Tag: Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed

Opposition MP files four misconduct cases against Judge Abdulla Mohamed

Opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor has filed four cases of judicial-misconduct against the former Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed at the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).

The MDP in a statement (dhivehi) published on its official website claimed that the four cases filed against the judge had been based upon his misconduct during Hamid’s recent criminal trial.

Last October, Judge Abdulla Mohamed handed Hamid a six-month imprisonment sentence for his failure to comply with court summons in a case in which he faced charges of refusing to cooperate with the police.

However, Hamid’s conviction was quashed on appeal by the High Court, which held that the Criminal Court had not followed the established procedures in attempting to summon the MP to the court.

The High Court, in overturning the case, also reiterated that the Parliamentary Privileges Act at the time of Criminal Court’s issuance of the guilty verdict did not allow an MP to be summoned to court while parliament was in session.

In late November, the Supreme Court annulled several articles of the Privileges Act, including the clause that required all MPs – regardless of criminal conviction – to be present during votes. The Supreme Court’s move had prompted Hamid’s relocation from house arrest to Maafushi jail.

In the misconduct cases filed at the JSC – the state’s judicial watchdog responsible for disciplining judges – the Henveiru-South constituency MP accused Abdulla Mohamed of displaying outright rudeness towards him, stereotyping him as a criminal, publicly defaming him, and attempting to “politically” destroy him.

The MDP’s statement meanwhile added that Hamid intends to file more cases concerning the judges alleged misdemeanors,  including the fact that he had refused to provide a copy of the arrest warrant issued against Hamid.

Ghafoor was quoted in the statement claiming that he had only been able to receive the arrest warrant three day after the expiry of the warrant.

He also accused of the Judge of assisting the police to publicly broadcast his photograph in the media and implying him as a hard-lined criminal on the loose.

Controversies surrounding Judge Abdulla Mohamed

Shortly after the case, the JSC announced the transfer of Judge Abdulla from his position as Chief Judge of Criminal Court to the Chief Judge of the Drug Court as part of the commission’s shuffling of nine superior court judges.

In January 2012 Judge Abdulla was taken into military detention during the final days of former President Mohamed Nasheed’s administration after then-Home Minister Hassan Afeef had accused him of “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist”.

Nasheed’s administration listed 14 cases of judicial misconduct concerning the judge that included obstruction of police duty – including withholding warrants for up to four days, ordering police to conduct unlawful investigations, disregarding precedents set forth by higher courts, deliberately holding up cases involving then-opposition figures, and barring media from corruption trials.

He was also accused by the Nasheed government of releasing of suspects detained for serious crimes “without a single hearing” and maintaining “suspicious ties” with family members of convicts sentenced for dangerous crimes.

The controversial judge was also thrust into the media limelight after he released a murder suspect “in the name of holding the health minister accountable”. The suspect later went on to kill a witness to the case.

The JSC earlier in November 2011 found Judge Abdulla guilty of violating the Judges Code of Ethics by making a politically biased statement in an interview he gave to private broadcaster DhiTV.

However, the JSC’s attempt to take action against him ended in vain after the Civil Court overruled the decision – later supported by the High Court.

Minivan News was unable to get a confirmation from the JSC regarding Hamid’s case – Secretary General Abu Bakuru was not responding to calls at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Criminal Court warns MP Ghafoor of trial in absentia

The Criminal Court has warned Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor that it will try him absentia if he fails to attend a court hearing scheduled for 1:30pm on Thursday.

Ghafoor took refuge inside the People’s Majlis on Thursday (October 24) following several police attempts to arrest him and present him at the Criminal Court. He is being tried for refusal to provide a urine sample – an offense that carries a one year jail sentence and could disqualify him from his parliamentary seat.

“The Criminal Court orders Hamid Abdul Gafoor of H. Shady Corner, Malé to attend court at 13:00 on 31 October 2013. If Hamid Abdul Gafoor is not present at the court at the specified date and time, we inform him we will continue with and conclude the above trial in absentia as per Article 30 (a) of the Regulations on court summons,” a statement issued by the Criminal Court today said.

Criminal Court Chief Justice Abdulla Mohamed is presiding over the case.

