Tag: civil court

State failing to prove ‘Usfasgandu’ lease terms violated: Mayor ‘Maizan’ Ali Manik

Male’ City Council (MCC) Mayor ‘Maizan’ Ali  Manik has maintained the state has failed to provide clear examples of any laws or regulations violated in the leasing of the ‘Usfasgandu’ protest area to the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

Manik told Minivan News that the state’s allegations, presently the basis for a Civil Court case against the MDP-majority MCC, were politically motivated and had failed to take into account the site was being used by the wider public regardless of politics.

“We have not broken any rules or regulations on this matter,” he said. “Even if somebody takes this area away, people will instead take to the streets to have their voice heard.”

The mayor’s comments were made following the latest hearing on Tuesday (August 14) of a Civil-Court cased filed by the state against the MCC to hand over the ‘Usfasgandu’ area.  The case concerns allegations that the municipal authority had acted illegally in leasing the protest site.

Local media reported that the state had responded in the Civil Court by claiming the city council was in violation of both articles five and six of the agreement to lease the land – charges documents submitted along with the case were said to prove.

The state also alleged that the MMC was deliberately attempting to delay the ongoing case by claiming the charges “were not clear”, according to newspaper Haveeru.

Addressing the case, Mayor Manik claimed that no specifics had been given by the state as to where the council had violated its agreement in providing the land.

The case was reportedly adjourned Tuesday in order to provide the state time to respond to the MCC’s allegations. Manik claimed that a date for the next hearing of the case had not yet been set.

Minister of Housing Dr Mohamed Muiz was not responding to inquiries from Minivan News today regarding the case.  President’s Office Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza and Media Secretary Masood Imad were also not responding to calls at the time of press.

Legal wrangling

The case is the latest development in ongoing legal wrangling between the MCC and the Ministry of Housing over the Usfasgandfu site.

Earlier this month, the Civil Court ruled that the Maldives Police Service does not have legal authority to order the MDP to vacate its ‘Usfasgandu’ protest camp on May 29.

The court noted the same day that the a wider dispute between the MCC and Housing ministry over guardianship of the Usfasgandu area could only be settled once the Civil Court reached a verdict on the case being heard this week, which was filed by the ministry requesting the MCC be ordered to hand over the plot.

On May 29, police raided Usfasgandu with a search warrant from the Criminal Court and ordered the MDP to vacate the area before 10pm, after which the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) began dismantling the protest camp.

The Civil Court however issued an injunction ordering the security forces to halt the dismantling after the MDP challenged the legality of the operation. The injunction was to stand until the court reached a verdict and was later upheld by the High Court.

Police had obtained a warrant to search Usfasgandu on the grounds that the MDP was using the area as a hub for criminal activity and black magic.

MDP lawyers however argued at court that the warrant did not provide a legal basis to dismantle the demonstration area.

Following the dismantling of the MDP’s protest camp at the tsunami memorial area on March 19, the Male’ City Council (MCC) leased the Usfasgandu area to the former ruling party for three months, prompting repeated attempts by the government to reclaim the area.

The MCC – which has nine MDP councillors and two government-aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) councillors – however refused to hand over the area to the Housing Ministry despite a cabinet decision authorising the Housing Ministry to reclaim the plot.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court orders reinstatement of Police Chief Inspector Risheef Thoha

The High Court has overruled a decision made by the Civil Court regarding a suit filed against Police Chief Inspector Risheef Thoha, after he was dismissed by the Police Disciplinary Board over allegations that he raped a woman in a police car.

The court ordered that Chief Inspector Thoha be reinstated.

In August last year, a woman filed a case at police headquarters alleging she was sexually abused by a group of police officers, including the chief inspector.

In December 2010 Thoha appealed the decision of the Disciplinary Board at the Civil Court, which ruled that the Board’s decision was lawful and that there was enough evidence to dismiss Thoha from police duty.

The Civil Court noted at the time that Thoha’s call records showed he had contacted the other accused officers several times, and that the officers had also contacted him.

When the locations of the phones were determined, they showed that the car had travelled the routes the woman had said, the Civil Court’s ruling stated.

