Tag: Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz

Nasheed warns of PPM, Supreme Court collusion to subvert elections

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has warned of collusion between the ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) and the Supreme Court to subvert local council elections scheduled for January 18.

“We clearly know political party leaders are bribing judges,” said Nasheed, stating that the Supreme Court’s attempt to “destroy the Maldives” will be written in history.

The PPM and 295 independent candidates have failed to approve the voter registry, casting doubt on the possibility of elections being held on Saturday.

In October 2013, the Maldives Police Service obstructed presidential polls at the eleventh hour after the PPM and its coalition partner Jumhooree Party (JP) refused to sign voter lists.

Speaking to supporters at a rally held in Malé on Monday night, Nasheed said the PPM intended to delay elections until the party was able to change the names on the voter registry.

Candidate signature on the voter registry was mandated by the Supreme Court in a 16-point electoral guideline in its verdict annulling the first round of presidential polls held in September last year. The Supreme Court also ordered the Election Commission (EC) to discard their registry and compile a registry based on the Home Ministry’s Department of National Registration’s (DNR) database.

The EC has described the guidelines as “restrictions” that limit the power of the independent state institution.

“With the Supreme Court’s order on the Election Commission to use the DNR list, we are once again seeing PPM and Jumhooree Party attempting to subvert this election against the wishes of the Maldivian citizenry,” Nasheed said.

The MDP did not have time in October to analyse the DNR list, but have now noticed 12,000 non-existent voters on the voter registry, Nasheed said.

“The Election Commissioner has said 5000 individuals without a recorded photo had voted [in presidential polls]. If there had been photos, it would be clear that one individual possessed two different ID cards,” he alleged.

“I am ready to say whatever I must say today”: Nasheed

The PPM and JP are once again preparing for “the same crime” while the Supreme Court is preparing “to once again steal elections,” he continued.

Nasheed accused the ruling coalition of bribing the Supreme Court judges and bribing MPs to keep disgraced Supreme Court Judge Ali Hameed on the bench.

In 2013, a series of tapes which appear to show Hameed having sex with three different foreign women in a Colombo hotel room were leaked on social media. The judicial oversight body Judicial Services Commission (JSC) has failed to take any action regarding Hameed.

“We know political party leaders are bearing the expenses of educating the children of Supreme Court judges. We know they buy land for judges. And we know they send judges on leisure trips to Ceylon [Sri Lanka] and buy them various types of pleasures,” Nasheed said.

He called on the public not to let the Supreme Court manage elections.

“Elections must be organised by the Elections Commission. The Chief Justice and the Supreme Court cannot direct elections. The Chief Justice is in charge of the effort to steal our vote,” he said.

Before his appointment in 2010, Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz had repeatedly expressed concern over bribery of judges, Nasheed said.

“I told Faiz I was appointing him as Chief Justice to stop this [bribery]. Today, Faiz is subverting norms in the Maldives and allowing judges to be bribed. If we do not speak out in fear, there is no greater crime,” he said.

If the public refused to speak out against the Supreme Court’s actions for fear of sentences today, they are likely to receive greater sentences tomorrow, Nasheed continued.

“If we leave our country to these judges, because we are tired or because we do not want to go to jail or because we do not want to bear any other trouble and if we step back, I believe it will be very difficult to obtain the development we desire and to save the Maldives,” he said.

“I am ready to say whatever I must say today,” he continued.

Local criticism of the court’s involvment in the presidential elections was met with a series of contempt of court charges against MDP MPs, its legal representatives, whilst charges have been filed against the MDP-aligned Raajje TV station in relation to a news reports criticising the bench.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MP Hamid calls for Majlis intervention to overturn Criminal Court sentence

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Hamid Abdul Gafoor has called on Members of Parliament to intervene in a High Court appeal to overturn a Criminal Court six month jail term issued in absentia.

Criminal Court Chief Justice Abdulla Mohamed handed Hamid a six month sentence for disobedience to order after the MP refused to attend a separate trial over refusal to provide urine.

Hamid contends the Criminal Court’ summons were unlawful as hearings for the urine trial were scheduled during Majlis work hours in violation of the Parliamentary Privileges and Powers Act. He then sought refuge inside the Parliament House when the Criminal Court ordered the police to arrest him and present him at court.

“The Criminal Court first issued court summons in contravention to the Parliamentary Privileges Act and then sentenced me in absentia for making use of my parliamentary privileges,” Hamid said.

