Tag: Attorney General

AG drafts bill outlining executing death sentence, favours lethal injection

Attorney General Azima Shukoor has drafted a bill outlining how the death sentence should be executed in the Maldives, with lethal injection being identified as the state’s preferred method of capital punishment.

Shukoor today held a press conference to provide local media with information about the bill, which is also to be opened for public comment.

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 when drafting the bill.

With the bill favouring the use of lethal injection to execute suspected criminals, Shukoor said the proposals would be open for public comment for one month.

Court procedure

In the case of a suspected murder trial, the bill drafted by Shukoor obliges the accused to be represented by a lawyer during their trial.  In any case where the accused refuses to have a lawyer, the bill would require the state to provide legal representation for the respondent.

According to the new bill, when the Criminal Court proceeds with a murder case, it would need to have a bench consisting of three judges, one of whom has to have studied Islamic Sharia.

The bill would also oblige the High Court to have a panel of five judges overhearing murder cases, with the Supreme Court required to have a panel of seven judges.

According to the bill, any death sentence cannot be executed without the final judgement of the Supreme Court.

Photographing and filming of any execution carried out by the state would also be deemed unlawful under the attorney general’s proposals.

Should a suspect who is a minor, pregnant or in a critical medical condition be found guilty of murder, the bill states that the execution shall be delayed.

Shukoor also included an article concerning the authority currently given to the Head of State to commute death sentences to life sentences.  The bill noted that AG’s Office needed further time review the matter as the opinions of different experts were inconsistent on the president’s prerogative to commute sentences.

According to the bill, a suspect found guilty of murder would also be provided with the opportunity to meet his family on the day of execution and say their last words.

In October this year, the government has announced its intention to introduce a bill to the People’s Majlis in order 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 Ahmed 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 acting president has commuted these verdicts to life sentences.

Judicial concerns

Speaking to Minivan News earlier this month, former Foreign Minister and UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Iran Dr Ahmed Shaheed 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 yesterday.

“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)

Supreme Court criminalises offences within the exercise of freedom of assembly, expression

The Supreme Court decided in a 6-1 ruling last week that the police should investigate criminal offences carried out within the exercise of the rights to freedom of assembly and expression.

The ruling comes in a case filed by the Attorney General in September requesting the court to determine that public disturbances in the name of political protests were not within the scope of the rights guaranteed in the constitution.

These included protests outside private residences late at night, use of defamatory language and incitement to violence – “calling for people to be killed, hanged and attacked.”

The Supreme Court was asked to declare that such actions infringed upon the right to life, liberty and security of persons (article 21); the right to privacy and respect for private and family life (article 24); the right to protect reputation and good name (article 33); and special protection for children, young, elderly and disadvantaged people (article 35).

The apex court ruled that activities that violate “public safety, health, tranquillity and morality” could be considered criminal offences and falls within the purview of the security services.

The case was filed by the Attorney General following months of protests by the formerly ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and the dismantling in March of the party’s protest camp by security forces.

President’s Office Spokesman Masood Imad told Minivan News last month that the government fully supports the right to protest, but it needs to be done in such a manner that does not adversely affect the lives of others.

“A protest should be about changing something. A protest conducted in residential areas has nothing to do with parliament. Public protest and public nuisance are two very different things,” he contended.

The MDP meanwhile likened the move to Bahrain’s efforts to outlaw protesting.

“The MDP strongly condemns efforts to restrict freedom to assembly by the government. One of the most fundamental clauses in the new constitution is the right to protest and we are witnessing democratic gains fast slipping,” said MDP Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor.

Dissenting opinion

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Ahmed Muthasim Adnan – the only Supreme Court Justice with a background in common law – concluded that establishing a judicial guideline for the exercise of rights and freedoms was not within the remit of the Supreme Court.

He contended that such principles “should be determined in a law passed by the People’s Majlis.”

Justice Adnan noted that the case was considered ‘ex parte’ or conducted for the benefit of one party.