Ghafoor has accused the criminal court of a “politically motivated personal hunt” to influence the MDP and its ally Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party’s simple majority in parliament. Ghafoor is also being tried separately for possession of alcohol.

The MP has pleaded innocent at the two hearings that have taken place so far. A third hearing was scheduled for October 23 at 9:00 am. But Ghafoor’s lawyers told the Criminal Court a day in advance that the MP could not attend due to a parliamentary proceedings scheduled at the time.

Article 11 of the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act sates that an MP cannot be summoned to court during Majlis sittings or parliamentary committee hearings.

However, the Criminal Court did not respond to the letter. Instead, it scheduled a new hearing for 1:00pm on October 24 and issued a court warrant ordering police to arrest Ghafoor and present him at court. The MP took refuge inside the Majlis and has not left parliament premises since.

The Criminal Court scheduled a second hearing on Monday October 28 at 9:00am and issued new arrest warrant. The police wrote to Speaker Abdulla Shahid to turn Ghafoor over, but Shahid cited Article 11 of the Parliamentary Privileges and Powers Act and said Ghafoor could not be summoned to court during Majlis hours.

Speaker obliged to protect MPs, says Majlis

Ghafoor’s lawyer Hussein Shameem said his client would appeal the Criminal Court’s “unlawful” arrest warrants at the High Court, saying that the Criminal Court had not followed due process.

Shameem also argued the state had no grounds to prosecute Ghafoor as there was no legal evidence of the police having requested a urine sample. According to the Drug Act, the police are to ask for a urine sample in writing and obtain a signature from the accused if they refuse to provide a sample, he claimed.

Shameem has written to Prosecutor General (PG) Ahmed Muizz to review the case due to “procedural issues” and to carry out the PG’s duty to uphold the constitutional order and the law as per Article 223 of the constitution by taking action against the courts for issuing unlawful summons.

Ghafoor told Minivan News on Sunday that he was willing to stay inside the Majlis premises “until the judiciary is destroyed.”

“Now I know how helpless ordinary citizens are. I feel like I’m being hunted by a corrupt judiciary. You don’t feel good when you are being singled out. You feel like prey. You can never relax,” Ghafoor said.

The MDP has condemned the judiciary’s attempts to “purge” its MPs. On Thursday (October 24), the Supreme Court, in a controversial ruling, stripped MDP MP Ali Azim and DRP MP Mohamed Nashiz of their parliamentary seats over decreed debt.

Eight other MDP MPs are currently being investigated for contempt of court and disobedience to order. MP Abdulla Jabir is also being tried for refusal to provide a urine sample and possession of alcohol.

Meanwhile, former Attorney General Azima Shakoor has criticized Majlis Speaker Abdulla Shahid for allegedly helping MPs evade courts by harboring those who had committed criminal acts inside the Majlis building. Azima was voted out of office in a no confidence motion on Tuesday.

A Majlis secretariat statement has refuted the allegations, arguing that the speaker is constitutionally obliged to protect MPs.

“The People’s Majlis Speaker assures all the citizens he will uphold the rights and privileges enshrined in the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act for all Members of Parliament without any political bias,” it said.

The Inter Parliamentary Union (IPU) has expressed alarm over the prosecution of MPs and is to send an urgent IPU delegation to the Maldives.

“I propose that an IPU delegation returns urgently to the Maldives to discuss and agree with the relevant authorities and stakeholders effective steps to ensure that the parliament can fully discharge its legislative and oversight functions freely and independently and that its members can do their work unhindered, without fear of intimidation and harassment or attack on their physical integrity,” said the Secretary General Anders B. Johnsson.

MDP MP Ahmed Easa has submitted an amendment to the Drug Act to reduce the jail time for refusal to provide a urine sample from one year to 15 days. Easa said the specific article in the Drug Act was being used unfairly for politically motivated reasons.

Speaking to local media, the National Drug Agency’s CEO Ahmed Shahid spoke against the amendment, claiming that reducing the sentence for refusal to provide urine would obstruct identifying drug abusers and providing treatment for drug abuse.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC rejects complaint by High Court judges against Chief Judge Ahmed Shareef

The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has rejected the case submitted by eight members of the High Court against Chief Judge Ahmed Shareef over his suspension of former President Mohamed Nasheed’s trial in the Hulhumale Magistrate Court.