Hamid filed an appeal at the High Court to overturn the Criminal Court’s sentence but the case was dismissed today when Hamid’s lawyers failed to attend the hearing over an administrative error. Lawyers will resubmit the case tomorrow, he said.

Claiming the Criminal Court sentence endangers all MPs, Hamid said: “I call on all Members of Parliament to intervene in this case. This is not about refusal to provide urine. This sentence has clearly violated parliamentary privileges.”

Today is Hamid’s 28th day inside the Parliament House.

In a letter to the Speaker Abdulla Shahid, Prosecutor General Ahmed Muizz said Judge Abdulla has acted against the norms in Hamid’s case.

Hence, People’s Majlis Speaker Abdulla Shahid has written to Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz to overturn the sentence contending the ruling violates the privileges afforded to MPs in the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act.

MP Riyaz Rasheed raised a point of order during today’s Majlis sitting to debate the state budget over Hamid’s “unlawful” presence in the Majlis.

In response, Shahid said he has asked the Chief Justice to advise him on the issue and stated: “As the Majlis Speaker I must uphold the laws you, honorable MPs, have passed when rulings against an MP is issued in violation of the privileges afforded to an MP in the Parliamentary Privileges Act and when such rulings are being implemented.”

Hamid has said the Criminal Court was on a “personalized hunt” for him and added: “I believe the objective of these show trials with manufactured narratives of drinking is a smear campaign targeted at reducing the number of my party Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MPs.”

The Inter Parliamentary Union has expressed concern over “the frequent intimidation, harassment and attack of MPs as they go about their work.”

A total of eight MDP MPs currently face criminal charges whilst MDP MP Ali Azim and MDP aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Mohamed Nashiz were disqualified from their seats by the Supreme Court in a controversial ruling over decreed debt in October.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Week in review: October 26 – November 1

The biggest headlines in the Maldives this week came out of the People’s Majlis, beginning with the MNDF going into the parliament to block the entrance of two opposition MPs who had been stripped of their seats by the Supreme Court.

After some scuffles, Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ali Azim was handed over to police, who subsequently extended his detention to 15 days.

Azim had arrived to take part in the emergency session which eventually passed a motion supporting the transition of presidential power to the speaker of the house should no president-elect be determined by November 11.

After calling on the MNDF to ignore the Supreme Court’s decision to remove Azim and Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party MP Mohamed Nashiz, Speaker Abdulla Shahid took the decision to appoint a serjeant at arms to oversee future security at the Majlis.

The constitutionally protected status of the Majlis premises was used to full advantage by MDP MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor this week who sought sanctuary from arrest by police who wished to present him in court in relation to drug and alcohol offences.

After threats to try Hamid in absentia, the Criminal Court sentenced him to six months in prison for failure to attend hearings.

The Majlis also found time this week to receive the MVR16.4 billion (US$1 billion) budget for 2014, as well as accepting a bill that would criminalise calling for, endorsing, or taking part in a tourism boycott.

One person not present in the Majlis this week was now-former Attorney General Azima Shukoor, who was removed in a unanimous vote of no-confidence. This day’s proceedings were not without additional incident, however, as mysterious pills – rumoured to be laxatives – were found in a Majlis’ coffee machine.

The week’s events will not have reassured the Secretary General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, who wrote to Speaker Shahid requesting an urgent visit to the country to assess the situation.

Mandatory excess

MPs were not the only ones feeling persecuted this week, as Supreme Court took aim at MDP aligned broadcaster Raajje TV for allegedly defaming its reputation.  The station – decimated in an arson attack earlier this month – also reported fresh threats against its premises.

The Maldives Media Council and Reporters Without Borders joined station management in arguing that the police were acting outside of their mandate, encroaching upon an investigation that rightly fell within the purview of the broadcasting commission.

Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz warned media outlets that action would be taken against anyone found to be reporting “invalid information, if it relates to courts or judges”.

After levelling similar accusations against the police in relation the delayed election, the Human Rights Commission this week told Minivan News that it felt the police were now attempting to intimidate its staff.

It was the Supreme Court itself, however, that came in for the most stinging criticism this week as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay launched an offensive on the apex bench, accusing it of “interfering excessively in the Presidential elections”.

After being accused of “subverting the democratic process”, the Chief Justice quickly hit back, labelling Pillay’s comment “irresponsible” and “poorly researched”.

