After thousands of protesters gathered last Friday and demanded the government “close the spas and massage parlors and such places where prostitution is conducted”, the Tourism Ministry has today published a circular asking all the resorts to shut down their spas and massage parlors.
Press Secretary for the President Mohamed Zuhair today confirmed to Minivan News that the Tourism Ministry had issued the circular.
The circular informs that the government has decided to shut down all the spas and massage parlors in accordance with demands made by the general public during last Friday’s protest to “defend Islam.”
Speaking at a press conference held yesterday, Zuhair said the protesters did not specify where exactly the prostitution was conducted but mentioned that prostitution was conducted inside spas and massage parlors.
He said the government does not know how to differentiate between the spas and massage parlors that are complicit with prostitution and those which are not.
Therefore, Zuhair said the government has decided to shut down all such locales because Maldivians, including high-profile individuals, have been visiting tourist resorts and having spa treatments.
He said the government does not want those high-profile individuals’ good names being damaged by visiting places accused of such crimes.
Zuhair added that some of the individuals making these demands last Friday also conduct business in the tourism industry. Therefore, the government believes that, given their insider understanding of the resort and spa industry, their accusations are well-founded and there is not much to investigate.
This week, five spas run in five resorts owned by opposition Jumhoory Party (JP) Leader ‘Burma’ Gasim Ibrahim were asked by the Tourism Ministry to shut down operations over similar allegations.
The company subsequently sued the government. Meanwhile, the Civil Court issued a warrant permitting those spas to continue operations until the suit has reached a verdict.
Tourism Minister Dr Maryam Zulfa was unavailable for a comment.
The Criminal Court has convicted former Civil Court Judge Mohamed Hilmy and his wife Aminath Ali for sexual misconduct, two years after the pair were discovered by police near the Hulhumale’ garbage dump in a state of undress.
Police arrested Hilmy and Aimanth, at the time his girl friend, around midnight on November 12 on suspicion of sexual misconduct. The pair refuted the charges, claiming it was a police set up.
However, the criminal court noted that three police constables who witnessed the act had testified stating that “Aiminath’s underwear and pants were down to her knees” and that Hilmy had his “pants down to his knees”.
Photos taken by the constables at the scene were also presented to the court.
Based on pictures and testimonies, the court ruled that Hilmy and Aiminath were guilty of sexual misconduct, and sentenced the pair to six months’ banishment and 15 lashes each.
However, the sentence was deferred for three years under section 292 of court trial regulations.
Hilmy, who has heard high-profile cases including former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s request for an injunction against the Presidential commission and the Herathera Resort dispute, was suspended from the bench soon after his arrest.
The press statement issued by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) at the time stated that Hilmy was asked to stay home until notified by the JSC or until the police investigation was completed.
“Further, the commission has asked the Police Integrity Commission to investigate a complaint from Mohamed Hilmy that police mistreated him, exhibited profane behaviour and gave defamatory information to media,” the JSC said.
Shahinda Ismail, President of the Police Integrity Commission, confirmed to Minivan News at the time that a complaint was filed by the Judges Association (JA) and the JSC, requesting the commission look into the matter.
“In their letter, the JSC said the JA are saying that he has complained to them, that he was walking in Hulhumale’ with his fiancé and police came and handcuffed both of them and basically undressed them by force,” she said.
The police denied the accusations in a public statement.
“The two had to be taken into custody on suspicion of sexual behaviour in a public place as they were at the garbage dump in the south of Hulhumale’ with their pants down,” police said.
Police further denied the allegation that the judge was abused by police and photographed after his pants were forcibly pulled down.
Hilmy told Haveeru following his arrest that he lived in Hulhumale’ and was walking with his fiancé when they were set upon by police.
The judge alleged that police handcuffed him, used obscene language and beat him before photographing him.
Hilmy further alleged that a senior police threatened him at a meeting at civil court and told him they would show him how powerful the police force was.
According to local news reports, Aminath and Hilmy were married soon after the incident and now have child together. The pair are now practicing lawyers at private firms.
The Civil Court has ordered MVK Maldives Private Limited to vacate the Alpha MVKB Duty Free shop and hand the premises to GMR Male’ International Airport Private Limited within 48 hours, or face eviction by the authorities. The deadline expires at 10:00am on Wednesday.
