Tag: Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain

“Murder has to be punished with murder”: Yameen calls for death penalty to be put into practice

Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) Presidential Candidate Abdulla Yameen has called for the death penalty to be put into practice in the Maldives, a day after vowing to reform the judiciary.

The MP, half brother of former autocratic ruler Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, made the comments while speaking on the program Voice of Maldives on Monday night (July 22).

Yameen explained that although he was not previously an advocate of the death penalty, he now believed it must be implemented to save Maldivian society from murders that have become too commonplace, according to local media reports.

Yameen noted that as a result of the “recent spate of killings” in the Maldives he has had a “change of heart” and now believes “murder has to be punished with murder.”

“It is something that has to be done. We cannot move forward without making our streets safe,” Yameen said.

Yameen explained that a death penalty sentence should only be implemented if upheld by the Supreme Court.

“I now believe, if it can be proven in trial so that the country accepts, if it is proven to a degree accepted by judicial principles, if all the steps are followed, and if the Maldivian people believe, I believe that the death penalty is necessary to save society,” he said.

He also noted that because detailed legislation is necessary to implement the death penalty, the current government recently proposed a death penalty bill in parliament.

Regarding whether he would implement Islamic Sharia law, Yameen’s response to a caller was that “justice is currently delivered in the Maldives through Islamic principles” and that he would act “in accordance with what is laid out by the constitution.”

He pledged that under a PPM government he would “do whatever has to be done” to make the Maldives a peaceful place.

Yameen also denied financing or having links with gangs, claiming these allegations “do not have any basis” and politicians perpetuating such rumors “lack sincerity”.

Such rumors that Yameen has gang ties have “been around a long time”, according to CNM.

During the PPM presidential primary, former candidate and PPM Vice President Umar Naseer publicly accused Yameen of involvement with gangs and the illegal drug trade. However, Yameen denied the “defamatory accusations” calling them “baseless and untrue”.

Yameen further noted during the Voice of Maldives program that a “major part” of the government budget would be spent on youth, including a special rehabilitation program for drug addicts, with more than 900 placements available, if he is elected president.

Last month, Yameen also announced that PPM intended to transform Hulhumale’ into a “Youth City” where enough apartments to accommodate young people would be constructed.

Judicial reform pledge

Meanwhile, a day prior to Yameen’s comments in favor of implementing the death penalty to quell violent crime in the Maldives, the PPM presidential candidate pledged to reform the judiciary, even if it required amending the constitution.

To gain investors’ confidence and bring foreign investments to the Maldives, reforming the judiciary to ensure swift justice and confidence in the institution is necessary, Yameen explained.

“We see the many challenges ahead from every direction. So we are not only competing with other candidates. We are competing against the flailing economy and fading culture and values,” he said.

Yameen told local media that Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain had also noted the judiciary has “problems”.

Faiz has meanwhile urged the public and media to refrain from making statements that would give a negative image of the judiciary, and called for constitutional amendments.

His comment’s follow the Maldives Bar Association (MBA) calling for the suspension of Supreme Court Justice Ali Hameed pending an investigation into his alleged sexual misconduct. Hameed is under investigation by both the police and Judicial Service Commission (JSC) over the circulation of at least three sex videos apparently depicting him fornicating with unidentified foreign women.

Earlier this year, Faiz said that the current seven-member bench of the Supreme Court cannot be abolished and will continue to remain as the highest court of the country as long as the Maldives remains a democracy. In July 2012, the Chief Justice also said the death penalty can be executed within the existing justice system of the Maldives.

Death penalty controversy

While the Maldives still issues death sentences, these have traditionally been commuted to life sentences by presidential decree since the execution of Hakim Didi in 1954, for the crime of practicing black magic.

Death penalty legislation was presented to parliament in June by government-aligned Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) MP Riyaz Rasheed to implement the death penalty by hanging if the Supreme Court upheld a death sentence passed by a lower court. The legislation was put to a vote to decide whether or not to proceed with the bill at committee stage and was ultimately rejected 26-18 with no abstentions.

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP said at the time that the party’s parliamentary group had opted to throw out the bill on the grounds that it would be “irresponsible” to approve such measures with ongoing concerns held by itself and international experts over the functioning of the country’s judiciary.

The party additionally criticised the proposed bill as being irrelevant, arguing that the country’s draft penal code – a recent issue of contention between MPs and certain political parties – already included provisions for the death sentence as outlined under Islamic Sharia.

Recent calls for presidential clemency to be blocked led Attorney General (AG) Azima Shukoor to draft a bill favouring the implementation of the penalty via lethal injection. It was met with opposition by several religious groups such as the NGO Jamiyyathul Salaf, which called for the draft to be amended in favour of beheadings or firing squads.

Minivan News understands that the bill submitted by the AG remains open for comments on potential amendments.

