offices are repeating these mistakes, there will be a period of three months whereby the offices have to improve prior to an assessment at the end of the time period.

Cases of incompetence or deliberate acts of fraud resulting in losses of state funds are also being submitted to the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) by the Auditor General, according to local media.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MJA express concern over media limitations outlined in assembly bill

The Maldives Journalists’ Association (MJA) has expressed concern over certain clauses in the Freedom of Peaceful Assembly Bill passed this week that it says will directly impact reporting by local and international media organisations.

The bill, passed by parliament on December 26, includes a number of measures such as banning demonstrations outside private residences and government buildings, as well as establishing reporting limitations on media not accredited with the state.

MJA President and board member of the Maldives Media Council (MMC) ‘Hiriga’ Ahmed Zahir stated today that the association has appealed to Attorney General Azima Shakoor and President Mohamed Waheed Hassan to review some of the clauses in the legislation.

According to the bill, only journalists who are accredited by the Maldives Broadcasting Commission (MBC) will be authorised to cover and report on gatherings and police activities in the country. The bill would also require MBC to establish a regulation on accrediting journalists within three months of its ratification.

Zahir claimed that in view of existing laws and regulations, the MBC is mandated with the oversight of broadcast media, while it was the MMC that had been entrusted with regulating all media outlets in the country.

“For one thing, I do not believe that a body appointed by the parliament will be able to undertake the accreditation of media persons in an independent manner free from any influence. We are seeing the MBC failing to address many existing issues even now, so we cannot support handing over additional responsibilities like this to such a body,” Zahir said.

Zahir also stated that in principle, the MJA did not approve of the idea of journalists having to get accredited before being able to report on events like protests.  The MJA has stated that events and gatherings should ideally be accessible to all media outlets.

Zahir also raised concerns that foreign journalists coming to the Maldives would also be required to obtain additional accreditation. He said that international media was already faced with having to meet specific visa requirements and obtaining state approval.

“For example, [international reporters] cannot really cover events if they are just here on a tourist visa, that won’t be allowed anywhere in the world,” he said.

However, due to the current political situation in the Maldives and allegations of some media personnel carrying out “irresponsible activities”, the MJA stated it could ultimately agree on some form of accreditation process.

Zahir nonetheless emphasized that even in such a case, accreditation should be done by a self-regulatory body with representation from media outlets in the country.

“From the existing bodies, we would prefer that the responsibility be handed over to the MMC. The council has representatives from all major media outlets in the country. Its members will respect individual rights and can do an independent job,” Zahir said.

On the back of the MJA’s concerns about the bill’s impact on media, Attorney General Azima Shakoor has been quoted in local media as accepting some form of review may be needed.

“Although the said bill regulates a different issue, one stipulation in this contradicts with the mandates of MBC and MMC. Hence, the best line of action may be to correct this through an immediate amendment. I feel that would be the most convenient solution now,” she was quoted as saying.

The bill further states that if an accredited journalist is suspected of being involved in a gathering’s activities, they would be treated in the same manner of those assembled as to the discretion of the police. The bill, however, does not define what could be considered such an act.

Commenting on the vague nature of the clause, Zahir told Minivan News that loose phrasing seen in the bill potentially left too much interpretation at the discretion of the police and their powers.

“The bill should more clearly define what exactly it means when saying a journalist is ‘seen to be participating in a protest’. They should set down specific actions. For example, it’s not a problem for a journalist to go into a crowd of people gathered, they do not necessarily have to stay behind police lines all the time. Just them walking into a crowd should not be defined as participation. It has to depend on a certain action they do alongside protesters,” Zahir explained.

Zahir stated that although media personnel – as individuals – are granted the constitutional right to participate in demonstrations, the MJA did not encourage such actions.

In the initial draft of Freedom of Peaceful Assembly bill, the accreditation of journalists had been put down as a responsibility of the MMC, as reported in local news websites. However, the responsibility had been transferred to the MBC by the time the bill had been revised at committee level and submitted to the parliament for final voting.

MBC Vice President Mohamed Shaheeb was not responding to calls at the time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)