The ruling also said that the girl was thrown out of the car naked near Thoha ‘s house, Mainz in Maafannu, and that Thoha had admitted to being in the area a few minutes later.

However the High Court today ruled that Thoha be reinstated at the position of Chief Inspector of Police, and paid the salary he had not received during the time he was dismissed.

In August 2011 a close friend of the alleged victim told Minivan News the incident had occurred near Seahouse restaurant in Henveiru.

“She would not be older than 22 years, she was friends with the police inspector,’’ the source said. “According to what she told me, she was partying with a group of four police officers, including a senior inspector, and they were all drunk.’’

He alleged that the incident occurred inside a police car.

“She said they threw her onto the street after sexually abusing her,’’ the source added.

Former ‘Mr Maldives’ Police Constable Husham Hameed was also dismissed after being accused of the same crime, but in April last year the Civil Court ruled that his position also be reinstated.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police cannot order MDP to vacate Usfasgandu, Civil Court rules

The Maldives Police Service does not have legal authority to order the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) to vacate its ‘Usfasgandu’ protest camp on May 29, the Civil Court ruled today.

On May 29, police raided Usfasgandu with a search warrant from the Criminal Court and ordered the MDP to vacate the area before 10pm, after which the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) began dismantling the protest camp.

The Civil Court however issued an injunction ordering the security forces to halt the dismantling after the MDP challenged the legality of the operation. The injunction was to stand until the court reached a verdict and was later upheld by the High Court.

Police had obtained a warrant to search Usfasgandu on the grounds that the MDP was using the area as a hub for criminal activity and black magic.

Police alleged that people in the Usfasgandu area verbally abused police officers and damaged a police vehicle on April 20, obstructed a Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) exercise on May 9, and that, on May 25 “MDP protesters threw a cursed rooster at MNDF officers.”

MDP lawyers however argued at court that the warrant did not provide a legal basis to dismantle the demonstration area.

Following the dismantling of the MDP’s protest camp at the tsunami memorial area on March 19, the Male’ City Council (MCC) leased the Usfasgandu area to the former ruling party for three months, prompting repeated attempts by the government to reclaim the area.

The MCC – which has nine MDP councillors and two government-aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) councillors – however refused to hand over the area to the Housing Ministry despite a cabinet decision authorising the Housing Ministry to reclaim the plot.

In its verdict today, the Civil Court noted that legal dispute between the MCC and Housing over guardianship of the Usfasgandu area could only be settled once the Civil Court reached a verdict on a separate case filed by the ministry requesting the MCC be ordered to hand over the plot.

As the MDP had a legally binding agreement with the MCC for use of the area, Judge Hathif Hilmy ruled that police could not infringe on the rights of the MDP as it was not party to the dispute between the MCC and the Housing Ministry.

Police therefore could not enforce the position of one party in a civil dispute without a court order as such an action would violate the constitutional rights of administrative fairness and equality (articles 17 and 20) of the other party.

Moreover, police could not infringe on the MDP’s right to use the leased land during its investigation of alleged criminal activity, Judge Hathif Hilmy ruled.

The Civil Court ruling today invalidated the police letter on May 29 ordering the MDP to vacate Usfasgandu or face confiscation of property.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Hulhumale’ court has jurisdiction to hear Nasheed case: Deputy Prosecutor General

Deputy Prosecutor General (PG) Hussein Shameem has said that Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court does have the jurisdiction to hear the case of former President Mohamed Nasheed over his role in the detention of a Criminal Court Chief Judge.

Shameem contended that should the court maintain its decision against hearing the case, there were few other judicial alternatives in trying to ensure a “fair trial”.

The comments were made as the PG’s office called on the Hulhumale’-based court to review its decision to send back the case to authorities on the grounds that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear the former president’s trial as written under the Judicature Act.

Nasheed, along with three Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) officers, face charges over the controversial detention of Criminal Court Chef Judge Abdullah Mohamed – a decision the former president claimed was taken over national security concerns.

Chief Judge abdulla was detained by the military, after he had opened the court outside normal hours to order the immediate release of former Justice Minister and current Home Minister and Deputy Leader of the Dhivehi Quamee Party (DQP), Dr Mohamed Jameel.