Civil Court Judge Maryam Nihayath ordered the Police and Customs Department to implement the verdict in the event that MVKB refused to comply.
MVK’s lawyer Azima Shukoor said that shop evacuation and handover by MVKB was not possible as the shop was currently the property of Customs. “There is nothing we can do about the 48-hour deadline since we don’t have access to the shop. We are forwarding the court order to Customs and requesting access to take inventory of the shop before anything further is done,” she said.
Shukoor explained that certain goods required specific air temperatures, and the shop does not currently have cupboards or shop doors.
Shukoor added that MVKB’s case had been appealed to the Supreme Court, and that the company is awaiting that ruling.
The verdict came after GMR filed a case in the Civil Court for the second time when MVKB refused to implement the earlier verdicts of the Civil and High Courts on the issue.
Judge Nihayath recalled that the High Court has ruled that MVKB has no right to use the land without GMR’s consent because it violates contractual rights.
On December 13, the High Court ruled that GMR had vacated the Alpha MVKB Duty Free Shop at Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) legally and according to the agreement between both companies.
The High Court stated that GMR gave notice on March 1 and, as per the agreement, the contract terminated on March 31. As no party could extend the termination notice, the court concluded that MVKB had no right to remain at the airport without approval from GMR.
Company CEO Ibrahim Shafeeq subsequently organised a protest on Thursday, December 15 “to demonstrate our opinions and dislike of what GMR has done to us, and to get public responses.” Posters and banners read “Leave us Alone” and “GMR Go Home.”
Shafeeq today said the protest was “very successful, and more people are signing the petition [against GMR].”
Shafeeq said he would continue to protest GMR. “It hurt me and as an individual I have to defend myself,” he said.
Speaking to Minivan News yesterday at the groundbreaking ceremony to mark the beginning of work on the new airport terminal, GMR Chairman G M Rao said the company had encountered similar resistance from existing concessionaires when developing airports in Delhi and Istanbul.
Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) today submitted a case to the Civil Court against infrastructure development company GMR Male International Airport Pvt Ltd, challenging its right to collect a US$25 (Rf385.5) Airport Development Charge (ADC) and US$2 (Rf30.8) Insurance Charge commencing January 2012.
The fees are to be charged to internationally-bound passengers only. As of 4:00pm on Tuesday the case had not yet been registered.
The government signed a 25-year contract with GMR on 28 June 2010. On 30 September 2010, four opposition parties filed a case against GMR at the Civil Court. The court registrar rejected the claim.
Under the contract the Maldivian government receives:
A sum of U$78 million as advance payment which is to be deducted from the profit due to Government.
1% of the Gross Revenue in the first four years (2010-2014) and 10% of the Gross Revenue from the general business in the remaining years.
15% of the Gross Fuel Sales in the first four years and 27% of the Gross Fuel Sales in the remaining years.
GMR is also to invest US$375 million over a period of 25 years.
The development fee is considered “standard procedure in most airports“, GMR officials earlier told Minivan News. GMR said it would have included the fee in the ticket price, but until International Air Transport Association (IATA) provided certain codes it would have to charge the fee separately.
DQP claims that GMR’s lease of Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) was unconstitutional, illegal, and bore trademarks of corruption. It additionally claims that GMR’s contract would not have been approved if passed through official procedures.
DQP Secretary General Abdulla Ameen confirmed the case and directed Minivan News to the party website for further details. The web page’s last registered update was 29 November 2010.
“Article 97 of the Constitution prohibits any form of taxation without legislation,” reads on section. “Levy on departure passengers have always been done through legislation, including amendments thereof. In fact the current levy of USD18 for foreigners and USD14 for locals was introduced by the present government through amendments to the relevant law.
“However, the right to levy a US$25 and a US$2 (a total of US$27) was given to GMR by the Government without the passage of any law.”
DQP further claims that the government bypassed Parliament on the decision to lease INIA, thereby making GMR’s claim that it can collect the development and insurance fees is “null and void.”
State Transport Minister Adil Saleem previously informed Minivan News that the development fee had been approved by the government as part of its contract with GMR.
Immigration and customs authorities are said to support the move.
DQP told Haveeru that GMR had failed to develop INIA as per its agreement with the government, but is trying to charge customers extra fees on the pretext of airport development.