Reputation at stake

The UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office also expressed its concern this week that repeated delays to the presidential election could hurt the Maldives’ economy as well as its international reputation – something not helped by an attack on the Indian High Commissioner’s official vehicle.

FCO minister Hugo Swire urged stakeholders to allow the Elections Commission “the space needed” to prepare for the elections – a request not heeded by either the government nor the presidential candidates who pleaded with the EC to move polls forward in order to avoid the impending constitutional void.

The Elections Commissioner responded that an expedited poll was not possible, regardless of any amount of government assistance – not even the police’s new-found ability to verify fingerprints at 25 times its previous speed.

Commissioner Fuwad Thowfeek also revealed that the EC had found at least four of the 18 people deemed dead by the Supreme Court annulment to be alive and “quite fed up”.

MDP candidate Mohamed Nasheed told the press of diplomatic murmurings regarding likely economic sanctions should no new president be found by November 11.

He went on to suggest the way out of the impasse might be for either one of the three candidates to pull out of the  poll, or for the Supreme Court to un-annul the first round – making the November 9 poll a two horse race.

Finally, the World Economic Forum’s gender gap index found the Maldives a mediocre place to be a woman, with the country scoring highly in terms of education and health but falling behind in economic and political parity.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Supreme Court is subverting the democratic process”: UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay has released a statement on Wednesday expressing concern about “the dangerous drift in the democratic process in the Maldives largely as a result of the Supreme Court’s repeated interventions in the presidential election process”.

“I am alarmed that the Supreme Court of the Maldives is interfering excessively in the Presidential elections, and in so doing is subverting the democratic process and violating the right of Maldivians to freely elect their representatives,” the statement read.

The Supreme Court immediately hit back today, with Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz describing Pillay’s comments as “poorly researched” and  “irresponsible”.

“The Supreme Court nullified the first round of the Presidential Election of 7 September 2013 on the basis of irregularities in the process, despite the general conclusions by national and international observers that the election was free and fair,” read Pillay’s statement.

Pillay also described the court’s election guidelines as “onerous” and “difficult to satisfy”.

“There have been longstanding concerns about the independence and impartiality of the judiciary in the Maldives, which both the High Commissioner and the Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, addressed during official visits to the country in 2011 and 2013,” added Pillay

“I am normally the first to defend the independence of the judiciary, but this also carries responsibilities. Judges should act in accordance with the principles of impartiality, propriety, equality and due diligence, as reflected in the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of Judiciary, the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, and Maldives’ own code of conduct,” Pillay stated.

The statement further also expressed concern regarding the court’s threats to charge lawyers, media and civil society groups for challenging its decisions, as well as “the reactivation of old cases to arrest opposition MPs or bar them from Parliament.”

“The Supreme Court appears set on undermining other independent institutions, stifling criticism and public debate, and depriving litigants of the legal representation of their choice,” Pillay stated.

Chief Justice’s response

“I harshly condemn UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay’s  false allegations regarding the Maldives Supreme Court’s work to uphold its constitutional duties and responsibilities. I do not believe she has any authority to speak in such terms,” responded Chief Justice Faiz today.

Defending the court’s neutrality, Faiz argued that Pillay’s statement was unacceptable for an official operating under the UN’s mandate to protect the rights of large and small states alike.

“False allegations by any party on the Supreme Court’s work does not aid strengthening democracy, administration of justice in the Maldives or uphold the rule of law. It does not encourage the promotion of democracy, rule of law or protection of human rights,” read Faiz’s statement.

The first round of the Maldives presidential election – held on September 7 was annulled by the Supreme Court earlier this month, with a fresh round of elections arranged to be held on October 19.

The re-scheduled vote, however, was also cancelled after police obstructed the Elections Commission, citing the Supreme Court’s issued 16 regulation as justification.

As well as condemning the police for the delay, the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives has also condemned the police for “acting beyond its mandate”, while a leaked report by the commission questions the credibility of the evidence used by the apex court in its annulment of the first round of elections.

A joint statement by the International Federation for Human Rights and local NGO Maldives Democracy Network has described the court’s verdict as being founded on “materially baseless arguments”, after the first round was “applauded as a success by the international community.”

A new first round is now scheduled for November 9, with the EC President Fuwad Thowfeek maintaining it will not be changed despite requests to expedite the polling date from both the current government and the contesting presidential candidates.