He noted that according to article 16 of the constitution, the rights and freedoms enshrined in chapter two were “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by a law enacted by the People’s Majlis in a manner that is not contrary to this Constitution. Any such law enacted by the People’s Majlis can limit the rights and freedoms to any extent only if demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

It was therefore clear that rights and freedoms could only be restricted or narrowed through a law passed by parliament, Justice Adnan added.

The Attorney General’s request was not a matter to be decided by the Supreme Court, he concluded, as “these problems should be proposed to the People’s Majlis for a solution.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Bill on death penalty drafted, unclear on action on past sentences: AG Shakoor

Attorney General (AG) Azima Shakoor stated on Thursday that the government’s bill on implementing death penalty would be made public early in the coming week.

Speaking at a press conference in Velaanaage, Shakoor confirmed that the AG’s office had completed drafting the bill, which was now in the final stages of discussion. She confirmed that the bill would be made public on the office’s website in the coming week, stating the matter “is very much connected to public sentiments and a large number of people feel this matter needs a fast solution”.

Saying that “it was a pity” that three weeks had passed in the drafting stage, Shakoor said that unlike most other bills, the death penalty implementation bill was going through processes of in-depth research and further discussions among a high-level group appointed by the government.

According to Shakoor, the research took much longer than the state had expected, adding that the AG office had included the legal systems of Medina, Egypt and America in its research.

“I would like to point out that the death penalty is still implemented in over 50 countries across the world even today. Not all of these are even Islamic states. Nor is murder the only crime for which the sentence is given. For example, some countries sentence people to death for being caught trying to bring in narcotics to the country. We are considering all of these points and have made a comparative legal assessment,” Shakoor explained.

Other crimes besides murder which are punishable by death according to Islamic Sharia include apostasy, adultery, sodomy, rape and high treason.

“We need to conduct an academic exercise since we are trying to do this through a rather weak penal code,” Shakoor said.

“If this can be done before the penal code pending in parliament is passed, it might be best to include this as part of that code. Right now, we have drafted this with the thought that if the penal code gets passed up front, then this can be passed as a separate act on death penalty.”

Shakoor said that the bill was important as the current practice was to charge murder convicts under Article 88 of the existing penal code.

Article 88 of the Penal Code states that disobedience to order is a crime, while Article 88(c) details that if the result of violating the article leads to a death, the case should be dealt with according to Islamic Sharia.

Shakoor provided details of the drafted bill, stating it would be looking at the investigation stages, prosecution stages, sentencing and the implementation of sentences.

“The act looks into deciding on the number of judges who will sit on the sentencing panel. Furthermore it considers the rights of the family, the rights of the murder victim, the rights of the victim’s family, the final rights of the convict during sentencing,” Shakoor stated.

Responding to a question regarding how those sentenced to death prior to the bill being ratified would be dealt with, Shakoor said “it is difficult to give a straightforward answer as the final discussions on the bill have not yet been completed.”

“We too believe that answers to that must come to light through how this bill is composed. However, I believe that a solution must be provided even for past cases. So the act will be drafted to reflect that. You can see for yourselves once the bill is made public,” Shakoor replied.

“When an act is passed which explicitly spells out implementation [of the death penalty], then I believe the benefits of it must be carried to even past cases.”

Among a number of other cases, a young couple charged with the murder of lawyer Ahmed Najeeb were sentenced to death by the Criminal Court in July, a few days after the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) asked the Maldivian state to enact legislation to officially abolish the death penalty. The statement said “the state itself has admitted that capital punishment does not deter crime.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Attorney General asks for Supreme Court to decide jurisdiction on GMR

The Attorney General Azima Shukoor has said she will ask the Supreme Court to rule on whether the laws of the Maldives can be applied to the government’s agreement with GMR concerning the development of Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA), local media has reported.

Shukoor, who was not responding to calls at the time of press today, said a request was sent following the release of a Supreme Court statement yesterday.