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), of which Nasheed is the presidential candidate, has claimed it expects the trial – whether in Hulhumale’ or another court – to go ahead regardless of legality.  The party has alleged the case serves solely as a means to convict the former president and potentially prevent him from contesting in the next general election.

However, Shameem claimed today the PG’s office had opted to hold the case against the former president in Hulhumale’ as it believed a fair trial could not be held at the country’s Criminal Court, an institution Judge Abdulla continues to oversee.

“We believe the Hulhumale’-based court does have the jurisdiction to hear this case under provisions outlined in the Judicature Act. We do not believe a fair trial could be held at the Criminal Court in this particular case,” he said.

Alternatives

Shameem claimed that there was a seemingly limited number of alternatives for hearing the case should Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court maintain it does not have the mandate to host such a trial.

“We would not be sending the case [to the Criminal Court],” he said. “So if the Hulhumale’ magistrate feels uncomfortable with the case or maintains it does not have the jurisdiction, we would have to appeal at the High Court about this.”

A statement sent to local media yesterday by the PG’s office claimed that despite Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court’s initial reservations, it could hold the case as the island was under the same judicial constituent as nearby Male’ and Villimale.

The statement also contended that judicial regulations did not prevent a magistrate court from investigating allegations of the “deliberate arrest of an innocent individual”.

Addressing the issue of court jurisdiction, President’s Office Media Secretary Masood Imad said that the government remained committed to not interfering with the country’s judiciary. Masood said he would not therefore comment on the case against the former president, who has alleged his successor Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan came to power in a “coup d’etat” on February 7.

“We would not want to touch the issue with a ten-foot pole,” Masood added, referring any questions on the case to Attorney General (AG) Azima Shakoor.

AG Shakoor was not responding to calls at time of press.

Former President to justify judge’s detention

Former President Nasheed has previously that he is “prepared” to justify the reasons for the arrest of Judge Abdulla, and said he was ready to appear in court and prove his actions were valid.

MDP MP and Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor claimed that that despite the present uncertainty over the exact legal body that would be hearing the trial, he believed authorities would be going ahead with the trial.

“Nobody, can stop them from doing it,” he claimed. “They have no choice to go ahead with such a thing. It is the only way to avoid talk of an early election by arresting Nasheed and trying to dismantle the MDP. The dictatorship is back.”

Ghafoor alleged that the MDP did not presently take the potential trial of the former President Nasheed “seriously”, owing to what he claimed was institutionalised bias and political influence in the country’s judiciary.

“Today for example, a lower court was able to overrule the JSC [the country’s judicial watchdog] to take action against Chief Judge Abdullah over concerns of his conduct,” he said.

Ghafoor claimed that the judiciary’s reputation and conduct reflected a wider societal attitude that the Maldives did “not have a culture of law” for citizens to rely on.

“The courts and judiciary are not up too much here. During the thirty years of dictatorship we had, the media published propganda about these institutions and people thought they were quite capable,” he said. “Yet in the democracy we have had, you have to prove yourselves”

Ghafoor claimed that as the issue of Nasheed’s trial continued to wear on, more members of the public were becoming are “that the trials are a sham”.

In late 2011, Judge Abdulla was himself under investigation by the JSC, the country’s judicial watchdog, for allegedly politically biased comments made to private broadcaster DhiTV. The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) was due to release a report into Judge Abdulla’s alleged ethical misconduct, however the judge approached the Civil Court and successfully filed an injunction against his further investigation by the judicial watchdog.

Judge Abdulla’s arrest sparked international criticism of the Nasheed administration as well three weeks of anti-government protests in January, leading the former government to appeal for international assistance from the Commonwealth and UN to reform the judiciary.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil Court rules in favour of former Police Superintendent Jinah in Gassan Maumoon suit

The Civil Court has ruled that the court was unclear of the role former Police Superintendent and head of the Drug Enforcement Department (DED) had played in obstructing the basic rights of Gassan Maumoon, following his arrest last year on suspicion of dropping a wooden plank from a six story building into a crowed of Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) supporters.

