Tag: civil court

Gasim’s Villa denied stay order in court battle

The Villa Group has been denied a stay order on the tourism ministry’s seizure of two lagoons in a court battle that could bankrupt one of the Maldives’ largest companies.

The civil court yesterday rejected a request by Villa, which is owned by opposition Jumhooree Party (JP) leader Gasim Ibrahim, for the stay order, paving the way for the tourism ministry to take control of the lagoons.

Villa Group is currently locked in a series of lawsuits against the state over the seizure of several leased properties as well as a notice to pay US$100 million allegedly owed as unpaid rent and fines.

The opposition claims the government is unfairly targeting Gasim’s business interests following the JP’s split from the ruling coalition. The government denies any political motivation behind the moves.

Villa has filed ten cases at the civil court contesting the tourism ministry’s termination of amended lease agreements as well as the US$100million notice.

The company is seeking stay orders halting the enforcement of the notices until the court decides on its legality.

But in yesterday’s ruling over the termination of lease agreements for the Maadhihgaru and Kanuhuraa lagoons in Kaafu atoll, the court ruled that Villa Hotels will not suffer “irrevocable losses” if the stay order is not granted as the state could compensate the company if the case is concluded in its favour.

The tourism ministry had also terminated lease agreements with Villa for three more islands shortly after the JP formed an alliance with the main opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) in early February.

Requests for stay orders in the other cases are still pending. Former Prosecutor General Ahmed Muiz is representing Villa in the lawsuits against the tourism ministry and the Maldives Inland Revenue Authority (MIRA).

MIRA had initially asked Villa to pay US$100million by late March, but extended the period until mid April.

Gasim has said the government is planning to freeze Villa’s accounts if the company is unable to pay the amount, warning that it would bankrupt the company and leave his 5,000 employees jobless.

In early February, the civil court granted a stay order halting the seizure of the five properties in separate litigation. However, on February 24, the High Court overturned the stay order.

Gasim meanwhile met Supreme Court Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed yesterday following the apex court’s refusal to accept an appeal for the High Court decision.

Gasim told reporters after the meeting that he expressed displeasure with the Supreme Court registrar rejecting the appeal without offering a reason.

The chief justice told him to submit a letter and that matters cannot be settled verbally, Gasim said.

Villa Group is one of the largest companies in the Maldives with the holding company Villa Shipping and Trading Pvt Ltd conglomerate operating businesses in shipping, import and export, retail, tourism, fishing, media, communications, transport, and education.

The three islands and two lagoons at stake in this case were leased as part of a settlement agreement signed with the government in December 2013 after the Supreme Court ordered the state to pay Villa over US$9 million as compensation.

Lagoons are generally leased for purposes of land reclamation for either industrial or tourism purposes.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil Court rejects Nazim’s defamation case against police chief

The Civil Court has rejected a defamation case filed on behalf of former Defence Minister Colonel (Retired) Mohamed Nazim against Police Commissioner Hussain Waheed.

Briefing the press today on the status of several cases relating to Nazim’s arrest and prosecution on charges of weapons possession, terrorism and treason, Hameed revealed that the Civil Court refused to accept the defamation case on the grounds that the police chief has legal immunity for statements made in his official capacity.

Nazim’s lawyers sued Waheed for telling the press on January 29 that an improvised explosive device was found in Nazim’s home.

Hameed said at the time that the explosive device had not been found during the initial search, and was not listed in a record of items found, explaining that police only announced its discovery days later after an analysis conducted without independent oversight.

The legal team would request a review of the Civil Court registrar’s decision, Hameed told the press today, contending that the immunity was specified in a regulation pre-dating both the 2008 constitution and the Police Act.

The legal team was also awaiting replies from the Civil Court regarding lawsuits against Prosecutor General (PG) Muhthaz Muhsin for alleged violations of Nazim’s constitutional rights and “malicious prosecution” of his wife, Afaaf Abdul Majeed.

The PG office withdrew charges of weapons possession against Afaaf on February 25.

Afaaf has also sued PG Muhsin for defamation.