“It is against the International laws and the United Nations Charter that any action that undermines any sovereign right of a sovereign state, it is clear that courts of a sovereign nation has the jurisdiction to look into any matter that takes place within the boundaries of that state as according to the constitution and laws of that state,” read the statement.

“Even though a contract has an arbitration clause giving right to arbitrate in a foreign court does not limit a local courts jurisdiction to look into the formed contract, and it is clear that such limitations are in violation of UN Charters principles of sovereign equality, principle of sovereign non intervention within domestic jurisdiction, principle of self determination rights,” read the statement.

Shukoor told Haveeru that if the case could be dealt with by the Maldivian courts, the process would become much easier.

However, she also expressed her confidence that government would be successful in the arbitration case regarding the Airport Development Charge, which was file by GMR in Singapore.

“We can win the case at the Singapore Arbitration even by biding our time. It is quite certain,” she told Haveeru.

The original agreement, argued Azima, was drafted under UK law although both sides agreed to settle any disputes through third party arbitration.

Arbitration

Third party arbitration is often used in order to gain impartial decisions from international experts whilst avoiding the uncertainties and potential limitations of local courts.

One of the world’s leading arbitration companies, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) gives a number of examples of why Singapore is frequently chosen for international arbitration.

Number one in its list is the country’s strong reputation for neutrality, currently placed fifth in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, behind New Zealand, Denmark, Finland and Sweden

The Maldives is currently placed 134th in this list alongside Eritrea, Pakistan, and Sierra Leone.

The Maldives judicial system has also faced issues regarding its political independence since the adoption of the 2008 constitution.

A recent report by the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) said that “different sections of the judiciary have failed to become fully independent and still lack adequate expertise.”

“According to testimonies from members of the judiciary met by the FIDH team in Male’, under the successive administrations, no political party has actually ever shown any willingness to establish an independent judiciary since each seems to benefit from the existing system,” said the report.

“Moreover, the judiciary is allegedly under the influence of the business sector. For instance, the member of the JSC appointed by the Majlis is also one of the main business tycoon of the country. His presence in the body overseeing the conduct of judges, as well as the general pressure imposed upon the business sector on the judiciary, has therefore been subjected to controversy,” it concluded.

Both civil society groups as well as the current government have acknowledged the need for stronger independent institutions in the country.

President of the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) Hassan Luthfee told local media yesterday that one of its three cases regarding the GMR deal was nearing completion.

Luthfee, who has recently questioned the ability of the ACC to fulfil its mandate, told Minivan News last week that a high profile case such as this was not easy for the institution to finish which was likely to result in delays.

“Even an international organization such as the International Finance Corporation (IFC) had provided expertise in this case. So when such an allegation of a major criminal offence has been made we must probe the matter quite extensively. This is by far the most high profile and sensitive case. So we must be certain,” he told Haveeru yesterday.

The IFC was forced to defend itself this week after being described by senior cabinet figures as “irresponsible and negligent” during the INIA bidding process.

Shukoor had said last week that as long as the agreement between GMR and the government is not invalidated, the agreement would be “legally binding” despite a “majority of the people” who wish to “terminate the agreement immediately”.

She also expressed the government’s concern about the effect on investor confidence that may result if the agreement was terminated.

Independent MP Mohamed Nasheed today told local media that, despite indicating its willingness to do so, the Majlis had not at present become a party to the 1958 New York Arbitration Convention which deals with the recognition and enforcement of arbitration awards.

Nasheed argued that the Maldivian constitution requires citizens to act in accordance with international conventions which have been backed by domestic legislation.

He added, however, that the Maldives’ Arbitration Act was still in the committee stage.

Nasheed was not responding to calls at the time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Government employs Baroness Scotland to challenge legality of “unfair”, “biased” Commonwealth intervention

President Mohamed Waheed’s government spent £75,000 (MVR 1.81 million) on advice from former UK Attorney General and member of the House of Lords, Baroness Patricia Scotland, in a bid to challenge the Commonwealth’s “biased” stance on the Maldives.