Government-aligned parties go to SC for political solutions

Progressive Party of Maldives lawyer Ibrahim ‘Wadde’ Waheed submitted a case to the Supreme Court on Tuesday seeking a ruling on the motion passed by the parliament to appoint Speaker Abdulla Shahid as interim head of state in the instance that an elected president cannot be installed by the constitutionally mandated date, November 11.

Waheed is quoted in local media as saying the parliamentary motion has been passed against the constitution and the verdicts of the Supreme Court.

On the same day, Wadde has also submitted another case to the court asking it to rule that the MDP MP Ahmed Hamza’s appointment to the judicial watchdog – the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) – was conducted in breach of the constitution.

In this case, Wadde argued that Hamza is a person who works “against the judiciary” and so he finds it “unacceptable that such a man can serve in the JSC”.

Earlier this month Wadde, alongside Jumhooree Coalition member ‘Madhanee Ihthihaadh’ (Civil Alliance) President Sheikh Mohamed Didi, filed a case in the apex court challenging opposition Maldivian Democratic Party candidate and former President Mohamed Nasheed’s candidacy.

The petition gave as grounds Nasheed’s criticism of the judiciary, as well as his “outright criticism towards Islam and iposing Islamic Sharia’ in the Maldives”.

Jumhooree Coalition’s Presidential Candidate Gasim Ibrahim has also this week called on President Dr Mohamed Waheed to seek advice from the apex court on the course of action he should take should there not be an elected leader by November 11.

Speaking at a party rally, Gasim stated that as Waheed has previously written to the parliament for advice, he believes the president should also seek the opinion of the Supreme Court.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Dissenting Supreme Court justices challenge court’s jurisdiction to hear annulment case, evidence

The three dissenting justices in the Supreme Court’s verdict to annul the vote have challenged the apex court’s constitutional jurisdiction over the case, and the credibility of the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs.

Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz, Justice Abdulla Areef and Justice Muthasim Adnan in their verdict stated that the High Court has initial jurisdiction over election petitions as per Article 172 (a) of the Constitution.

They also challenged the credibility of statements provided by the Jumhoree Party (JP)’s 14 anonymised witnesses, and dismissed a secret police document submitted by the Attorney General Azima Shakoor as invalid evidence, since the Elections Commission (EC) was not provided a right of response to the document.

The Jumhoree Party asked the SC to annul the vote held on September 7, after its candidate Gasim Ibrahim narrowly placed third with 50,422 votes, behind Yameen Abdul Gayoom of the Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) who gained 53,099 votes. Maldivian Democartic Party’s Mohamed Nasheed gained 45.45 percent of the vote with 95,224 votes, while incumbent president Mohamed Waheed received just 5.13 percent.

The Supreme Court delayed the runoff scheduled for September 28 until it issued a verdict in the case, and on Monday four of the seven SC Justices invalidated the first round and ordered a revote by October 20.

The majority decision appears to have drawn on the secret police document, as they cite 5623 irregular votes, whereas Faiz and Areef note only 473 cases of irregular votes – 0.2 percent of total votes polled.

Faiz and Areef depended on a comparison between the EC’s list of those who voted and the Jumhooree Party’s seven lists alleged of dead, underage, and repeated voters, which was conducted by a police team consisting of forensic document examiners, computer forensic analysts and technical staff.

Faiz and Areef also stated that election laws do not allow for annulling the entire election in instances of fraud, but only in ballot boxes in the specific geographic area where fraud was found to have occurred.

Irregular votes

The four judges making the majority decision contended that 5623 irregular votes were cast. According to the verdict, these included:

  • 773 people with discrepancies in their national identification numbers,
  • 18 dead people,
  • 7 minors,
  • 225 people without national identification numbers,
  • three people who voted twice,
  • 2830 people with discrepancies in their addresses,
  • 952 people with discrepancies in their names,
  • 7 people who were not registered in the Department of National Registration’s (DNR) database,
  • 819 people whose national identification numbers had been written down wrong by elections officials at the time of voting

Of the 473 irregular votes noted by Faiz and Areef, 12 were votes cast by minors, 14 cast by dead people, and 207 cast by people without authentic ID cards. According to Faiz and Areef, there were cases of no repeated voting.

“We have not referred to the secret Maldives Police Service document submitted by the Attorney General’s Office as the defendant did not have a right of response,” the judges stated.

Neither did they consider valid the testimony of the 14 anonymised witnesses, “as they were unable to clarify their statements because such questions may have violated the anonymity of the witnesses.”

In his dissenting opinion, Adnan said he did not accept the evidence submitted in the case.