Hameed also revealed that the PG office yesterday declined to provide information requested under the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act. The legal team has subsequently filed a case against the PG office at the Civil Court.

The Police Integrity Commission (PIC) has meanwhile met Nazim today to seek a statement for its investigation of a complaint regarding Police Commissioner Hussain Waheed, Hameed noted, adding that the Human Rights Commission of Maldives was also investigating a similar complaint.

The legal team also submitted complaints to the PIC regarding the SWAT team involved in the midnight raid, Hameed said, adding that the PIC has said it was in the process of gathering information in response to a separate FoI request.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Ex Defense Minister Nazim’s wife presses “malicious prosecution” charges against PG Muhsin

Former Defense Minister Mohamed Nazim’s wife has pressed civil charges against Prosecutor General (PG) Muhthaz Muhsin for “malicious prosecution” over a now withdrawn illegal weapons charge.

Afaaf Abdul Majeed and Nazim were summoned to the Criminal Court on February 25 over the discovery of a pistol and three bullets during a police raid on their apartment on January 18.

But state prosecutors requested the three judge panel to withdraw charges against Afaaf, claiming documents on a pen drive confiscated along with the weapons had brought to light new information.

Speaking to Minivan News today, Afaaf’s family member Ismail Hameed said Muhsin had made an unjust accusation against Afaaf. Her complaint filed under Article 75 of the 1968 Penal Code was submitted to the Civil Court today.

Article 75 penalizes unjust accusations made with the intent of harming or hurting an individual with a fine no more than MVR200 (US$13).

Afaaf was not aware she was under suspicion for illegal weapons possession until she received the court summons. The police had questioned her only once on the controversial weapons find, her lawyer has previously said.

Nazim’s family alleged the weapons were planted in order to frame the then- Defense Minister, a claim the police have denied.

Lawyer Maumoon Hameed on Monday said the decision to withdraw charges against Afaaf demonstrated that Muhsin could not be trusted to protect the former Defense Minister’s rights as the accused, including the PG’s constitutional responsibility to asses evidence presented by investigating bodies before pursuing charges and overseeing the legality of preliminary investigations.

State prosecutors were also forced to change charges from illegal weapons possession to importing and possessing illegal weapons midway through Monday’s hearing when Hameed pointed out an error in the charge sheet.

Further, some of the 13 anonymized police statements presented as witness statements were dated a year back, Hameed contended. The police had also claimed to have discovered an improvised explosive device in the black bag, but had made no mention of it in court, he added.

He then asked judges to hold a public and open trial in a larger courtroom to ensure Nazim’s rights are protected. Presiding Judge Abdul Bari Yoosuf refused the request, saying the trial was already public as ten reporters and six members of the public were allowed to observe the trial.

The police on February 10 arrested Nazim on additional charges of terrorism and treason, claiming the documents in the pen drive indicated he was plotting to overthrow the government and harm state officials.

However, Hameed said the police had not questioned Nazim even once during the 15 day remand.

Before the remand expired, the Criminal Court placed Nazim in pre-trial detention until the illegal weapons trial concluded.

Nazim’s family in a statement last week urged the international community to step up pressure on President Abdulla Yameen’s administration, claiming “there is no hope that Nazim can expect a fair trial” due to a “notoriously politicized judiciary.”

“Nazim never expected to be where he is now. But he has fallen foul of a political conspiracy, one in which powerful forces within the Maldivian government have sought to destroy him and thus prevent him from challenging for the leadership of the ruling party,” Nazim’s family explained in a letter to the international community.

Related to this story:

Evidence against Nazim consists only of 13 anonymised police statements

Ex-Defence Minister calls for an open, public trial

No hope for fair trial, says former defense minister’s family

Nazim accused of conspiring with Villa group to harm state officials

Ex defense minister’s wife charged with illegal weapons possession

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court overturns stay order halting seizure of Villa properties

The High Court today overturned a Civil Court stay order halting the seizure of three islands and two lagoons belonging to the Villa Group, a company owned by Jumhooree Party (JP) Leader Gasim Ibrahim.