The terms of reference document for the contract, obtained by Minivan News, is dated May 28, 2012 and is signed by both Scotland and the Maldives’ Deputy Attorney General, Aishath Bisham.  It also carries the official stamp of the Attorney General’s Office.

The Maldives was suspended from the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) – the Commonwealth’s democracy and human rights arm – and placed on its formal agenda after former President Mohamed Nasheed alleged that his resignation on February 7 had taken place under duress.  Nasheed contended he was forced out of office amid a mutiny by police and armed forces, orchestrated by former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and funded by several local wealthy resort businessmen.

CMAG swiftly challenged the impartiality of the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) established by incoming President Mohamed Waheed to examine the circumstances of his own succession, and called on Waheed to hold early elections to restore the country’s democratic legitimacy.

After a number of countries – including the UK and EU – backed the Commonwealth’s stance, the government was pressured into reforming the CNI to include a member of Nasheed’s choosing and a retired judge from Singapore, GP Selvam. The reformed Commission is due to publish its findings in late August.

“The Maldives government is of the view that the Maldives has been placed on the [CMAG] agenda unfairly, and there is a general feeling that the Commonwealth and the CMAG view points are biased in favour of President Nasheed’s allegation of a coup,” the Attorney General’s office, stated in the terms of reference.

“The specific output expected from the assignment is a detailed legal opinion on whether the Maldives was unfairly placed on the CMAG agenda and whether this continuation of being on the agenda is unfair,” the document states. “In particular, the consultant will assess whether the CMAG had acted in contravention of its own mandate and powers and had demonstrated bias in their actions.”

The brief also calls for Baroness Scotland to “review the work of the Commonwealth Special Envoy Sir Don McKinnon and the staff of the Commonwealth Secretariat”.

The contract called for Scotland to spend four days in the Maldives to “review all necessary documentation as well as video footage of events that led to the resignation of President Mohamed Nasheed”, as well as meet “all important stakeholders” including the government coalition, “key figures in the opposition MDP”, Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid and his deputy Ahmed Nazim, the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM), Elections Commission, CNI, as well as UN Resident Coordinator Andrew Cox.

Both the UN Resident Coordinator and the MDP said they had not had any meeting with Scotland.

“I think I was away on leave at the time, but I am not sure if my office got an approach for a meeting or not,” said Cox.

Elections Commission President Faud Thaufeeq had not responded at time of press.

“We were not even aware of this woman; she never approached us,” said MDP Spokesperson MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor.

“Now we hear she was in the Maldives, probably staying in a fancy resort with somebody interesting likely footing the bill. I hope the House of Lords looks into this,” he added.

“It is very disturbing that a member of the House of Lords from an 800 year-old democracy would come to a little banana republic to stir up trouble in league with the plotters of a coup d’état.”

Speaking to local television station VTV, President’s Office Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza denied the allegations.

“It is not true that the government spent 75,000 pounds on a former British attorney general. It is part of the lies that the Maldivian Democratic Party is spreading,” Riza was reported as stating in Haama Daily.

President’s Office Spokesperson Masood Imad meanwhile told Minivan News “I think that case was handled by [President Waheed’s Special Advisor] Dr Hassan Saeed.”

“[Baroness Scotland] did consult with us during the time CMAG was pressuring us, and we sought legal advice as to how to proceed,” Masood added.

Dr Saeed and Attorney General Azima Shukoor had not responded at time of press.

Minivan News is also awaiting a response from the Commonwealth Secretariat.

Finance regulation violation

The leaked document also includes a letter in Dhivehi sent from the Attorney General’s office to Finance Minister Abdulla Jihad requesting authorisation for Baroness Scotland’s “unprecedented work/expense” following her visit to the Maldives.

“There was no contract made. With this letter we ask if attached terms of reference are sufficient as a contract,” the AG’s office writes.