Last Wednesday eight of the High Court’s nine-member bench filed the case claiming that the chief judge had issued the stay order without registering the case, had failed to assign a case number to the case, and had not discussed the matter with the other judges.

The judges also accused the chief judge of taking the matter into his own hands by not discussing the matter with them before issuing the order.

A spokesperson from the JSC confirmed to Minivan News at the time that the commission had received a “letter” from the eight judges regarding Judge Shareef.

A High Court official denied the allegations made by the judges, stating that the case concerning the stay order was registered at the court the previous week and that the former President’s legal team had paid the charges the following day.  He also added that the order was issued after the court had received the payment.

During a meeting held on Thursday the JSC decided to not look into the case, claiming that a conflict of interest existed in the commission probing the matter, as it had appointed the three member judges panel to the Hulhumale Magistrate Court. The court is currently hearing all trials concerning the arrest of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed.

The members of the judicial watchdog also came to the conclusion that the case filed by the eight judges included issues concerning High Court procedure, which it claimed could only be looked into after the Supreme Court made a decision regarding the matter.

Six of the 10-member commission were reportedly against looking into the case while only one member was voted in favour, according to local media.

The High Court Chief Judge issued the injunction after the Hulhumale Magistrate Court rejected a request by former President Nasheed’s legal team to defer his trial until the end of the scheduled presidential elections, despite no objection from the state prosecutors.

The former president – who stands charged of unlawfully detaining the Chief Judge of Criminal Court during his last days in power in January 2012 – appealed the decision at the High Court while also contesting that the JSC had appointed the panel of judges to the magistrate court arbitrarily.

Following the appeal, the High Court granted a stay order ordering the magistrate court to halt Nasheed’s trial until it decided on the legitimacy of the panel of judges appointed to examine his case. The stay order was signed by Chief Judge Ahmed Shareef, and stated that the court was of the view that Nasheed’s ongoing trial must come to a halt until the legitimacy of the bench was established.

Concerns

Following the filing of the case at the JSC against Chief Judge Ahmed Shareef, member of former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team Hassan Latheef has expressed his concern as to whether JSC would look into the matter impartially and transparently.

Speaking during an opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) rally held on Wednesday evening, Latheef – who was the minister for human resources, youth and sports during Nasheed’ presidency –  argued that the decision by the Chief Judge of High Court regarding the stay order was made in accordance with the High Court’s normal procedures.

Latheef claimed that based on the documents published at the high court website, out of the 15 stay orders issued in 2012 by the High Court in 2012, 10 stay orders had been signed by just one High Court judge.

“The Hulhumale Magistrate Court which is hearing the case of President Nasheed was ordered to be suspended by High Court in according to its usual practice in such cases. The case was registered at the High Court and even before there were instances were stay orders had been issued that had only one signature,” Latheef said.

Latheef also dismissed the claims that the case had not been registered at the court.

“We filed the case on March 31. The stay order was issued the afternoon of the following day, after we had even paid the charges for filing the case in the court,” he contended. “Another question is who will look into the case impartially – all the other judges have filed this case at the JSC against Chief Judge Shareef. Eight judges are on one side while the chief judge is on the other side. These are new issues which have come out of the case.”

He noted that this was the first time in Maldivian legal history where an entire panel of judges had teamed up against the chief judge following a decision on a case.

JSC under heavy scrutiny

The JSC has come under heavy scrutiny over its appointment of the panel of the judges to Hulhumale Magistrate Court to hear cases concerning the arrest of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed – which several lawyers and members of the JSC itself have claimed exceeded the JSC’s mandate.

Among the JSC’s critics include JSC member Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman – the member appointed from among the public.  Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman previously claimed the JSC had arbitrarily appointed three magistrates from courts across the Maldives to Nasheed’s case after dismissing the three names first submitted to the commission by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid – who is also a member of the JSC – stated that he believed that the judicial watchdog had acted unconstitutionally in assigning magistrates to a particular case.