More recently, the state called for a High Court verdict on whether the practice of presidential clemency can be annulled.

Eariler this year, the UN country team in the Maldives issued a statement calling for the abolition of both corporal punishment and the death penalty in the Maldives.

Additionally, the state’s stance to review implementation of death sentences has led to strong criticism from certain human rights-focused NGOs this year.

Speaking to Minivan News immediately following a visit to the Maldives in April 2013, Amnesty International’s South Asia Director Polly Truscott raised concerns about the recent drafting of new bills outlining implementation for executions.

She argued that even in practice, such bills would be deemed as a human rights violation, with the NGO maintaining that there remained no research to support the assertion that executing criminals served as an effective deterrent for serious crimes.

She noted this was a particular concern considering the recent findings of various international experts such as UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Judiciary, Gabriela Knaul, regarding the politicised nature of the country’s judicial system.

“To leave Sharia law to the discretion of individual judges is something we believe would be a bad idea,” she said at the time.

In May this year, Amnesty International condemned the sentencing of two 18 year-olds to death for a murder committed while they were minors, and called on Maldivian government authorities to commute the sentence.

Meanwhile, a survey of the leading criminologists in the United States conducted in 2009 found that 88 percent of the country’s top criminologists “did not believe” that the death penalty is a “proven deterrent to homicide”.

The study, Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates? The Views of Leading Criminologists published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, also found that 87 percent of the expert criminologists believe that abolition of the death penalty would not have any significant effect on murder rates.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Supreme Court bench will prevail as long as Maldives remains a democracy”: Chief Justice

Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain has said the current seven-member bench of the Supreme Court cannot be abolished and will continue to remain as the highest court of the country as long as the Maldives remains a democracy.

The Chief Justice’s remarks come at a time where the Supreme Court has come under heavy criticism from the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

Last week following two controversial rulings issued by the court, the MDP’s National Council passed a motion calling on its parliamentary group to seek to abolish the existing Supreme Court bench and replace it with a new panel of judges, including foreign judges.

The party subsequently launched peaceful street protests last Friday against the court rulings. Protesters led by former President Mohamed Nasheed also called on the Supreme Court to refrain from undermining parliament and its decisions.

Speaking during a ceremony held at the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) on Sunday to swear in five new Magistrate Court Judges, Justice Faiz Hussain contended that the only way a judge from the Supreme Court could be removed was if the judge’s position became vacant.

“By the will of Allah, the Supreme Court bench will prevail as long as the Maldives remains a democracy. The bench cannot be changed. A change to the Supreme Court bench can only be brought if a judge’s position becomes vacant,” he said.

The Chief Justice also called upon all the judges to not to fear what the “people from other institutions” say, and advised the judges to not let their emotional sentiments get in the way of fulfilling their legal duties.

He added that every person is entitled with the right to file a case at the court if the person feels that his rights had been compromised, and when the highest court decides on a matter, that decision will be final and binding, and cannot be changed.

Faiz Hussain also said that the court will look into cases filed with them, and the court process would not stop.  He added that while there remained the option to settle matters out of court, if a matter came to the court, it would look into that matter.

“A very noble jihad”, says JSC President Adam Mohamed

Meanwhile President of JSC and member of the Supreme Court bench Adam Mohamed followed Chief Justice Faiz Hussain in condemning the efforts of some parliament members to dissolve the court bench.

Justice Adam Mohamed contended that article 54 of the Constitution clearly states as to how a Judge can be removed from a court. Therefore, Mohamed said the efforts led by MDP MPs to change the bench through legislation were unconstitutional.

“While the constitution very clearly mentioning as to how a judge can be removed, It remains very clear that efforts to remove a sitting judge in contrast with the principle laid down in Article 54 of the Constitution is clearly unconstitutional.

The JSC President also called on state institutions to refrain from interfering with the work done by the courts or do anything that could “impact the fairness and impartiality” of the JSC.

“I call upon you not to forget the fact that you are carrying out a very noble jihad in the name of Allah in delivering justice to the people,” he told the judges.

Regarding the removal of judges, Adam Mohamed echoed Chief Justice Faiz Hussain’s remarks stating that claiming that a judge could only be removed by either retirement, resignation or if the parliament successfully removes the judge by a two thirds majority.

Every effort will be made to bring the necessary changes – MDP

During the MDP’s emergency national council meeting held last week, the motion proposed by MDP national council member Mohamed ‘Sanco’ Shareef – which concerned the removal of the existing Supreme Court bench – received unanimous support from all attending members, including former President Mohamed Nasheed.

“The Supreme Court is acting in such a fashion that it has now begun overtaking the powers of the parliament and in the process undermining the constitution of this country. [Therefore] this motion calls on MDP’s parliamentary group to make formal requests to parliament to immediately abolish the current bench of Supreme Court and establish a new bench that consists of honest judges.