“This is in violation of the Public Finance Regulations of 11 February 2009, especially sections 8.21, 8.22 and 8.34 where consultancy work needs to assigned on the basis of a contract with specific terms agreed on matter listed in section 8.22 of the regulations,” observed former Maldives Foreign Minister, Dr Ahmed Shaheed.

Regulation 8.22 states that any award of work to be done for the government must be assigned after signing a mutually agreed contract, while regulation 8.21, concerning ’emergency work’, states that such shall only be assigned “after signing a mutually agreed contract stipulating the price and quality of work to be done”.

Furthermore, said Dr Shaheed, “a simple reading of the [Commonwealth’s] Millbrook Action Programme (1995) and the augmentation of that at Perth in 2011 will make it clear that CMAG can list countries on its agenda when the Ministers feel there are violations of the constitution. So it is a fairly straightforward, and clearly not worth 75,000 pounds.”

The bill for Baroness Scotland’s legal services comes at a time the Maldives is grappling with a crippling budget deficit of 27 percent, a foreign currency shortage, plummeting investor confidence, spiraling expenditure, and a drop off in foreign aid.

Story breaks in UK press

Baroness Scotland came under fire in the UK press after the story emerged in the Daily Mail. The Mail established that the peer and former Attorney General had not listed the payment from the Maldives on the House of Lords’ register of members’ interests.

“Her entry says she has set up a firm to provide ‘private consultancy services’ but says it is ‘not trading at present’,” the Daily Mail reported.

In a statement, Baroness Scotland confirmed she had been “instructed by the Attorney General of the Maldives to give legal advice”, and slammed the leak of the terms of reference and “all communications passing between myself and the Attorney General, whether written or oral, pertaining to the nature and extent of that advice, as confidential and legally privileged.”

She additionally claimed to have been approached by both the government and the opposition (MDP), and said she had accepted an invitation to chair a roundtable “at which all parties are to be invited.”

“I am a senior barrister with specific expertise in the area of constitutional law, criminal and civil law reform, and am skilled in mediation,” she explained.

Baroness Scotland was previously scrutinised by the UK press in 2009 after she was found to have been employing an illegal immigrant as a housekeeper in her London home.

As the story emerged, MPs from the UK’s Conservative Party – which has long backed Nasheed and the MDP – seized the opportunity to attack the former UK Labour Party Cabinet Minister.

Conservative MP Karen Lumley told the Daily Mail that is was “disgusting that a former British attorney-general should take a well-paid job advising the new regime, which has no democratic mandate. President Nasheed was overthrown in a coup and the Maldives is now very unstable. Many of my friends there have been arrested by the new regime.”

Conservative MP John Glen told the paper that Baroness Scotland should “hang her head in shame”.

“What happened in the Maldives was a military coup,” he said, adding that it was “outrageous” that the former AG should be “advising a regime responsible for ousting a democratically-elected president.”

Former Maldives High Commissioner to the UK, Dr Farahanaz Faizal, described the government’s employment of Baroness Scotland as “absolutely shocking. If the government wanted legal advice to support the AG’s Office, the proper way is to request the UK government bilaterally.”

“To think that someone of her calibre would undertake an assignment to check if Foreign Ministers of Australia, Canada, Bangladesh, Jamaica, and others of CMAG had acted against their mandate is disgraceful,” Dr Faizal said.
Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Attorney General expresses doubt over legality of former govt’s property deals

Attorney General Azima Shukoor has expressed doubt over the legality of the privatisation of state property that took place under the last government.

Talking last night on DhiTV, the Attorney General said that the correct legal processes had not been followed.

“We have noted that when the state properties had been transferred, no detailed list or opening balance sheet had been created. And these properties have been leased to other parties or councils in the absence of any legal guidelines,” Shukoor said.

“That’s why the Auditor General is involved in the process of transference of state property from one entity to another. But that role had been bypassed.”

The Attorney General informed DhiTV that her office, as well as the Anti-Corruption Commission would be investigating. Regarding the GMR airport deal, she said that a decision had not yet been made.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

President returns thalassemia bill for reconsideration

President Mohamed Nasheed has vetoed legislation on thalassemia control passed by parliament last month and returned the bill for reconsideration.