“In deciding upon the bench, the JSC did follow its rules of procedures. As in, it was voted upon in an official meeting and six of the seven members in attendance voted on the matter. The seventh member being the chair, does not vote in matters,” Shahid explained.

Other critics included United Nations Special Rapporteur (UNSR) on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, who also said the appointment was carried out arbitrarily.

“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, responding to questions from media after delivering her statement in February.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Hulhumale Magistrate Court suspends all trials concerning arrest of judge following High Court order

The Hulhumale Magistrate Court  has suspended all trials concerned the detention of Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed in 2012, following the High Court’s order yesterday to suspend the trial against former President Mohamed Nasheed.

Meanwhile eight High Court judges today submitted a case to the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) against the Chief Judge of the High Court.

The High Court on Sunday ordered the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court to halt President Nasheed’s trial until it determined the legitimacy of the panel of judges appointed to examine his case. The stay order signed by Judge Ahmed Shareef of the High Court stated that the court was of the view that Nasheed’s ongoing trial must come to a halt until the legitimacy of the bench was established.

Following the resumption of the trials after a Supreme Court battle between President Nasheed’s legal team and the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) over the legitimacy of Hulhumale Magistrate Court – which ended in favour of JSC after Supreme Court declared the court legitimate – Nasheed’s legal team again filed a case at the High Court requesting that it look into the legitimacy of the appointment of the three member judges panel.

The decision by the Hulhumale Magistrate Court means trials of former Defense Minister Tholthath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu, former Chief of Defence Force retired Major General Moosa Ali Jaleel, former Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) Male Area Commander retired Brigadier General Ibrahim Mohamed Didi and former MNDF Operations Director Colonel Mohamed Ziyad’s will be suspended until the High Court comes to a decision on the matter – or the Supreme Court takes over the case, as it did following the previous injunction.

An official from the magistrate court was quoted in local media as stating that the suspension of the trials came because the case that is currently being heard in the High Court is closely linked to all cases.

At the time of suspension of the trials, all defendants including Nasheed had denied the charges levied against them.

Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed was taken into military detention in January 2012, following a request made by then Home Minister Hassan Afeef to then Defense Minister Tholthath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu.

Justifying the arrest, former Home Minister Afeef claimed that the judge had taken the entire criminal justice system in his fist which posed threats to the country’s national security.

All the individuals are facing the same charge under section 81 of the Penal Code – the offence of “arbitrarily arresting and detaining an innocent person”.

Section 81 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. Persons 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”.

The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) has come under heavy scrutiny over its appointment of the panel of the judges – which several lawyers and members of JSC itself have claimed exceeded the JSC’s mandate.

Among the JSC’s critics include JSC member Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman – the member appointed from among the public.  Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman previously claimed the JSC had arbitrarily appointed three magistrates from courts across the Maldives to Nasheed’s case after dismissing the three names first submitted to the commission by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

“Moosa Naseem (from the Hulhumale’ Court) initially submitted names of three magistrates, including himself. This means that he had taken responsibility for overseeing this case. Now once a judge assumes responsibility for a case, the JSC does not have the power to remove him from the case,” Sheikh Rahman explained. “However, the JSC did remove him from the case, and appointed three other magistrates of their choice.”

Sheikh Rahman stated that the commission had referred to Articles 48 to 51 of the Judge’s Act as justification.

“But then I note here that the JSC breached Article 48 itself. They did not gather any information as per this article. They stated that it was due to the large amount of paperwork that needs to be researched that they are appointing a panel. However, this is not reason enough to appoint a bench,” he said.

Rahman further stated that the judicial watchdog body was highly politicised, and openly attempting to eliminate former President Nasheed from contesting the presidential elections.

Meanwhile, Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid – who is also a member of the JSC – stated that he believed that the judicial watchdog had acted unconstitutionally in assigning magistrates to a particular case.

“In deciding upon the bench, the JSC did follow its rules of procedures. As in, it was voted upon in an official meeting and six of the seven members in attendance voted on the matter. The seventh member being the chair, does not vote in matters,” Shahid explained.