Speaking in Parliament today, Kulhudhuffushi-South MP Mohamed Nasheed said GMR is receiving all funds from airport handling.
GMR recently announced that baggage handling would be transferred from a local company to one chosen by GMR.
Nasheed said the agreement between the government and GMR was not a fair deal, and that losses incurred exceeds income earned.
“I want to highlight the fact that the US$990 charged from a [Boeing] 777 aircraft that lands during the day has been increased to US$2,985 while the fee collected from the aircraft that lands during the night has been raised to US$3,885. This is a 60-80 percent increase in charges but no improvements have been brought to the services provided by the airport,” he said.
“And we cannot accept the US$1.6 million rent charged per month from a small land plot which measures 800 square feet. Questions arise whether GMR is developing the airport by taking money from us Maldivians or whether they are developing the airport on their funds?”
Hoarafushi MP Ahmed Rasheed said, “While we are exaggerating a minor difficulty a small number of people have to bear for the sake of our nation, we don’t have anyone to speak about the development and advantages the people will be able to obtain from the most number of people who use the airport.”
In the past four months GMR has opened two lounges at INIA and expanded baggage beltways; it is currently adding eight check-in counters and two security lanes. Tourism Minister Maryam Zulfa previously expressed satisfaction with GMR as “an example for the Maldives as it moves forward.”
DQP Vice President Imad Solih earlier submitted a separate though similar civil case arguing the illegitimacy of the charge and requesting the court take action against Finance Ministry.
The Civil Court is expected to soon deliver a verdict on the case.
The Civil Court yesterday ordered Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to take no action against Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed, until the court reached a verdict in the case filed against him.
Abdulla Mohamed filed the suit against the JSC after it complete a report into misconduct allegations against the cheif judge. According to the report, which the JSC has not yet publicly released, Abdulla Mohamed violated the Judge’s Code of Conduct by making a politically biased statement in an interview he gave to private broadcaster DhiTV.
Following the JSC’s decision to take action against Abdulla Mohamed, he filed a case against the JSC in the Civil Court requesting that it invalidate JSC’s report, claiming that DhiTV took his statement out of context.
In the Civil Court’s order, Judge Maryam Nihayath said that if the JSC took any further action against Abdulla Mohamed while the case was in court, it might disrupt the case and Abdulla Mohamed would suffer irreparable damages.
Last week the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) completed its investigation into the alleged misconduct of Abdulla Mohamed.
The case against was presented to the JSC in January 2010 by former President’s member of the JSC, Aishath Velezinee.
According to local media, during the first hearing of the suit filed by Abdulla was conducted yesterday Abdulla Mohamed’s lawyer MP Ibrahim Riza claimed that DhiTV editor Midhath Adam and journalist Hidhayathulla’s statement had been taken by the JSC as testimonials to prove Abdulla’s misconduct.
Riza claimed that both Midhath and Hidhayathullah had since told JSC that broadcasted Abdulla’s statement out of context.
He said that at the time the alleged incident occurred the Judges Act was not passed, and thus the JSC could not take any action against Abdulla Mohamed.
In 2005, then Attorney General Dr Hassan Saeed forwarded to the President’s Office concerns about the conduct of Abdulla Mohamed after he requested that an underage victim of sexual abuse reenact her abuse for the court.
In 2009 following the election of the current government, those documents were sent to the JSC.
Velezinee told Minivan News last week that this was the first time the JSC had ever completed an investigation into a judge’s misconduct.
“There are many allegations against Abdulla Mohamed, but one is enough,” she said.
“If the JSC decides, all investigation reports, documents and oral statements will be submitted to parliament, which can then decide to remove him with a simple two-thirds majority.”
The Civil Court has today ordered Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Chairperson and MP ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik to settle an outstanding debt of Rf2.9 million to Caterpillar Financial Service’s Asia Branch within three months.
Caterpillar claimed that in 2007 Heavy Load Maldives – a family business of the Hulhu-Henveiru MP – took a loan of US$700,000 (Rf10.5 million at the current exchange rate) from Caterpillar, which was co-signed by Moosa.
Caterpillar said at the Civil Court that Heavy Load had not settled the debt and requested Moosa be ordered to pay the loan as the co-signatory.