The Tourism Ministry on February 5 ordered the Villa group to return Thaa Atoll Elaa, Raa Atoll Maanenfushi, Gaafu Dhaal Atoll Gazeera, Kaafu Atoll Maadhihgaru lagoon, and Vaavehdhi lagoon.

The islands and lagoons had been granted as compensation for the nationalisation of several development projects, including Kadhdhoo airport.

In its February 11 stay order, the Civil Court said the ministry’s termination of the settlement agreement could cause irrevocable damages to the company, and noted the properties had been granted due to the government’s inability to bear the burden of a financial or monetary compensation.

However, the High Court ruled that the lower court had not considered protecting the state from potential damages from the stay order.

“The interests of the state protected from not issuing the stay order is larger than the interests of Villa Hotels and Resorts”, the High Court ruling said.

The Civil Court’s injunction also violated “judicial and legal principles”, the panel of three judges unanimously ruled.

The Tourism Ministry’s Senior Legal Officer Faseeh Zahir said the ministry had not yet made any moves following the High Court order as they are yet to receive confirmation from the Attorney General’s Office.

Gasim has previously contended the ministry is punishing him for his recent alliance with the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) against what they allege to be President Abdulla Yameen’s repeated violations of the constitution.

The JP’s opposition to key government legislation last year saw Gasim suffer setbacks to his businesses, as well as physical threats against his person – both of which the party blamed on Gasim’s former political allies.

Speaking at a joint rally of JP and Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) on February 5, Gasim stated that “the Maldivian people will not allow injustice.”

“Forget it, nobody can push us back, we will be in the service of the Maldivian people. We will defend the fundamental rights and freedoms of the constitution,” Gasim said.

“You can seize everything, take it. Take it. After all, things can only be taken from people who have them,” he said.

President Abdulla Yameen has denied Gasim’s business reversals were a result of political events, stating that all businesses were treated equally under the law.

Meanwhile, the Tourism Minister Ahmed Adeeb claimed the Villa Group owes the government US$100million as rent and fines for properties leased to the company.

Gasim has denied the claim and called for Adeeb’s resignation.


Related to this story

Civil Court orders halt to seizure of lands allocated to Gasim’s Villa company

Gasim defiant as opposition sign agreement to defend Constitution

MDP and JP reach agreement on defence of Constitution

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC appoints judges to Criminal Court and the Civil Court

The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) has appointed judges to both the Criminal Court and the Civil Court.

According to a statement on the commission’s website, the JSC decided to appoint one judge to the Criminal Court and four judges to the Civil Court in a meeting held last night (February 16).

Ahmed Rasheed of Hulhumalé 14-06 was appointed to the Criminal Court while Hassan Faheem Ibrahim from Haa Dhaalu Maukunudhoo, Ali Abdulla (Galolhu ward, Malé), Abdula Naseer Shafeeq (Lhavyani Kurendhoo), and Mohamed Haleem (Noonu Velidhoo) were appointed to the Civil Court.

An announcement was made for the application of interested candidates to the vacant positions on the benches of High Court, Criminal Court, and the Civil Court on Feburary 1, 2015.

The commission is yet to decide on the appointment of a judge to the High Court bench after the resignation of Judge Yoosuf Hussain – reportedly for health reasons – in early February.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil Court halts trials from February 15-19 for administrative overhaul

The Civil Court will halt all trials from February 15 to 19 in order to re-organise the court’s divisions and to settle other administrative matters as ordered by the Supreme Court circular of January 8.

Although all trials will come to a stop, the court will continue to accept new cases said a statement on the court’s website.

The statement came with a work plan which allocates particular works for every day in the time period including evaluation of issues in the sections, refurnishing, reallocation of responsibilities, and the redesigning of forms and other documentation.

These changes yesterday prompted the presiding judge in former President Mohamed Nasheed’s case against the Judicial Service Commission to announce:

“I cannot assure you that I will be sitting on this appeal after the said changes; therefore I cannot give out court summons for the next hearing”.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil Court rejects Nasheed stay order on Hulhumalé Court bench changes

The Civil Court has decided “there are no grounds” to grant a stay order asking the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) to halt the process of reappointment of the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court.