“However, whether it is within the commission’s mandate to appoint a panel of judges in this manner is an issue which raised doubt in the minds of more than one of my fellow members,” he added.

Other critics included United Nations Special Rapporteur (UNSR) on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, who also said the appointment was carried out arbitrarily.

“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, responding to questions from media after delivering her statement in February.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court orders halt to Nasheed’s trial pending decision on legitimacy of judge panel

The High Court has ordered the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court to halt former President Mohamed Nasheed’s trial until it decides on the legitimacy of the panel of judges appointed to examine his case.

Nasheed is being tried in the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court for his controversial detention of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

The High Court has previously issued an injunction halting the case following the appeal made by Nasheed’s legal team contesting the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court itself.

However, the Supreme Court took over the case from High Court and declared that the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was formed in accordance to the law.

After the trial resumed, Nasheed’s lawyers again made a request to the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court to delay the trial until the end of the scheduled presidential elections in 2013.

At the same hearing, the state prosecutors expressed no objections to the team’s request to delay the trial until the presidential elections, scheduled for September.

However, the magistrate court refused to delay the trial until the end of the elections, instead deferring the trial for a period of four weeks. The hearing was scheduled for April 4.

Nasheed’s legal team subsequently appealed the Magistrate Court’s decision not to grant a deferral until after the elections, and also filed a case regarding the legitimacy of the bench.

The High Court in the new stay order issued today and signed by Judge Ahmed Shareef, stated that the court was of the view that Nasheed’s ongoing trial must come to a halt until the legitimacy of the bench was established.

The decision – if not quashed by Supreme Court – means that Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court’s scheduled hearing of the trial set to take place on April 4 will be cancelled.

An official from the Judiciary Media Unit was earlier quoted in the local media as stating that a summoning chit had been sent to Nasheed, and that the next hearing will see the confessions of witnesses presented by the prosecution.

The decision comes at a time when the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) has come under heavy scrutiny over its appointment of the panel of the judges – which several lawyers and members of JSC itself have claimed exceeded the JSC’s mandate.

Among the JSC’s critics include JSC member Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman – the member appointed from among the public.  Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman previously claimed the JSC had arbitrarily appointed three magistrates from courts across the Maldives to Nasheed’s case after dismissing the three names first submitted to the commission by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

“Moosa Naseem (from the Hulhumale’ Court) initially submitted names of three magistrates, including himself. This means that he had taken responsibility for overseeing this case. Now once a judge assumes responsibility for a case, the JSC does not have the power to remove him from the case,” Sheikh Rahman explained. “However, the JSC did remove him from the case, and appointed three other magistrates of their choice.”

Sheikh Rahman stated that the commission had referred to Articles 48 to 51 of the Judge’s Act as justification.

“But then I note here that the JSC breached Article 48 itself. They did not gather any information as per this article. They stated that it was due to the large amount of paperwork that needs to be researched that they are appointing a panel. However, this is not reason enough to appoint a bench,” he said.

Rahman further stated that the judicial watchdog body was highly politicised, and openly attempting to eliminate former President Nasheed from contesting the presidential elections.

Meanwhile, Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid – who is also a member of the JSC – stated that he believed that the judicial watchdog had acted unconstitutionally in assigning magistrates to a particular case.

“In deciding upon the bench, the JSC did follow its rules of procedures. As in, it was voted upon in an official meeting and six of the seven members in attendance voted on the matter. The seventh member being the chair, does not vote in matters,” Shahid explained.

“However, whether it is within the commission’s mandate to appoint a panel of judges in this manner is an issue which raised doubt in the minds of more than one of my fellow members,” he added.

Other critics included United Nations Special Rapporteur (UNSR) on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, who also said the appointment was carried out arbitrarily.

“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, responding to questions from media after delivering her statement in February.

Meanwhile, the UK’s Bar Human Rights Committee (BHRC) – that has observed the ongoing trial of the former President – in its report concluded that charges against Nasheed appeared to be a politically motivated attempt to bar the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) candidate from the 2013 presidential election.

Speaking to Minivan News previously, Kirsty Brimelow QC, one of three UK-based experts on former President Nasheed’s legal team, contended that the prosecution of his case before the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court fell “below international standards for fair trial procedure”.