Gassan Maumoon, son of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, filed the suit against Jinah after police arrested him on allegations that he had dropped the wooden plank into the MDP supporters, striking the head of a 17 year-old boy.

Police at the time said that the victim, Hussein Hassan of Thinadhoo in Gaaf Dhaal, had to undergo brain surgery to repair damage to his skull.

Civil Court Judge Aisha Shujoon ruled that the Police Integrity Commission (PIC), the oversight body of the police, had told the court that the case was lodged at the commission and that it had decided that Jianh did not have to take responsibility for Gassan’s arrest.

Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed at the time ruled that his arrest was unlawful and ordered his immediate release, despite early evidence being produced to the court supporting police claims.

The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) had recently competed a report on Abdulla Mohamed detailing the judge’s misconduct, notably politically-biased comments given to opposition-aligned private broadcaster DhiTV. This would later lead to his detention by the military, opposition protests and ultimately the toppling of the Nasheed administration in a police and military mutiny on February 7 this year.

In his counter suit filed in the Civil Court, Gassan contended that the Criminal Court had ruled that the arrest was unlawful and requested the court make Jinah take responsibility for his unlawful arrest, and pay him compensation.

At a press briefing at the time, Superintendent Jinah said police wished to “reveal the truth” about the incident as “deliberately false allegations have been made against police using the media” to bring the institution into disrepute, and “relentless attempts” had been made to cast aspersions on police and its senior officers by members of the then-opposition.

Police at the time exhibited video footage of a wooden pole thrown from above injuring the 17 year-old during the MDP protest against judicial corruption, which took place outside former President Gayoom’s residence, Maafanu Endherimaage.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

State appeals High Court ruling favouring Sultans of the Seas in US$8.5 million fraud case

The state has appealed a High Court judgment overruling a Civil Court verdict ordering luxury yachting company Sultans of the Seas to pay Rf110.2 million (US$7.1 million) in fines and unpaid duties.

In September 2009, Maldives Custom Service filed a case at the Civil Court to recover US$8.5 million in fines and unpaid customs duties from Sultans of the Seas – a company associated with the family of Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) Leader and Kendhoo MP Ahmed Thasmeen Ali – for allegedly defrauding customs to evade import duties for two luxury yachts.

At a press conference in June 2009, Director of Customs Abdul Rasheed Ibrahim revealed that Sultans evaded import duties for two Italian Azimut yachts, imported in December 2007 and March 2008.

“In the invoices, they said they purchased two used launches,” Rasheed explained, adding that an investigation by the customs internal audit discovered that Sultans had purchased two of Azimut’s latest models, which cost 12.3 million euros or Rf226 million (US$17.7 million).

However, the quoted price in the invoices and documents the company submitted to customs was Rf18 million (US$1.4 million).

While the Civil Court ruled in favour of customs in late 2009, the High Court overruled the verdict late last year.

According to local daily Haveeru, at the first Supreme Court hearing last Monday, State Attorney Ahmed Usham explained that the state decided to appeal the High Court ruling because the evidence was sufficient to establish fraud as documents submitted by Sultans claimed that the vessels were used when the two luxury speedboats were brand new.

The fraud was discovered when information was clarified through the Bank of Maldives Plc Ltd (BML), Usham added.

Sultan’s attorney Ibrahim Riza however argued that Sultans should not be held responsible for the actions of the former collector of customs and insisted that the Bank of Maldives documents did not clearly state that the vessels were new.

Adjourning the hearing, Justice Ali Hameed said a further hearing would only be held if the court wished to clarify certain matters after studying the appeal.

In May this year, former Principal Collector of Customs Ibrahim Shafiu, also ex-registrar of DRP until the 2008 presidential election, was charged with corruption for his role in the Sultans fraud case.

Shafiu had been living in Canada since former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s election defeat and returned to the Maldives following the controversial transfer of power in February.

Shafiu was charged with abuse of authority for allegedly helping change details of the yachts through his influence over the valuation committee to decrease duty payable for the vessels. The former DRP registrar pleaded not guilty to the charges.

BML loans

Gayoom and ThasmeenMeanwhile in October 2011, the High Court upheld Civil Court verdicts ordering Mahandhoo Investments and Kabalifaru Investments – two resort businesses with close ties to DRP Leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali and running mate of former President Gayoom in 2008 – to repay millions of dollars worth of loans to the Bank of Maldives.