“I do not accept the evidence submitted in this case. A secret document that the defendant could not respond to was submitted. The complainant was not able to submit any credible evidence that allows for the election to be annulled,” he said.

Adnan also said the Elections Commission had followed all procedures laid out in the Constitution and the Elections Act in compiling, publishing and revising the voter registry.

Jurisdiction

The three dissenting judges noted that the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction on initial election complaints, as Article 172 (a) of the Constitution states that a person “may challenge a decision of the Election Commission concerning an election or a public referendum, or may challenge the results of an election, or contest the legality of any other matter related to an election, by means of an election petition presented to the High Court.”

Although the majority bench cites Article 113 of the Constitution which states that the Supreme Court, sitting together in session, shall have sole and final jurisdiction to determine all disputes concerning the qualification or disqualification, election, status, of a presidential candidate or running mate or removal of the President by the People’s Majlis, the three dissenting judges note the JP’s complaint was to do with the electoral registry and should have been submitted to the High Court.

Faiz and Areef also cited Article 65 (a) of the Elections Act, which states that a vote may be annulled only in a certain geographical area in instances of fraud.

“The Majlis has passed a statutory elections law (Act 11/2008) as per Article 172 (b) of the constitution which states the manner for dealing with any challenge shall be provided for in a statute on elections, and as Article 65 (a) of Act 11/2008 with reference to Article 64 states a vote in a specific area may be annulled and a revote ordered in that area if the court decides there is undue influence in an election in that specific area.

“Hence, official results of an election can only be annulled only in the specific area, specific ballot box or boxes, in which undue influence has occurred as per Article 65 of Act 11/2008 (Elections Act), there is no room to annul the votes of the 211,890 people who voted in the 2013 Presidential Election held on 7 September 2013,” they said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court orders Elections Commission to hand over original voter list for “purpose of judges”

The Supreme Court has ordered the Elections Commission (EC) to hand over the original voter lists of all ballot boxes placed during the recent first round of Presidential Elections held on September 7.

A Supreme Court battle between the EC and Jumhooree Party (JP) ensued this week after the latter announced its decision to dismiss the outcome of the presidential poll after narrowly missing out a place in the run-off election with 24.07 percent of the vote. The party accused the EC of electoral discrepancies and irregularities that altered the results of the poll to the JP’s disadvantage.

During the third day of continuous proceedings of the case held today (September 19), the Supreme Court ordered the EC to hand over the voter lists – which had been used by the election officials at polling stations to check off the names of voters who had cast their ballot – claiming the list was required “for the purpose of the presiding judges”.

Today’s proceedings began with the seven-member judges panel giving the JP the opportunity to question the members of the EC.

Elections Commission Members Ibrahim ‘Ogaru’ Waheed, Ali Mohamed Manik and commission Chair Fuwad Thowfeek were present at the hearing along with the commission’s legal team, led by veteran lawyer and former Attorney General Husnu Al Suood.

The JP’s legal team led by running mate of JP’s Presidential Candidate Gasim Ibrahim, Dr Hassan Saeed, posed questions to EC Chair Thowfeek regarding the party’s allegations that included: possibilities of double voting, registration of people on Male Municipality Register – a special registry of people residing in the capital without owning homes – without permit, underage voters and allegations of expatriates voting in the poll.

Saeed – who is himself a former Attorney General – also posed questions regarding the security features included in the ballot paper, the failure of the EC’s Ballot Progress Reporting system (BPRS) – a web based application that tallied the number of voters who had cast their vote or were in the queue to vote – and whether Indian IT specialists who had been working in the commission had a role in developing BPRS and whether it was possible that soft copies of ballot papers were leaked.

Responding to Saeed’s questions, EC Chair Thowfeek said the commission had only registered people in Male Municipality’s Register to the current addresses they were living with the intent to allow them easy access to polling. Thowfeek maintained that it was not permanent and was only for purpose of presidential polls.

Thowfeek also said that it was near-impossible for anyone to cast a vote twice since the commission had a strong mechanism to check for double voting that included use of indelible ink, checks for fake National ID cards and verification of electoral lists in cases of repeated entries.

He also said that allegations of votes cast under the names of underage and deceased people during the polls – levied by both the JP and the Attorney General Azima Shukoor – were unfounded because the EC had verified the voter list with the database of Department of National Registration (DNR).

Thowfeek also said that in a bid to further verify the issue of deceased people the commission had cross-checked the voter list against registries of people who passed away collected from local councils as well as the burial house located in Male’ Cemetery.