She added that there remained a “strong argument” in the case that the prosecution of Nasheed was “not in the public interest”.

“It is a strong argument that a prosecution is not in the public interest. The currently constituted court comprises of judges who may be biased or have the appearance of bias. They should recuse themselves,” she argued at the time.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“We met Brigadier General Didi at MNDF Headquarters the night the judge was arrested”, police tell court

Two police witnesses presented to court by the prosecution against retired Brigadier General Ibrahim Mohamed Didi have said they met Didi inside the Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) Headquarters the night Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed was taken into military detention.

Ibrahim Didi is charged for the controversial military detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

Along with Didi, former President Mohamed Nasheed, his Defense Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu, former Chief of Defense Force retired Major General Moosa Ali Jaleel and Colonel Mohamed Ziyad are all facing the same charges, of arbitrarily detaining an innocent individual as stipulated in article 81 of the Penal Code.

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. Persons 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.”

Didi however denied the charges levied against him during the first hearing of the trial, contending that he should not be facing charges as an individual for an act carried out by the then Defence Ministry.

The former Brigadier General claimed that the charges levied against him by the state were unfair and raised question over the credibility of the witnesses presented by the state against him. He also argued that the arrest was made by the Defence Minister under the direct orders of the president, and that he had no role to play in it.

During the hearing of the trial held at Hulhumale Magistrate Court on Wednesday, two witnesses, Police Sergeant Hassan Irash and Police Lance Corporal Ibrahim Hameed, told the court that they had met the former Male Area Commander at Bandaara Koshi together with a group of police officers.

Sergeant Irash claimed that he and the group of police officers including Lance Corporal Hameed went to the MNDF headquarters on the order of former Police Superintendent Mohamed Jinah. He added that Didi met the group and had asked whether they were the police.

However, Lance Corporal Hameed claimed that he did not know whose order the group of police officers were following, when they were on their way to the MNDF headquarters on the night of February 6, 2012.

State prosecutors did not disclose what they were trying to prove through the witness statements given by the two police officers.

Prior to the witness statements, Didi’s defence lawyer Ismail Wisham took a procedural point contending that the two police officers was not required to be brought before the court to give evidence.

This, he said, was because neither of the two statements given by the two officers had anything to do with the arrest of the judge and therefore, their statements did not carry any weight.

Dismissing the point, State Prosecutor Aishath Fazna Ahmed contended that the defendant’s lawyer had not objected to the list of witnesses presented to the court during the first hearing.

She also argued that debate on witness statements would take place after all the witness statements had been made in court and added that the state wished to prove certain elements through a combination of multiple witness statements.

Deciding on the matter, the panel of judges concluded that every party under the constitution was entitled to submit as much evidences as they could, and that therefore the court had decided to take evidences from the two police officers in a bid to respect that constitutional right.

The court concluded the hearings announcing that another would be scheduled on March 31 (Sunday).

Judge Abdulla Mohamed was taken into military custody in January 2012 after the former Home Minister Hassan Afeef wrote to Defense Minister Tholhath asking him arrest the judge, stating that he posed a threat to both the national security of the country and a threat to the country’s criminal justice system.

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.

Didi was the Male Area Commander at the time the arrest took place.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed’s legal team files High Court case to defer trial until after elections

Former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team filed a case with the High Court today (March 24) regarding the deferment of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court criminal case until after the September presidential election.

Nasheed is facing criminal charges over the controversial detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed during the last days of his presidency.

Nasheed’s legal team previously requested the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court delay the trial until the end of the scheduled presidential elections in 2013, and in a separate request, asked the Hulhumale’ court for a delay in proceedings by four weeks, during the March 7 Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court hearing.

At the same hearing, state prosecutors said they did not object to delaying the trial until presidential elections scheduled for September this year are over.

The Hulhumale’ court dismissed the request to delay the trial until the end of the elections, but agreed to withhold it for four weeks, stating that the panel of judges by majority “had decided to proceed with the trial”.