According to the President’s Office, the Attorney General identified legal issues in the enactment of the law and recommended amendments to allow thalassemia patients to be covered under the National Health Insurance Scheme Act.

President Nasheed sent a letter to Speaker Abdulla Shahid containing the Attorney General’s legal advice and issues identified for amendment.

The President however ratified the Maldives Civil Aviation Authority bill passed by parliament on December 27. The new institution will be tasked with regulating domestic air travel and establish mechanisms to ensure safety in the air.

The Civil Aviation Authority becomes an independent entity outside the civil service with legal status and powers to enforce the Act. While a cabinet minister is to oversee the authority, its five-member board of directors would be appointed by the President.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MATI sues as government seeks Supreme Court legal counsel on spas, pork and alcohol

The government has asked the Supreme Court for a “consultative opinion” on the legality of spa operations and sale of pork and alcohol in resorts, claiming that legal clarity is needed to properly address the current controversy involving Islam and the tourism industry.

The government last week ordered resorts to shut down their spa operations, and announced it was considering a ban on pork and alcohol. The announcements were made in response to five demands made during a demonstration organised by a coalition of NGOs and opposition parties on December 23 to ‘Defend Islam.’

Maldives Association of Tourism Industry (MATI) meanwhile filed a case at the Civil Court yesterday challenging the Tourism Ministry’s order to shut down massage parlors and health spas in resorts.

Speaking to local media, Attorney General Abdulla Muiz said, “We believe that the people have expressed genuine concerns over the circular issued by the Tourism Ministry ordering resorts to close down their spas.

“Investors will have confidence when they are clear of the judiciary’s position on these issues.”

The Attorney General was unavailable for comment at time of press.

Although the import of alcohol and pork to the Maldives is allowed under a regulation, there is no regulation or set of guidelines specific to spa operations in resorts.

The State, however, claims that Article 15(a2) of the Goods and Services Tax Act clearly stipulates that spas are legally accepted in the Maldives as tourism goods.

Under the article, “goods and services supplied by diving schools, shops, spas, water sports facilities and any other such facilities being operated….at tourist resorts, tourist hotels, tourist guest houses, picnic islands, tourist vessels and yacht marinas authorised by the Tourism Ministry” are tourism goods.

Officials at the Supreme Court and President’s Office were unavailable for comment today.

MATI Secretary General Sim Ibrahim Mohamed was unable to comment on the case in the Civil Court, but said that the government’s decision had incurred “irrevocable damage” to the tourism industry and had become a “legal issue to which we are trying to find legal clarity.”

“We are trying in the lower courts while the government has filed at the Supreme Court to see what this is about. We need to know whether the Maldives can legally provide tourism services within the confines of the constitution,” he explained. “A lot is riding on the court verdicts.”

Sim conceded that the verdicts would not close the discussion. “As to whether the public or the opposition parties will accept the verdict is not for us to say. They will have to weigh their own agendas against what is good for the economy at the moment,” he said.

Former Attorney General and lawyer representing MATI, Aishath Azima Shukoor, said the case addressed two key points: that the government’s decision to close the spas violates the contracts it holds with resort operators, and that the timing is unconstitutional.

Shukoor pointed out that the contracts between the government and resort operators include a clause entitling the operators to the peaceful operation of land leased. She maintained that the government had violated the agreement by closing operations without presenting any substantial reports, investigation or evidence justifying the action.

MATI has also applied for an injunction. If granted, resort spas would be allowed to operate until the court case is concluded.

Shukoor said MATI was hoping for a hearing on Wednesday, January 4, but that nothing has been confirmed.

Complaints that the tourism industry compromises the Maldives’ status as a 100 percent Muslim nation have brewed for some time, but the protests in “defense of Islam” in December 2011 threw officials into the crucible of religion, politics and tourism currently before higher and lower courts.