Delivering the verdict, Judge Mariyam Nihayath said that in the agreement made between Moosa and Caterpillar, Moosa had also agreed to pay a compensation fee plus the amount paid to hire a lawyer without any obligations.
Judge Nihayath ordered Moosa to pay the total amount which is Rf2.9 million in three months.
However, following the court ruling Moosa expressed concern and criticized the judiciary saying that the judiciary was like a “mad lion.’’
MDP official website quoted him saying that the court should not order him to pay the money without ordering Heavy Load Company to pay the loan.
The former MDP parliamentary group leader told the ruling party’s website that today’s ruling gave him more courage to continue the work to free the judiciary and make it independent.
He also said that Civil Court was issuing such rulings because Moosa and his lawyer Hassan Afeef was publicly advocating judicial reform. .
According to the constitution, if a MP has a decreed debt and is not paying the debt according to the court ruling, he will be disqualified and lose his seat in parliament.
The Civil Court today rejected a case filed on behalf of a civil servant challenging the legality of controversial Rf20,000-a-month committee allowances for MPs.
A group of concerned civil servants filed the case on behalf of Maah Jabeen, Seenu Maradhoo Fenzeemaage, arguing that releasing funds for committee allowance without reimbursing civil servants for amounts deducted from their 2010 salaries violated constitutional provisions on fairness and equal treatment.
On 26 September, the civil court issued an injunction prohibiting the Finance Ministry from releasing funds to parliament until the court delivered a judgment on the case.
In October 2009 – almost a year into the new administration – unpopular pay cuts of up to 15 percent for civil servants were enforced as part of austerity measures to alleviate the country’s ballooning budget deficit.
The austerity measures were met with a severe political backlash. In December 2009, the opposition-controlled parliament added Rf800 million (US$62 million) to the 2010 state budget, including the restoration of civil servant salaries to previous levels.
In January 2010, however, the Ministry of Finance and Treasury refused to restore the salaries after just three months of the cost-cutting measure.
After weeks of legal wrangling with the parliament-appointed Civil Service Commission (CSC), the ministry accused the independent commission of hiding “a political agenda”, and in February 2010 filed a case with the police asking them to investigate it on suspicion of trying to topple the government “and plunge the Maldives into chaos.”
At the height of the dispute in early 2010, permanent secretaries at ministries were ordered to submit different wage sheets by both the Finance Ministry and the CSC.
In April 2010, the Civil Court ruled that Finance Ministry did not have the legal authority to overrule the CSC. Although the government contested the ruling and refused to restore salaries to previous levels, the High Court upheld the lower court ruling in May this year.
Meanwhile in the verdict issued today, the Civil Court noted that the state had appealed the High Court ruling at the Supreme Court, which has since agreed to hear the case.
The court ruled that there were no legal grounds to order the Finance Ministry not to release the funds to parliament as the two budget items in question were “not in the same state or condition.”
Civic action
After parliament’s Public Accounts Committee decided to issue the committee allowance as a lump sum of Rf140,000 as back pay for January through June, a loose association of concerned citizens launched a campaign noting that the state had a staggering fiscal deficit of Rf1.3 billion (US$85 million) as of the first week of September.
Neither lawyer from the civic action campaign was available for comment today.
Some sources have meanwhile criticised the MPs for comparing their salaries and privileges to those of United States congressmen.
“You can’t do that, the two countries are too different,” said No MP Allowance Media Coordinator Hamza Khaleel.
“The salary difference between the highest-paid civil servant and a congressman in the US is 175%, while in the Maldives it’s 365%,” Khaleel pointed out. “Our MPs get as much as MPs in Sweden, but our GDP is nowhere near Sweden’s.”
NGOs have retreated from the issue in recent weeks, but No MP Allowance, a group of concerned citizens which operates primarily through social media outlet Facebook and has almost 3000 members, has been networking to protest the allowance since February. Khaleel said the group is the “single largest civil movement for this issue.”
“You can see that our Facebook page is very active. All of the members might not show up to protest but they are writing letters and suggesting ideas, so you can see that they are involved,” said Khaleel.
Khaleel noted that MP opposition and negative media have deterred the group from publicising its plans, but he said media coverage lately had improved.
Upon hearing of the court’s verdict today, Khaleel said No MP Allowance’s campaign did not depend on a court ruling but on the constituents’ opinions.