Nasheed’s lawyers subsequently contested the decision, claiming that continuing the trial could compromise the rights of many people, arguing that Nasheed was the presidential candidate of the largest political party in the country, the MDP.

However, the court stated that Nasheed’s claim he was the presidential candidate of a political party lacked legal grounds to support it, as presidential candidates were decided by the Elections Commission after it opened the opportunity to file presidential candidates.

Filing of presidential candidates is expected to take place in July.

High Court case submission

Nasheed’s legal team submitted a case to the High Court at approximately 10:20 this morning (March 24) to defer the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court criminal case until after the September presidential election, MDP Spokesperson Imthiyaz ‘Inthi’ Fahmy told Minivan News.

“Now the court has to formally accept the case, which will happen at a later date,” stated Fahmy.

“We expect that prior to the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court hearing, the High Court should have a decision and will ask the lower court to halt the case,” he added.

Nasheed’s legal team confirmed with Minivan News that the case has been submitted to the High Court.

“This is not an appeal. We submitted a case to the High Court for the deferment of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court case until the election is over,” said one of Nasheed’s lawyers, Hifaan Hussain.

“The court accepted the documents, but we are waiting for the court to accept and register the case,” she explained.

Hussain explained a reply from the High Court will likely be issued within three days and once the case is accepted it should take about a month to complete.

She expects the High Court to grant the deferment of lower court’s case against Nasheed until the presidential election is over.

President Nasheed’s Spokesperson MP Mariya Didi is also confident the High Court will grant the deferment.

“The prosecution has said they have no objection to deferment of the trial until after the elections,” Didi stated.

“I don’t see any reason why the court should not grant deferment when the prosecutor has no objection to it,” she added.

Politicising  justice

The MDP maintain that the charges are a politically-motivated attempt to prevent Nasheed from contesting elections in September, and have condemned the former President’s repeated arrest on the court’s order by squads of masked special operations police.

Speaking during a party rally held earlier in March, President Nasheed stated that the four-week break granted by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court until the next hearing was an opportunity for state institutions to decide on the matter.

“Delaying trial for just four weeks has no meaning. There is no reason for it nor does it help anyone. We want the trial to be delayed till the elections are over. [The prosecution] gave one month and said that they did not object to further delays,” Nasheed told his supporters.

Nasheed said that it was very clear that charge of arresting the judge was not a charge against him alone, but several others as well.

He also warned that if the magistrate court issued a verdict that would bar him from contesting the elections, a lot of people would rise up against the decision and trigger a “very dangerous political insurgency”.

Didi also highlighted the large number of Maldivians continuing to support Nasheed, speaking with Minivan News today.

“It is clear that 46,000 Maldivians have decided President Nasheed is their presidential candidate. Our campaigns show that President Nasheed will win the elections with a clear majority.

“The coup has set us back not only with regard to democracy and human rights, but in regard to investor confidence and development.

“Our international development partners have also urged the government to take account of the wishes of the people and to hold an inclusive election with – as the European Union put it – the chosen candidate of MDP Mohamed Nasheed being able to contest the elections.

“We cannot waste another five years with a government that lacks a democratic mandate,” Didi declared.

Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court legitimacy questioned

During the early-March MDP rally, Nasheed also criticised the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) stating that the problem with Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was not just the panel of judges. He alleged that the JSC had formulated the bench and have now been forcing administrative staff of the court to do specific things to impact the trial.

Parliament’s Independent Commissions Oversight Committee has been investigating the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, specifically the appointment of judges by the JSC.

Deputy Speaker of Parliament Ahmed Nazim told local media on Friday (March 22) that a notice had been sent to Gasim Ibrahim – who is a Majlis-appointed JSC member and also the presidential candidate for Jumhoree Party (JP) – regarding a case to remove him from his JSC post.

The parliamentary committee summoned all members of the JSC to attend the committee on Wednesday (March 20) to face questions regarding the manner in which judges were appointed to the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench.

Another committee meeting is scheduled to take place tonight (March 24).

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, also raised concerns over the politicisation of the JSC during her investigative visit to the Maldives this February.

As part of a wider review of the Maldives justice system, Knaul claimed that the JSC – mandated with the appointment, transfer and removal of judges – was unable to perform its constitutional duty adequately in its current form.