DRP MP Mohamed Nashiz, brother of the DRP leader and managing director of Kabaalifaru, and DRP MP Ali Azim, a loan guarantor, were among the appellants at the High Court.

Both MPs had signed ‘joint and several guarantee and indemnity’ agreements for the loans issued in mid-2008.

In the first case involving Mahandhoo Investments, BML had issued a US$23.5 million demand loan, a US$103,200 bank guarantee and US$30,090 letter of credit on July 10, 2008.

The second case meanwhile involved a US$3.3 million loan issued to Kabaalifaru Investment and the appeal of a Civil Court verdict on September 30, 2009 ordering the company to settle the debt in the next 12 months.

Both verdict were however appealed at the High Court and remained stalled for almost two years before the rulings in October 2011.

Moreover, in December 2009, the Civil Court ordered Sultans of the Seas to pay over Rf654 million (US$50 million) in unpaid loans, fines and accumulated interest to the Bank of Maldives in the course of one year.

Ruling in favour of the bank, Judge Aisha Shujoon said the company was liable for loans of US$15.3 million, US$8.7 million and €12.5 million as well as US$500,000 in combined credit limit facilities as agreed upon in June 2008.

The judge ruled that records and documents presented to court proved that as of December 7, 2009, Sultans owes US$18 million on the first demand loan, US$10 million on the second and €14 million on the third.

In a BML audit report released in January 2009, Auditor General Ibrahim Naeem warned that defaults on bank loans issued to influential political players could jeopardise the entire financial system of the country.

Over 60 per cent of the US$633 million worth of loans issued in 2008 was granted to 12 parties, the report noted.

According to the report, US$45 million was issued to Sultans of the Seas and US$36 million to Fonnadhoo Tuna Products, two loans which comprised 13 per cent of the total loans issued in 2008.

The report noted that Fonaddhoo was owned by DRP Leader Thasmeen while the owners of Sultans of the Seas were closely associated with the former minority leader of parliament.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

FDA authorises reopening of Fantasy Bakery

The Food and Drug Authority (FDA) has authorised the reopening of Fantasy Bakery, which was closed down by health inspectors in October 2011 for selling expired food products.

In a statement yesterday, FDA explained that approval was given to the bakery last Wednesday in its capacity as the monitoring body for food sellers.

However, the Male’ City Council had yet to reach a decision on the dispute when the FDA announced its authorisation for the reopening.

Mayor ‘Maizan’ Ali Manik told local daily Haveeru yesterday that the bakery could not be reopened before the city council approved the business to operate, adding that authority to do so was delegated to the council by the Ministry of Health.

Earlier this year, the city council decided to conduct a public referendum on the reopening of Fantasy Bakery. However, in April the Civil Court issued an injunction halting the planned referendum on the grounds that it was not stipulated in any law or regulation.

The company meanwhile filed a counter-suit suing the city council for withholding its license to sell food products.

Mayor Ali Manik insisted yesterday that the FDA could not authorise the reopening while the cases were pending at court.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court verdict on Usfasgandu case to be issued Tuesday

The High Court today held hearings on the Usfasgandu dismantling case after the government appealed the matter, following a Civil Court injunction to halt the dismantling operation.

The government appealed to cancel the Civil Court order to stop dismantling of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) protest site, and to return all items confiscated from the area by security forces.

Attorney for the State Ahmed Usham contended that the Civil Court’s order was completely in favour of the MDP, and also contradicted normal procedures for issuing court orders. He further said the Civil Court had not granted sufficient time and opportunity for the State to respond to the court order.

In response, MDP lawyer Abdulla Afeef said the Civil Court gave the State ample time to respond considering the situation at the time.

A verdict on the case will be issued tomorrow, said High Court Judge Abdul Rauf.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil Court intervenes to stop dismantling of Usfasgandu

Security forces last night began the dismantling the ousted Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s camp at Usfasgandu in Male’, shortly before being ordered to halt by the Civil Court after the MDP challenged the legality of the operation.