He also said the commission had not come across cases of expatriates voting in the election, but did tell the court that former head of DNR Ahmed Firaaq had told him that the DNR under its current management had “accidentally” issued a Maldivian national ID card to a Bangladeshi expatriate, who was later caught while attempting to obtain a Maldivian passport.

Explaining the reason behind BPRS system not working as expected, Thowfeek said that failed internet connections on some islands were the major reason for its under-performance. He also confirmed to the court that the BPRS was not built by the Indian IT experts nor did they have any role in the preparations of the presidential polls.

In response to the doubts cast by Saeed on security features of the ballot papers, Thowfeek responded stating that the commission had added three security features to the ballot paper that included: a watermark seal at the back of the ballot paper, a security code that shows different codes if viewed from each side and another security code that can only be seen through a special light.

He added that the commission had tested the ballot paper prior to the commencement of polling while maintaining that the security of the ballot papers had been intact from day one.

“I am extremely confident that no one, no one can come out and show an original ballot paper. It is impossible for anyone to come up with an original ballot paper to prove that it went out of our hands,” Thowfeek told the court.

After Thowfeek’s answers, Saeed told the court that despite today being the third hearing of the case, the EC had refused to give them the original voter list.

Saeed noted that it was the EC and the DNR that had the pivotal information that the party sought to verify the claims, and unless both agencies begin cooperating with them, their claims would remain unclarified, undermining the rights of 50,000 people who had voted for the JP’s candidate.

“When I first began practicing law in 1997, I often come across people who claim they had been tortured while in custody. They would say, look my arm was broken and it had not still recovered. But whenever they went to court, the judge would demand evidence. But all they had to say is it was the police and had nothing prove their claim. Today, the JP is in such a circumstance,” Saeed told the court.

Saeed claimed that last Wednesday night he had seen a video of an expatriate lady confessing that she had voted in the presidential polls and the video showed what he claimed was an indelible ink mark on her finger.

“Honourable Chief Justice, we are talking about an expatriate gaining our citizenship. We are talking about a case where an expatriate practiced a constitutional right given to a Maldivian citizen. Tomorrow, that expatriate will get medical expenses covered under Aasandha. That expatriate can own Maldivian land [just like a Maldivian citizen],” Saeed said.

“When I called the police commissioner, he said he can only investigate after Elections Commission gives a heads up. I said I am hanging up the phone. I called the Prosecutor General. He said he couldn’t do much. Honourable Justice, this is the situation we are talking about,” Saeed added.

EC’s lawyer Suood responded to Saeed’s statement claiming that Saeed had finally confessed that their claims did not carry any weight.

Suood however reiterated that the EC were prepared to hand over the original voter list should the Supreme Court order to do so but raised concerns over the undermining of the privacy of the people in the list.

Suood repeated his argument that should the list be given to JP, it would undermine the privacy of the voters including their national ID Card numbers, their date of birth, whether they had voted or not and if they did vote, which ballot box had they voted.

While the hearing was about to conclude, several Supreme Court Judges including Judge Dr Ahmed Abdulla Didi, JSC Chair and Judge Adam Mohamed, Judge and former Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed, Judge Ali Hameed and Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz posed questions to Thowfeek, inquiring regarding the JP’s allegations and concerns.

Concluding the hearings, Chief Justice Faiz said that another hearing of the case would be scheduled, but did not specify a date.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Judicial Council decided Hulhumale’ court could not hear criminal cases, reveals Nasheed’s legal team

Members of the Judicial Council raised doubts over the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court at a meeting in late 2010 and decided that criminal cases were out of its jurisdiction, former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team have revealed.

In a press statement, Nasheed’s legal team said that minutes from a meeting of the Judicial Council were among documents submitted by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to the High Court.

The JSC entered as a third party into an appeal lodged by Nasheed at the High Court challenging a ruling by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, which had summarily dismissed procedural points raised by the former President’s lawyers.

The procedural issues included the legal status of the magistrate court.

However, before the High Court was due to issue a ruling on Nasheed’s appeal, the Supreme Court instructed the High Court to suspend proceedings as the apex court had been asked to determine the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

The Judicial Council minutes meanwhile revealed that Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz, former Chief Judge of the High Court Abdul Gani, former Chief Judge of the Juvenile Court Shuaib Hussain Zakariyya, Magistrate Mohamed Niyaz from the north judicial district and Magistrate Ali Shareef from the south judicial district “all raised questions over the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ court.”

