Tag: Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdullah Mohamed

Nasheed first president summoned before Maldives Human Rights Commission

Mohamed Nasheed has become the first Maldivian president to be summoned before the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM), in connection to his role in the controversial detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed earlier this year.

Nasheed had been requested to attend a HRCM hearing filed to try and understand who was responsible for taking the decision to arrest the judge. The former president attributed the initial arrest call to his Defence Ministry, on the grounds of “protecting” national security relating to alleged ethical concerns about the judge.

Today’s summons of the former president is said to be the first of three cases filed at the HRCM involving himself. These cases all relate to potential human rights abuses allegedly carried out both by and against Nasheed during the lead up and aftermath of a controversial transfer of power that saw President Mohamed Waheed Hassan installed as his successor.

The former president has since alleged that his resignation from the presidency was performed under duress.

Nasheed’s arrival today was heralded by a few hundred supporters who gathered around the HRCM building carrying banners alleging abuse at the hands of police earlier this week. Many of those gathered waited for the former president to deliver his account to the commission. Riot police arrived briefly at the area outside the commission, but the crowd later dispersed without confrontation.

The arrest of Judge Abdulla Mohamed itself occurred on January 16 in relation to a police request. The judges whereabouts were not revealed until January 18 however, leading to international condemnation of Nasheed as well as domestic criticism reflected in ongoing protests over several weeks that observers later suggested were partly linked to his eventual downfall on February 7.

HRCM spokesperson Jeehan Mahmoud told Minivan News that while additional cases relating to the former president would be focused on alleged human rights abuses against him after the build up and transfer of power, today’s hearing related to specifically identifying the party who placed the order to arrest the judge.

Jeehan added that the HRCM had previously unsuccessfully attempted to  summon former defence and home minsters, as well as senior police officials who had served under Nasheed during the time the arrest decision was taken.  However, today’s  move was taken to request that the former president explain what had occurred himself.

“If these ministers and [police] representatives would have attended [the HRCM hearings], I think thing would have been a lot clearer,” she said. “We wanted to collect more responses on this as it hasn’t been clear where the order [to arrest the judge] had came from.”

Possible outcome

The commission spokesperson said that the group had not yet decided on what methods it would look to take to readdress any potential abuses of the judge’s human rights.  Therefore she said it was too early to say whether this could include filing a case against any of the decison makers involved at the Prosecutor General’s Office.

Malé MP Imthiyaz Fahmy, who formed part of nasheed’s legal team today, told Minivan News that the former president gave testimony alleging that the decision to arrest the judge was related to a number of possible misdemeanour’s that had been attributed to him dating back several years.

In November, the national court watchdog, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), was ordered to cease an investigation into Judge Abdulla Mohamed by the civil Court under an action he himself instigated.

Amidst developments such as these, Fahmy claimed that Nasheed used his testimony to claim that he had been informed by the Home Ministry that the judge had allegedly posed a “national threat” – prompting his eventual detention.

The MDP MP added that Nasheed then claimed that the Home Ministry had communicated with the Defence Ministry on the situation, which in turn led to the decision to arrest the judge after bodies like the Judicial Service Commission has raised alleged concerns over his ethical conduct.

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

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

Nasheed claimed additionally that he had sent representatives to Girifushi to check on Judge Abdulla Mohamed’s well-being during his detention, alongside allowing the HRCM to visit the judge.

Fahmy alleged that it was ironic that Nasheed, a leader he said who had openly discouraged the use of torture and actively campaigned against human rights abuses, had become the country’s first former leader to have been called in front of the HRCM.

However, HRCM spokesperson Jeehan said that Nasheed would be called back for two additional cases – expected to be sat at the same time – that would look into alleged abuses of human rights against the former president. The first case would be focused on the events of February 6 and February 7 this year, the two dates surrounding Nasheed’s “resignation” from office, a decision later claimed to have been part of a “coup d’etat” against him.

The third and final case would then concern any claims of human rights abuses against Mohamed Nasheed by police on February 8, the day after he tendered his presidency ended.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP proposes bill to reform judiciary, reappoint higher courts

The ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has proposed a bill to amend the Courts Act (22/2010) which would reduce the number of judges on both the benches of the Supreme Court and High Court if passed.

In a press released issued by the party’s parliamentary group, amendments have been proposed to article 5 and article 27 of the Courts Act which dictates the number of judges on the benches.

The first amendment proposes changing clause (a) of the article 5 of the Courts Act, reducing the Supreme Court bench to five judges inclusive of the chief justice. The amendment would also dissolve clause (a) of the article 16 in Judges Act (Act 13/2010).

The second amendment proposed reducing the High Court bench to seven judges, inclusive of a chief judge.

The current Supreme Court has a bench of seven judges, including the chief justice, while the High Court consists of nine judges including the chief judge of the High Court.

The bill also states that once it is passed and ratified, the judges for the Supreme Court and the High Court should be reappointed within 30 days.

MDP Spokesperson and MP Imthiyaz Fahmy stated that the bill was proposed because the ruling party believes that the Supreme Court and the High Court have been inefficient in finishing cases, and that it is not feasible to have a large bench of judges if the efficiency of the courts were below expected standards.

“Only 31 percent of the cases submitted to the Supreme Court in 2008 were actually finished while the remaining 69 percent remained pending. In other countries with similarly-sized benches the same number of judges finish more than 90 cases annually,” Fahmy said.