The police search of the area, which began at around 9:00am, was performed after police obtained a search warrant from the Criminal Court on the grounds that the MDP had been using the area as a hub for criminal activity and black magic.

The warrant alleged that people in the Usfasgandu area verbally abused police officers and damaged a police vehicle on April 20, obstructed a Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) exercise of May 9, and that, on May 25 “MDP protesters threw a cursed rooster at MNDF officers.”

The order did not, however, provide legal basis for the dismantling of the demonstration area, a point made by the MDP to the Civil Court.

“We submitted a case against the Maldives Police Service saying that they cannot ask the MDP to stop any political activities and they cannot act to evacuate the place,” said MDP lawyer Hisaan Hussain.

Deputy Mayor of Male’ City Council (MCC) Ahmed Falah said he had seen the court order and that it did not give the police scope to dismantle the area. Minivan News also saw the warrant and can confirm Falah’s assertions.

“This proves that they don’t care about what the court says. The police didn’t go to the Civil Courts because they knew they would lose,” said Falah.

Both the MCC and the Criminal Court had referred the government’s previous complaints to the Civil Court.

“The new [Civil] court order says neither the police, nor any other parties, can dismantle the area,” he continued.

Police announced on Tuesday that they would begin to dismantle the camp at 10:00pm in order to preserve public order.

Hisaan reported that, at 10:15pm, the Civil Court instructed the Attorney General (AG) to tell the government forces to halt their activities.

Hisaan said that this instruction was given in order to allow the judge time to consider the MDP’s complaint. Subsequently, the judge issued an injunction at 10:40pm, halting the polices activities until the Civil Court reacheda verdict on the case, she explained.

In a statement released late last night,  police confirmed the receipt of the Civil Court order and announced they  had ceased its activities. The statement did say that that the operation was close to being completed by the time the warrant to desist was received.

Minivan News witnessed Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) personnel working in the area at around 11:30pm, although they seemed only to be moving benches around the site. Nothing that could be described as dismantling was witnessed at this time.

Hisaan said that although the case was submitted against the police, it stipulated that all parties cease dismantling activities in the area.

Sun Online has reported that some items were returned to the camp after the Civil Court order was received. All the seating had been removed from the raised area and the stage had been fully dismantled.

Hisaan claimed that the dismantling of the camp continued after the court had ordered it to cease “in violation of the court order”, and that police were in contempt of court. She said that the MDP intended to make the courts aware of this.

The police statement said that it would take the 48 hours granted to it by the Criminal Court in order to complete its investigations. The area remained sealed off to the public at

The original Criminal Court order was shown to MDP MP Mariya Didi before the search commenced yesterday morning.

Members of Male’ City Council (MCC) were left furious, having themselves received no court order, nor any notification of the impending search.

When approached for comment during the police’s search, MCC Mayor Ali Manik said that he was “too angry to talk”.

Hisaan said that Mariya had asked to see the court order, but that legally speaking this did not amount to the warrant being officially served to the MDP.

The Usfasgandu area was one of 32 plots of public land handed over to the MCC as part of the decentralisation act in 2010. Recent months have seen a running feud between the council and the national government, which has made repeated attempts to reclaim a number of these plots.’

The leasing of the area to the MDP for its political activities has been used by the government as justification for its attempts to reclaim the area, alleging violation of the decentralisation statutes.

After having had a request for a warrant to clear the site turned down by the Criminal Court, the Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed told local media on May 27 that, in the period since the court had rejected the police’s request for a warrant on May 20, he had received several complaints regarding criminal activity in the area.

A Criminal Court order was obtained by the next afternoon – May 28 – and the search conducted early on May 29.

The details of the warrant, however, included incidents which allegedly occurred before the original request for a court order was made. Jameel told Haveeru on May 27 that no “No complaints of any criminal activities had been raised with us at the time [the police were asked to take the area – May 20].”

At a meeting of the MDP’s legal team today, the decision was made to send a letter to the police, asking them to respect the court order and to return any property removed from the site by 10:00pm tonight.

Hisaan added that the MDP, despite its requests, had still not received the items confiscated from the Rahlugandu camp on March 19.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)