“Also as the Maldives Constitution does not bar the Supreme Court having foreign judges, [this motion also calls] to seek qualified and educated judges from abroad,” read the motion (Dhivehi).

The meeting was called in following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn parliament’s removal of Civil Service Commission (CSC) Chair Mohamed Fahmy Hassan on sexual harassment charges, and a decision to conduct no-confidence votes through secret ballot.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed during the meeting stated that it was more important that there be a proper justice established in the country rather than him being elected as President.

“To reform the judiciary and bring the justice system of this country into the right course is something I must do,” he said. “We will come out to the streets, we will protest. I will not take a single step back until the bench is replaced with better judges.”

Meanwhile, MDP’s Parliamentary Group and Parliament’s Majority Leader Ibrahim Mohamed Solih assured the council that the party’s parliamentary group under his leadership would do everything at its hand to ensure the dissolution of the existing Supreme Court bench.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Challenges faced by judiciary would be resolved if JSC carried out its duties properly: Chief Justice

Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain has accused the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) of being inept, stating that challenges faced by the country’s judiciary would have been resolved had the judicial watchdog undertaken its duties “properly”.

The Chief Justice made the remark speaking to media after concluding a ceremony held on Monday to open a new building for the Drug Court.

Hussain acknowledged that he could not say that every piece of work carried out by JSC was not done properly since he was not a member of the JSC himself.

“The JSC is an institution formed under the constitution to serve the judiciary. They have a huge responsibility to deal with issues surrounding the judges, so if the JSC carries out its responsibilities, I would say the challenges faced by the judiciary would have been resolved through that institution,” the Chief Justice said.

Hussain also said that he had on several forums highlighted that changes need to be brought to the current mechanism of JSC,noting that the local judicial watchdog had “differences” compared to similar institutions in other countries.

“But still, I believe even under the current mechanism of JSC, and without needing to bring modifications to it, some changes can still be brought to the works it carries out,” he added.

During the media briefing, the Chief justice also spoke about the ongoing case of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, the legitimacy of which is being contested in the courts by the former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team.

He said that the case concerning the legitimacy of the Hulhumale Magistrate Court currently in Supreme Court had not been addressed, because the JSC had not filed the case.

“When a case was filed in Civil Court contesting the legitimacy of Hulhumale Magistrate Court, the  JSC sent a letter to [Supreme Court] arguing that the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction to look into the case. We then asked the JSC to file a case as per the procedure and they only filed the case just a few days ago,” he explained.

Following the filing of the case, the Supreme Court took over the case from the Civil Court.

The Chief Justice added that the Supreme Court will be considering the case as a “high priority” case.

Spokesperson for the Department of Judicial Administration (DJA), Latheefa Gasim, was not responding to calls at time of press.

Court saga

Earlier in October, former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team’s challenged the legitimacy of the Hulhumale Magistrate Court, and its summoning of Nasheed in connection to the detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court.

The High Court at the time stated that the case had previously been looked at by the Supreme Court, there the court could not proceed with the case.

However earlier this month the High Court granted an injunction temporarily suspending the trial of former President after his legal team appealed a ruling on procedural points by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court in the trial.

During the hearing, JSC lawyer Abdul Fahthah stated that the JSC had lodged a case at the Supreme Court the same morning, asking the court to look into the matter of the legality of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Following the proceedings of the case, Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court announced that it had suspended all ongoing cases following an injunction issued by the High Court on Sunday, including Nasheed’s trial.

The Hulhumale Magistrate Court said in its announcement that it had suspended proceedings on cases involving marriage, divorce, guardianship, family matters, property lawsuits, civil cases, criminal cases involving extension of detention periods as well as other matters that could be affected by the questions raised over its legal status.

Two days later, the Supreme Court ordered High Court to halt its proceedings on the appeal by Nasheed’s legal team, and ordered the Hulhumale Magistrate Court to resume its proceedings.

Question of legitimacy

Writing in his personal blog on the issue, lawyer and Independent MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed explained that a magistrate court could not legally be established at Hulhumale’.

The Judicature Act states that magistrate courts should be set up in inhabited islands aside from Male’ without a division of the trial courts (Criminal Court, Civil Court, Family Court and Juvenile Court).

According to appendix two of the constitution, Hulhumale’ is a district or ward of Male’ and not a separate inhabited island. The former magistrate court at Hulhumale’ – controversially set up by the JSC before the enactment of the Judicature Act in October 2010 – should therefore have been dissolved when the Judicature Act was ratified, he argued.

Former Chairman of the Constitutional Drafting Committee of the Special Majlis, Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail, has also published an article on his personal blog stating the reasons why the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court cannot be considered a legal entity.

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

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

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

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

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)