As well as recommendations to address what she said were minimal levels of public “trust” in the nation’s judicial system, Knaul also addressed matters such as the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed.

Nasheed is currently facing trial for his detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court last year, charges he claims are politically motivated to prevent him from contesting presidential elections later this year.

Knaul maintained that the former president, like every other Maldivian citizen, should be guaranteed a free and independent trial.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Colonel Mohamed Ziyad denies charge of illegally arresting judge

Former Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) Head of Operations Directorate Colonel Mohamed Ziyad has denied the charge levied against him by the state over the former government’s detention of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, Abdulla Mohamed.

Colonel Mohamed Ziyad is charged for arresting the chief judge in January 2012, alongside former President Mohamed Nasheed, his Defense Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu, former Chief of Defense Force retired Major General Moosa Ali Jaleel and former MNDF Male Area Commander retired Brigadier General Ibrahim Didi.

All are facing charges under Article 81 of the Penal Code, for the offence of “arbitrarily arresting and detaining an innocent person”.

Article 81 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. Persons 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”.

During the hearing held at Hulhumale Magistrate Court on Monday, Colonel Ziyad denied the charges while his defence lawyer Mazlaan Rasheed raised two procedural points.

In the first procedural point, Ziyad’s lawyer informed the court that the Prosecutor General (PG)’s decision to press charges against his client while not pressing charges against the MNDF officers who actively took part in bringing the judge to custody violated the principle of fairness and equality.

In his second procedural point, Rasheed questioned the court as to how the state had decided on the innocence of Judge Abdulla.

State Prosecutor Aishath Fazna argued that following orders at the time from the Commander in Chief, President Mohamed Nasheed, Colonel Mohamed Ziyad as the Head of Directorate took part in the operation carried out by the MNDF in arresting the judge.

Responding to the charges, Ziyad’s lawyer contended that the charges lacked fairness and equality while Article 81 of the Penal Code – which the charges are based on – had “constitutional issues”.

He stated that the article conflicted with powers of the police to arrest a suspect of a crime. This, he explained would arise if a person is arrested and then later released by court, which would deem that his arrest was unlawful and all officers who took part in the arrest should be prosecuted.

The state in response argued that it was at the sole discretion of the Prosecutor General to decide on whether to press charges or not, and said that Ziyad had been charged over the extent of his involvement.

The prosecutor further claimed that it was Ziyad who had given the briefings to the officers before the arrest was made and had also requested two MNDF lawyers to see if the action could be legally defended.

The state attorney said that the reason for not pressing charges against officers who actively took part in the action was that those officials were obliged to follow orders and that the officers were not in a position to determine whether their orders were lawful or not.

She also posed several questions to the defendants, including on what charges the judge was arrested, why he was not brought before a court of law within 24 hours as stipulated in the constitution and why he was not released after the Supreme Court had ordered to do so.

In response, Colonel Ziyad’s lawyer argued that his client was not in a position to call for the release of judge and had several other higher-ranked officers.

Responding to the claim, State Attorney Abdulla Raabiu – who also was in the state prosecution team – said that Ziyad was being charged because he took part in discussing on how the judge should be arrested, days before the arrest was made.

“When speaking about fairness, where was Abdulla Mohamed’s right to life, when he was detained in Girifushi Island for 22 days? Where was his right to freedom?” Raabiu questioned.

In concluding today’s hearings, Chief Judge of the three-member panel of judges stated that it would later decide on the procedural points taken by the defendants, as the court required time to review the PG’s procedures.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed, former Defense Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu and retired Brigadier General Ibrahim Didi all denied the charge of arbitrarily detaining Chief Judge of Criminal Court AbdullaMohamed.

Prosecution

An investigation led by Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) found the former President 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. Others included Brigadier General Ibrahim Didi and Chief of Defense Force Moosa Ali Jaleel.

Judge Abdulla Mohamed was taken into military custody after the former Home Minister Hassan Afeef wrote to Defense Minister Tholhath asking him arrest the judge as he posed a threat to both the national security of the country and a threat to the country’s criminal justice system.

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.

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.

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)