“If you ask the MP’s constituents, they will say that the MPs aren’t doing as much as they could have. Very few MPs have taken up issues that are community-focused,” he said.
“Our main focus is still to get constituents to write to their MPs asking them not to take the allowance. We have drafted sample letters that we are distributing for signatures, and will collect and deliver to the MPs. We represent the constituents, if they are not satisfied then we still have work to do,” Khaleel said.
The Civil Court last night issued a temporary injunction ordering the Finance Ministry not to release funds to parliament for MPs’ committee allowance until the court rules on a case filed on behalf of a civil servant, contending that the allowance could not be given before deducted amounts from civil servants salaries were paid back.
A group of concerned citizens protesting the committee allowance filed the case on behalf of Maah Jabeen, Seenu Maradhoo Fenzeemaage, arguing that releasing funds for committee allowance without reimbursing civil servants violated constitutional provisions on fairness and equal treatment.
The committee allowance was approved on December 29, 2010 while wage cuts were enforced in October 2009.
In January 2010, the Civil Service Commission’s (CSC) decided to reverse the pay cuts, sparking an ongoing legal dispute between the commission and the Finance Ministry.
Speaking to Minivan News after Judge Hathif Hilmy granted the injunction last night, lawyer Mohamed Shafaz explained that the case was based on article 43 of the constitution, which states that everyone has the right to fair and just administrative action, “by which we take to mean that constitutional provisions in articles 17 and 20 relating to equality and non-discrimination would be infringed of a civil servant if the Ministry of Finance chooses to release the funds for committee allowance to the People’s Majlis before the deducted amounts from the salaries of civil servants is paid to them.”
“Our argument was based on the principle of judicial review,” he continued. “For judicial review to be used in a case in the Maldives is relatively rare and this is I would say a novel case. Our idea is that anyone vested with legal powers must act within the limits of the constitution.”
Delivering the ruling on the request for a temporary injunction, the judge said that releasing the funds before the court issues a final judgment on the case “could cause irreversible damage to the plaintiff” and ordered the Finance Ministry not to take any action that could “defeat the purpose of the claim.”
While the state attorney insisted that neither the Finance Ministry nor the President’s Office has made a decision on releasing the funds, the claimants submitted video footage of President Mohamed Nasheed telling protestors that the executive could not overrule parliament’s decision without threatening separation of powers.
In April 2010, the Civil Court ruled that Finance Ministry did not have the legal authority to overrule the CSC. Although the government contested the ruling and refused to restore salaries to previous levels, the High Court upheld the lower court ruling in May this year.
The state attorney also argued that the case should not have been accepted by the Civil Court as the government has appealed the High Court verdict at the Supreme Court. The judge however ruled last night that the state could not produce documentation proving that the Supreme Court has decided to hear the appeal.
Attorney General Abdulla Muiz confirmed today that the AG office has appealed last night’s lower court decision at the High Court.
Shafaz meanwhile observed that “the ruling [yesterday] affirms that the court recognises that there is an issue here that needs to be rectified or subject to the system of justice.”
“It is also significant because by granting the temporary injunction the court has accepted and taken on an active role for implementing judicial review in the Maldives,” he said. “So this opens up the possibility for each and every action of the executive branch of the government, or the parliament or any other part of the state, to be challenged in the courts.”
Yesterday’s temporary injunction was also significant because “it was based on infringement of the rights of an individual,” Shafaz continued, adding that it was “a case where the act of a minister of the executive could infringe upon the rights of an individual.”
The favoured outcome for the group of concerned citizens would meanwhile be “for the court to recognise that giving parliamentarians their committee allowance before the deducted salary is given would be an infringement of the rights of a civil servant, or civil servants, under the constitution.”
A group of concerned citizens protesting a controversial Rf20,000-a-month (US$1,290) committee allowance, approved by MPs for themselves in December 2010, have filed a case at Civil Court seeking a court order to stop the Finance Ministry from releasing the funds to parliament.
Speaking to press outside the court building, lawyer Mohamed Shafaz explained that the grounds for the claim were constitutional provisions on non-discrimination (article 17) and equal protection and benefit of the law (article 20).
“For example, the reduced amount from civil servant’s salaries was in the 2010 budget [to be paid back] and in the 2011 budget as well if you look at it properly,” he said, arguing that Finance Ministry could not release funds for MPs’ committee allowance, which was approved in December 2010, without paying back civil servants.