The order was requested by former President and opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) leader Mohamed Nasheed, who is challenging the assembly of the bench tasked with trying him for the detention of judge Abdulla Mohamed while in office.

In the hearing held yesterday (February 15) at 4pm, the presiding judge stated that the stay order cannot be granted as the court has not found that the JSC is bringing changes to the Hulhumalé Court bench.

Meanwhile the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales (BHRC) has expressed concern over the “sudden resumption” of Nasheed’s trial, noting that the committee is closely monitoring the developments.

The BHRC said it had closely followed the case for almost two years. Previous observation of the case led the committee to describe the Hulhumalé court bench as “cherrypicked to convict”, prompting calls for “fundamental reform of the judiciary and its administration in the Maldives”.

In answering Nasheed’s stay order request, the JSC has previously denied that it is bringing any changes to the court, also claiming that it does not currently exist as the two out of three of the magistrates first appointed have now been promoted to superior courts.

Saturday’s trial saw the JSC raise a procedural issue, stating that while the commission has the authority and power to allocate and transfer judges, the Civil Court does not have the jurisdiction to deliberate on the legality of the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court bench as the bench was appointed on the Supreme Court’s advice.

The JSC lawyers also contended that the decision was not made by the Judicial Council as claimed by Nasheed’s lawyers, as the responsibilities and authority of the council have been taken over the Supreme Court.

Procedural issues

Nasheed’s lawyers asked whether the JSC is claiming that the Civil Court cannot deliberate on the matter because the commission interprets the Supreme Court’s advice on appointing the bench as a court ruling or because the JSC does not believe Civil Court has jurisdiction on the matter.

The JSC lawyers responded by stating that the “procedural issue is based on Supreme Court’s decision”.

In Nasheed’s challenge at the High Court regarding the legality of the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court bench, the JSC raised a similar jurisdictional issue, with the High Court deciding that it did not have jurisdiction to look into the matter, saying it could only deliberate on decisions taken by lower courts.

In reply, Hisaan Hussain from Nasheed’s legal team explained that Article 43 (C) of the Constitution afforded every citizen the right to appeal against any administrative decision and that “therefore we are appealing JSC’s administrative decision to convene the magistrates panel”.

Subsequently, the JSC clarified that the procedural issue was based not on jurisdictional grounds but because the commission believes that the Supreme Court’s advice on appointing the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench is the court’s ruling.

At that point, the presiding judge stated that the Supreme Court had issued a circular that “changes the composition of the Civil Court by 12am tonight (by 15th February)”, explaining that “I cannot assure you that I will be sitting on this appeal after the said changes; therefore I cannot give out court summons for the next hearing.

Nasheed’s legal team also requested more time to discuss the case with the legal team and lawyers based outside Maldives.

The controversial court was formed specifically to oversee Nasheed’s trial for the January 2012 detention of Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed. Legal challenges to the court have seen the case stalled since April 2013.

Nasheed’s lawyers have previously challenged – unsuccessfully – the establishment of a magistrates court in the Malé suburb, arguing that Hulhumalé is considered to be part of Malé City under the Decentralisation Act and therefore does not require a separate court.

United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul has also noted that the “appointment of judges to the case, has been set up in an arbitrary manner outside the parameters laid out in the laws”.


Related to this story

High Court cannot deliberate on Hulhumalé court bench

Nasheed’s request for halt to Hulhumalé court appointments denied

Nasheed requests reappointments to Hulhumalé court be stopped

Nasheed trial part of drive to eliminate President’s opponents, says MDP

Fair trial for Nasheed “difficult to see” when judicial bench “cherrypicked to convict”: BHRC trial observers

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil Court orders halt to seizure of lands allocated to Gasim’s Villa company

The Civil Court has ordered the Ministry of Tourism halt all proceedings regarding the seizure of uninhabited islands and lagoons granted to Villa Hotels and Resorts Private Limited.