Article 10 of the Maldivian constitution states that “Islam shall be one of the basis of all the laws of the Maldives” and prohibits the enactment of any laws “contrary to any tenet of Islam”.

Although members of the coalition defending Islam originally called for the closure of “the spas and massage parlors and such places where prostitution is conducted”, as well as a reversal of a policy which permits the sale of alcohol on areas declared “uninhabited islands” – such as in Addu City and Fuvahmulah were the government plans to build city hotels – the government’s all-or-nothing response has driven those members to alter their position.

After telling a gathering of thousands that “The only road we must follow is based on Allah’s callings,” Jumhoree Party Leader and tourism tycoon Gasim Ibrahim sued the government when it closed spa operations in five of his Villa Hotels resorts over allegations of prostitution.

Upon realising that the protests had prompted the UK to issue a travel advisory, and after refusing to answer an inquiry about rumors that Taliban members had entered the country to participate in the protest, religious Adhaalath Party said it “calls on the international community to visit Maldives without any fear, assures that there is no terrorism in the Maldives, and that it will never give space to terrorism in this country.”

The statement further assures the international community that Maldivians are capable of protecting tourists.

Speaking to Minivan News today, Adhaalath Party chief spokesperson Sheik Mohamed Shaheem Ali Saeed did not wish to comment on an ongoing court case but called on the government to take national decisions slowly.

“Maldivian people have no problem with the tourism industry. The Maldives is the best country in the Islamic world with dealing with non-Muslims. Doctors, teachers, all are living here in Maldives and we have nothing against them. The thing is social problems are increasing daily, and people are concerned,” he said.

Minivan News asked whether it was worth risking the tourism industry in the name of Islam.

“Everyone knows the tourism industry is the backbone of our national economy. That’s why no one wants to damage any side of the tourism industry in the Maldives. I am 100 percent sure there is no prostitution in the tourism industry here. It is very professional, it is the most famous tourism industry in the world and is accepted by the international community. Why would we want to attack ourselves?”

Shaheem recommended that the industry foster alcohol-free resorts to develop the nation’s economy and add variety to the tourism sector. “In 2011 there was a project with a company from Dubai trying to do an alcohol-free resort. And I know there are resorts not selling pork,” he observed.

Minivan News asked whether it was acceptable for the government to support resorts which do sell alcohol and pork.

“This is a religious issue, and it is in the Supreme Court, so I can’t talk about this issue,” Shaheem said, adding that he could not say whether the court verdicts would settle the matter.

The Tourism Ministry announced earlier this week that it was considering revising the ban on spa operations in resorts.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court backs Gahdhoo Court order for AG representative to appear

The High Court has backed a summon chit sent by Gaafu Dhaalu Gahdhoo Court to the Attorney General Abdulla Muiz.

Gadhoo court ordered AG Muiz to appear on December 11, stating that he had failed to send a representative from the Attorney General’s Office (AG) concerning a case filed by a person claiming state pension for a 13 year tenure at a 100 percent state owned company.

The AG however appealed the case in High Court.

High Court noted that the Gadhoo court had sent four notices to the AG requesting to send a representative, prior to the summon chit sent directly to AG Muiz on December 4.

According to the High Court, a recipient of the summon chit must appear in court,  however noted that the AG is exempted, under the article 133 (c) of the constitution.

The article 133 (c) states, “The Attorney General has the right of audience in all courts of the Maldives, and the State shall be represented in all courts by the Attorney General or by a person delegated by him, except for those matters deemed to be the 49responsibility of the Prosecutor General in this constitution”.

Therefore the court decided that the Gadhoo court’s summon chit cannot be terminated as it does not “force” the AG to appear adding that he holds the right to send in a representative.

According to the local media, the Gahdhoo Court Judge claimed that AG Muiz was  guilty of contempt of court and requested the Prosecutor General to take action against him, and said that no exemption would be made if Muiz defied the summons.

The court has the authority sentence a person to up to three months for contempt of court.

Attorney General Muiz was not responding to calls at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)