The Judicial Council was abolished after the Supreme Court unilaterally struck down articles in the Judicature Act concerning the council.

“Presenting the case [to the council], the Chief Justice said that following the enactment of the law on courts, members of the judiciary as well as lawyers were saying that the court in Hulhumale’ could not function under the law and that the Hulhumale’ court had been stopped following the passage of the [Judicature Act in 2010],” the press release explained.

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.

Moreover, the minutes revealed that the Judicial Council had decided that criminal cases were out of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court’s jurisdiction.

The Chief Justice had said at the Judicial Council meeting that the magistrate court had been dealing with civil cases and family disputes.

The press statement noted that it was the opinion on record of all judges at the council meeting that the Hulhumale’ court could not function as a separate court following the enactment of the Judicature Act.

Supreme Court intervention

Nasheed’s legal team also expressed concern with the Supreme Court ordering the High Court to suspend hearings on the appeal.

If the Supreme Court decides to take over the procedural point raised at the High Court, “President Nasheed would lose one stage of appeal,” the legal team said.

Following the High Court granting an injunction or stay suspending the former President’s trial at the Hulhumale’ court, the magistrate court announced that it has suspended all ongoing cases.

However, the Supreme Court last week instructed the magistrate court to resume the cases and took over a case filed at the Civil Court a year ago by a lawyer, Ismail Visham, contesting the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Speaking to press yesterday after a ceremony to open new offices for the Drug Court, Chief Justice Faiz criticized the JSC as “inept” and contended that “challenges faced by the judiciary would have been resolved” if the judicial watchdog body “properly” carried out its responsibilities.

Faiz also said that the case concerning the legitimacy of the Hulhumale Magistrate Court presently before the Supreme Court had not been addressed before 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 [the 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.

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

The JSC filed the case while Nasheed’s appeal was ongoing at the High Court.

Meanwhile, MP Mariya Ahmed Didi, former President Nasheed’s spokesperson, said that the Supreme Court deciding on the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court without allowing the High Court to rule on Nasheed’s appeal would “give weight to what many are saying about the politicization of the Supreme Court.”

The former Special Majlis MP urged the highest court of appeal to allow the High Court to issue a ruling as those unhappy with the judgment could appeal at the Supreme Court.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Three police officers attacked, Chief Justice’s car damaged

Three police officers were attacked on Tuesday night and Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hassan’s car was damaged, police have reported.

The three separate incidents took place within hours of each other around Nalahiya Hotel in Malé’s Maafannu ward. The three policemen sustained severe injuries which required hospital treatment, while the tail lights of Faiz’s car were smashed, according to police. Three men are also alleged to have entered a policeman’s house with knives on Wednesday.

Police spokesperson Hassan Haneef said 13 people have now been arrested over attacks on the police, but no arrests have been made so far regarding the vandalism of Faiz’s car.

The attack on Faiz’s car is the second attack on a Supreme Court judge’s car this week. Judicial Services Commission (JSC) chair and Justice Adam Mohamed Abdulla’s car was attacked on Friday.

The situation remains tense between opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) supporters and the security forces, as well as the judiciary. The February 7 transfer of power, which MDP alleges was a coup d’état, took place after security forces mutinied following former President Mohamed Nasheed’s military detention of Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January.

President Waheed alleged on Twitter that Nasheed’s supporters were behind the violence: “Violence by Nasheed’s supporters keeps increasing,” he wrote.

Violence Against Police

The attacks on the police and chief justice’s car follow Monday’s violent confrontations between security forces and protestors who sought to obstruct Waheed from delivering a constitutionally-mandated address at the Majlis’ opening session – a second attempt after the first failed on March 1. Protestors claimed Waheed’s presence in the Majlis violates the institution’s integrity.

Police arrested 99 and said eight law enforcement officers were injured in Monday’s clashes. Police subsequently cleared out MDP’s protest camp at Raalhugandu (Surf Point) on the same day.

Superintendent Ahmed Mohamed said Tuesday’s assault on police took place while police were patrolling the streets of Malé. Two police officers were stopped by a crowd near Nalahiya Hotel at 11:30 pm, he said. One sustained injuries to the head while the other policewoman was hit on her chest and sexually harassed, claimed Mohamed.

The third police officer was also attacked near Nalahiya Hotel at 12:40 am. Mohamed appealed to the public to stop inciting violence against police at a press conference on Wednesday.