Fahmy also said that the MDP is not seeking to remove specific judges from the bench,and that instead the intention was purely to reform the judiciary and ensure the people had free and fair access to justice.

The MDP was confident that the bill would pass despite neither the opposition or the ruling party having an absolute majority, Fahmy said.

Prominent lawyer Ali Hussain raised doubts about the sincerity of the MDP parliamentary group’s decision considering the timing of the proposal. Hussain claimed the government had a majority in the JSC and the parliament for six months [referring to the 16th parliament which ended its term in February 2009 after the general elections] and had done nothing to reform the judiciary.

Independent MP for Kulhudhuhfushi, Mohamed Nasheed, was reported saying in the local media that the bill to amend the Act was an attempt by the government and the ruling MDP to intimidate the current sitting judges of courts of the Maldives. Fahmy denied the claims.

The MDP recently launched a campaign to reform the judiciary. The government subsequently took Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed into military custody maintaining that Judge Abdulla posed a threat to the wellbeing of the society.

Tempers have flared across the capital Male’ with an ongoing series of opposition-led protests calling for the government to uphold the constitution and release the chief judge.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Criminal Court obstructing corruption investigation, police allege

The Criminal Court’s suspension of two police lawyers on “ethical grounds” amounts to obstruction of the ongoing investigation into alleged corruption and bribery in parliament, claims Deputy Commissioner of Police Ismail Atheef.

Speaking on Television Maldives last night, Atheef explained that the two lead detectives on the case, Inspector Mohamed Riyaz and Superintendent Mohamed Jinah, appeared in court on July 9, but the letter from Chief Judge Abdullah Mohamed informing police of the suspension was received two days later.

“If someone is in contempt of the court, action has to be taken immediately according to provision five of the court regulations,” he said, adding that the detectives were not given any warning nor had their conduct in court been noted by the journalists who were present.

“So when this letter came to us, the way police interpret it is that this is an obstruction specifically of  our investigation,” he claimed.

It was the first time that police officers were suspended from the Criminal Court, said Atheef.

The Deputy Commissioner insisted that the suspension was a deliberate obstruction because Riyaz and Jinah, as the two lead detectives and top police lawyers, would have had to appear at court to seek an extension for Nazim’s arrest.

A court official told Minivan News at the time that details of the suspension could not be provided to the media.

”They were suspended due to a case relating to this code of ethics. It is for more than one reason,” he said.

Obstacles

Atheef stressed that police had a good working relationship with the Criminal Court, but began facing difficulties obtaining court warrants in June 2009 when it began an investigation into alleged corruption in the former Atolls Ministry.

Appearing alongside Deputy Commissioner Atheef, the two police lead detectives on the corruption investigation highlighted procedural difficulties faced in their investigations.

The senior officers expressed concern that investigations into “high-profile corruption cases” were compromised at “a very preliminary stage”.

In some cases, Atheef said, police have heard from the public that warrants have been rejected before receiving an official response from the court.

“The suspect knows we’ve asked for a warrant and have been rejected, so he’s free to do whatever he wants,” said Atheef. “We have to appeal and try to get it again but there’s no point.”

Moreover, in the absence of a Criminal Procedures Act, the officers said, there were no “clear guidelines” on how arrests should be made.

While only the Chief Judge Abdullah Mohamed personally issued warrants at present, Jinah argued that it was neither “practical nor reasonable” for one man to bear the responsibility.

Jinah revealed that the Criminal Court gave evidence police presented to seek an arrest warrant to the defence counsel of detained MPs Abdulla Yameen and Gasim Ibrahim.

“In the criminal justice procedure, disclosure of evidence is a completely different stage,” he said. “This happened way before the threshold test to determine whether or not to prosecute.”

He added that the incident had jeopardised the police investigation.

In some cases, said Inspector Riyaz, the media and supporters of the suspect were present when police arrived on the scene after obtaining a search warrant.

Referring to the case of alleged corruption in the former Atolls Ministry, involving MPs Ahmed Nazim and Ahmed “Redwave” Saleem, Riyaz pointed out that Criminal Court was inconsistent in issuing warrants.

“In a case involving two suspects, we requested a travel ban and to check their bank statements,” he said. “But [the court] enforced a travel ban on one and allowed us to check his bank statement. And for the other, [the court] allowed us to get his bank statement but refused to enforce a travel ban.”

On the importance of detaining suspects, Jinah said stopping communication was crucial to preserve evidence.

Moreover, he added, police did not have to go the Supreme Court to confiscate a suspect’s mobile phone.

Drug bust foiled

Jinah, head of the Drug Enforcement Department (DED), said a Criminal Court official informed police last week that a warrant could not be issued for a case involving a kilogram of illegal drugs.

Distinguishing between routine and targeted enforcement, Jinah explained that expediting search warrants was crucial in the latter case.

“This is completely unacceptable,” he said. “I believe the application for the court order should at least be considered. It’s fine if they considered what was in it and said this can’t be done.”

He added that police summoned the court official who relayed the Chief Judges’ answer but he chose to remain silent.

“Now more than a kilo of drugs has gone into Male’,” he said, adding that the court later issued the warrant but “it was no use to us then.”

As investigating judges was outside the police mandate, said Jinah, police have decided to lodge a complaint with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) regarding the incident.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)