“The money is coming from the same place,” Shafaz continued. “If something the civil servants have not received is going to be given to others, which was approved much later, the chance of civil servants receiving the reduced amount will be very slim.”
A court order was sought to halt the release of the funds until a court of law delivers a ruling on the issue, Shafaz said.
Shafaz also referred to article 43 of the constitution, which states that “Everyone has the right to administrative action that is lawful, procedurally fair, and expeditious.”
Austerity or bust
In October 2009 – almost a year into the new administration – unpopular pay cuts of up to 15 percent for civil servants were enforced as part of austerity measures to alleviate the country’s ballooning budget deficit – among the highest in the world at 26 percent of GDP in 2009 (the International Monetary Fund had refused financing to Sri Lanka because the country’s fiscal deficit reached 10.5 percent).
However the austerity measures were met with a severe political backlash. In December 2009, the opposition-controlled parliament added Rf800 million (US$62 million) to the 2010 state budget, including the restoration of civil servant salaries to previous levels and subsidies for sectors ranging from fishing and agriculture to private media.
“One of the primary drivers of the large fiscal deficit has been government spending on public wages, which has more than doubled between 2007 and 2009, and is now one of the highest in the world relative to the size of the economy,” Rodrigo Cubero, IMF mission chief for the Maldives, said in January 2010.
“Measures that would substantially raise the budget deficit, such as a reversal of previously announced wage adjustments, would also put the [IMF-backed structural adjustment] programme off track, jeopardising prospects for multilateral and bilateral international financing,” Cubero warned at the time.
After weeks of legal wrangling over restoring civil servants salaries, the Ministry of Finance accused the Civil Service Commission (CSC) of hiding “a political agenda”, and in February 2010 filed a case with the police asking them to investigate it on suspicion of trying to topple the government “and plunge the Maldives into chaos.”
In April 2010, the Civil Court ruled that Finance Ministry did not have the legal authority to overrule the CSC. Although the government contested the ruling and refused to restore salaries to previous levels, the High Court upheld the lower court ruling in May this year.
Consequently in November 2010, the IMF delayed its third disbursement under the US$92.5 million programme, citing “fiscal slippages” caused by insufficient progress towards reducing the wage bill and passing tax legislation.
In March this year, Cubero told Minivan News that the IMF saw “bringing the fiscal deficit down as the key macroeconomic priority for the Maldives.”
“A large fiscal deficit pushes up interest rates, thereby undermining private investment and growth, and also drives up imports, putting pressure on the exchange rate and inflation, all of which hurts the Maldivian people, particularly the poor,” he said.
“With the government borrowing at the rate it has [to plug the deficit], it reduces the amount of credit available to the private sector, and that constrains the ability of the private sector to provide jobs and employment,” Cubero explained. “That then constrains economic growth. Furthermore, by spending more than it earns, the government is putting pressure on imports and the exchange rate.”
An internal report by the World Bank obtained by Minivan News observed that the Maldives was “facing the most challenging macroeconomic situation of any democratic transitions that has occurred since 1956.”
Civic action
Volunteers for the civic campaign meanwhile distributed information leaflets at bus stops in Male’ yesterday.
“Two of our group went on the bus and talked to passengers,” said Badr Naseer, a senior activist in the effort. “Ninety-nine percent of people support [the cause].”
Badr said he had personally filed a complaint at the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) requesting an inquiry into claims by some MPs that they functioned as “welfare officers” for their constituents.
Earlier this month, Transparency Maldives (TM) condemned remarks by MPs justifying the inflated allowance, noting that “such actions fall under article 3 of of the anti-corruption law and article 13 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act regarding bribery.”
Badr revealed that the group had met MP Ibrahim Mohamed Solih, parliamentary group leader of the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and MP Ahmed Thasmeen Ali, leader of the opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) as part of diplomatic efforts alongside the street activism.
He added that the citizens group also hoped to meet former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom – who is in the process of forming a new party with a number of MPs previously in the DRP – to discuss the committee allowance issue.
The awareness raising campaign is set to continue from 4:30pm to 6:00pm today at bus stops and ferry terminals in Male’.
(0)Dislikes
(0)