Meanwhile, posts on social media Twitter reveal a more complex picture of violence at Nalahiya Hotel. One photo shows a man with head injuries allegedly cause by police, and the other shows a man with extensive bruising on his upper arm. The third photo shows a policeman wielding a baton holding a crouching young man. The young man’s shirt is pulled over his face.

Superintendent Ahmed Mohamed said youth were involved in violence, and appealed to them to “take up responsible jobs instead of taking part in atrocities.”

Intimidation

Faiz’s car was damaged on Tuesday night by protestors gathered at the Defense Minister Mohamed Nazim’s house at 11:45 pm. Faiz was not in the car at the time.

Adam Mohamed’s car was also attacked by protestors after Friday prayers. Adam Mohamed and his child were in the car, but were not injured, reported local media.

The Supreme Court released a statement on Monday condemning attacks on judges and court buildings. It highlighted three separate attacks on judges, including that on Adam Mohamed, since January.

The other two incidents include a physical assault on Fuvahmula magistrate Ahmed Latheef in Fuvahmulah Island on March 8 and an attack on an unnamed judge on January 20.

The statement also condemned the torching of court buildings during the February 8 unrest in the atolls following police attack on MDP protesters in Malé.

“These attacks are aimed to cause irretrievable loss to justice system and to intimidate all working within the justice system,” the statement read.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

HRCM meets Chief Judge in MNDF custody

Members of the Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) visited Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in military custody yesterday.

A statement by the commission explained that the meeting was arranged under the HRCM’s national preventive mechanism (NPM) to monitor the treatment and condition of detainees and prevent ill-treatment.

Judge Abdulla was “in good health and provided all essential basic services” and did not complain of “any kind of harm or inhumane treatment”.

Abdulla Mohamed was controversially arrested by the military at about 11pm on Monday night. The detention prompted judges of the Criminal Court, High Court and Supreme Court as well as some members of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to immediately convene at the Department of Judicial Administration (DJA).

Shortly thereafter, the High Court issued a court order demanding the immediate release of Judge Abdulla, noting that the arrest was in violation of legal procedures specified in the Judges Act, which requires a warrant from a higher court as well the consultation of the Prosecutor General (PG) if a judge is to be taken into custody on criminal charges.

Police had summoned the chief judge for questioning on Monday for an undisclosed investigation. However after the judge requested the High Court to cancel the summons, it issued an injunction ordering police to halt enforcement of the summons pending a ruling.

Judge Abdulla was taken into custody by the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) later that night following a request for assistance by police. The Home Minister and Defence Minister appeared on state broadcaster the following night explaining that military assistance was sought for “fear of loss of public order and safety and national security” on account of Judge Abdulla, who has “taken the entire criminal justice system in his fist”.

Meanwhile during the emergency congregation of judges and lawyers in the early hours of Monday morning, Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz released a statement calling for the immediate release of Judge Abdulla.

Only the PG is authorised by the Judges Act to seek such an arrest warrant, the Chief Justice noted.
“The day these principle are demolished is the darkest and gloomiest time in the life of a nation,” the statement read.

The Supreme Court then issued an order to MNDF demanding the immediate release of the chief judge.

The government however continues to defy both the High Court and Supreme Court orders while Prosecutor General Ahmed Muiz has told local media that the Chief of Defence Forces and others involved in the arrest would be prosecuted for their “illegal actions”.

Opposition parties have launched daily protests and vowed to file no-confidence motions against the Home Minister and Defence Minister.

Meanwhile over 48 hours after his arrest, MNDF informed the judge’s family of his whereabouts and condition on Wednesday.

On Thursday, a group of 30 lawyers – including the current government’s first Attorney General Dhiyana Saeed and senior members of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) – released a statement appealing to the international community to urge the government to respect the constitution and law.

The lawyers insisted that Judge Abdulla’s arrest violated constitutional rights and legal procedures specified in the Judges Act as well as international norms.

Chief Justice Faiz meanwhile issued another statement last week appealing all state institutions to respect the powers and authority granted by the constitution to each organ of the state.

“In a constitutional system, a disruption to the legal status and powers of any institution is a disruption to the whole system,” the Chief Justice stated. “The consequences of a problem arising in one organ of the state will be faced by the whole system. Our constitutional system can only be maintained by protecting all state institutions.”

Faiz further appealed to all parties to respect democratic principles and remain within the bounds of the law and constitution.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)