Villa – owned by Jumhooree Party (JP) leader MP Gasim Ibrahim – requested the stay order after the government’s decision to hand back the uninhabited islands and lagoons given to the company as compensation for the nationalisation of several development projects, including Kadhdhoo airport

According to the order, although the government has said Villa can be compensated for the seizure of the islands and lagoons, the areas were handed over due to the government’s inability to bear the burden of a financial or monetary compensation.

The islands and lagoons that had been ordered to be returned are Thaa Atoll Elaa, Raa Atoll Maanenfushi, Gaafu Dhaal Atoll Gazeera, Kaafu Atoll Maadhihgaru lagoon, and Vaavehdhi lagoon.

Speaking at a joint rally of JP and Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), Gasim stated that “the Maldivian people will not allow injustice” and reiterated calls for the charges against MDP leader and former President Mohamed Nasheed to be dropped.

“Forget it, nobody can push us back, we will be in the service of the Maldivian people. We will defend the fundamental rights and freedoms of the constitution”, Gasim said.

The JP’s opposition to key government legislation last year saw Gasim suffer setbacks to his businesses, as well as physical threats against his person – both of which the party blamed on Gasim’s former political allies.

“You can seize everything, take it. Take it. After all, things can only be taken from people who have them,” he told attendees of the joint rally of Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and JP held on February 5, 2015.

“Yameen, do not think that a well-built man can come and shoot me with a gun. No, No, No. I am not afraid even one bit.”

President Abdulla Yameen has denied Gasim’s business reversals were a result of political events, stating that all businesses were treated equally under the law.


Related to this story

Gasim defiant as opposition sign agreement to defend Constitution

MDP and JP reach agreement on defence of Constitution

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil Court concludes first hearing of Hulhumalé Court challenge

Former President and Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) leader Mohamed Nasheed’s case against the legality of the process in which the bench of the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court was heard by the Civil Court today.

Nasheed submitted the case to the lower court after the High Court decided on Monday (February 9) that it could not deliberate on the legality of the bench, citing jurisdictional grounds.

The High Court’s decision read that, under the regulation, the court can deliberate on decisions of the lower courts, but not on their composition.

According to Nasheed’s legal team member Ahmed Abdulla who spoke to the press outside the court, the trial today heard the case challenging the legality of the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court bench and also a stay order requested by Nasheed.

“We have received information the Judicial Service Commission plans to bring changes to the bench, we requested the court to order a halt to that”, Abdulla said.

He added that the JSC’s legal team requested more time to respond to the case regarding the legality of the bench but that it had responded to the stay order request.

“Firstly they stated that the bench is not in existence and then they said that we have brought no changes to the bench. Therefore what they are basically saying is that bench not being in existence is not a change. We were unable to comprehend what they were saying”.

Abdulla told reporters that in response to this, Nasheed’s legal team stated that the reason Nasheed had lodged cases in court against the JSC is because the commission insists it has powers to assemble court benches.

Nasheed’s legal team member Hisan Hussain stated that the reason the JSC is saying the bench does not exist is because magistrates who were initially appointed to the bench have now been promoted to superior courts.

“We must always assume that the JSC will assemble a bench, possibly even tomorrow and proceed with the case as long as the commission insists it has authority to do so,” she continued.

The judge will decide and rule on the stay order request in the next hearing to be held Saturday (February 14) .

While the trial continued supporters of Nasheed and the MDP gathered outside the Civil Court and expressed their discontent over the government’s “persecution and failures”.

Tensions between Special Operations police officers and those gathered grew as police started clearing the crowd from the main entrance of the civil court around 5pm.

Some pushing and shoving was observed along with heated exchanges of words between protesters and the police, although no arrests were made.

(PHOTO: LAWYER AHMED ABDULLA)


Related to this story

Nasheed predicts he will soon be jailed

High Court cannot deliberate on Hulhumalé court bench

Opposition alliance a “waste of time”, says Gayoom

MDP and JP reach agreement on defence of Constitution

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)