Tag: civil court

Civil Court to hold passport of 82 year old historian Shafeeg

A Civil Court Judge overseeing a defamation case filed by former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom today ordered that the passport of 82 year-old historian Ahmed Shafeeg be held.

The judge said the court would seize Shafeeg’s his passport after Gayoom’s lawyer said he had information that Shafeeg was about to leave the country.

Shafeeg was unable to appear at today’s hearing, with media reporting that it was the sixth hearing that had to be cancelled because Shafeeg could not attend the court because of his medical condition.

A medical certificate was presented to the court today by Shafeeg, which Gayoom’s lawyer said was against procedure and that Shefeeg would have to fill a form stating that he could not appear at court due to his medical condition.

Gayoom’s lawyer told the judge that Shafeeg was intentionally dismissing the summons “because he has been attending other functions.”

The lawyer requested the judge summon the doctor who had issued the medical certificate, citing an the incident where former president of Egypt Hosni Mubarak was summoned to the court despite his weak medical condition, and requested the judge to apply the same procedure to Shafeeg’s case.

According to daily newspaper Haveeru, before dismissing today’s hearing the judge said that Shafeeg’s doctor would be summoned to the next hearing.

A spokesperson of the Civil Court confirmed that the media reports were correct and that the judge has ordered Shafeeg’s passport held.

‘’I can confirm that the reports about his passport detention is correct. The judge also said that Shafeeg’s medical service provider will be summoned to the court during the next hearing,’’ he said.

The former President sued Shafeeg after he published a book alleging that 111 inmates disappeared in custody during Gayoom’s administration.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

EPA report chronology unclear, claims Champa Moosa’s lawyer

An Environment Protection Agency (EPA) report on alleged illegal dredging and reclamation on Kaafu Thun’bafalhu was not clear whether it took place before or after environmental regulations came into force, Azima Shukoor, lawyer for Champa ‘Uchoo’ Mohamed Moosa, claimed in the Civil Court on Monday.

Azima Shukoor, former Attorney General, is contesting that the EPA violated the constitution and the Environment Protection Act by imposing a fine on Champa Moosa.

In June, the EPA labelled Champa an “environmental criminal” for irreversibly damaging the island of Thun’bafushi and the marine ecosystem of Thun’bafalhu and fined Moosa the maximum penalty of Rf100 million (US$6.5 million) for conducting dredging and reclamation works in the area without an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

According to newspaper Haveeru, Azima argued in court that the island or sandbank was leased to Champa Moosa in 1992 while regulations under the Environment Protection Act of 1993 requiring EIAs was put in place in 2007.

Azima further claimed that the EPA provided its report to Champa with chapters missing, depriving the local business tycoon of his right to fully answer the charges.

State Attorney Usham Ahmed however said that the island was leased to Champa in 1997 and read out the first letter sent from the EPA noting the illegal activities on the island and ordering a halt to it.

“When she says they do not know what was done illegally, I don’t know how to make this any clearer,” Haveeru quoted Usham as saying.

Usham said that the EPA met Champa on numerous occasions and offered him opportunities to answer the charges, adding that the report was made available to Champa’s legal team four days after it was requested. Usham noted that Champa Moosa did not request the report before the EPA decided to impose the Rf100 million fine.

Judge Mariyam Nihayath adjourned the hearing after announcing an additional trial date to consider the full EPA report before delivering a judgment, which is reportedly due on September 27.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil court orders police to pay MP Yameen Rf 244,000

The civil court has ordered police to pay Rf 244,000 (US$$15,823) in compensation to the former President’s half-brother and People’s Alliance (PA) leader Abdulla Yameen for unlawful detention on the Presidential Retreat of Aarah.

Yameen was arrested in June last year on charges of bribery and treason, alongside Jumhooree Party (JP) leader and ‘Burma’ Gasim Ibrahim.

However the Criminal Court at first refused to extend their detention beyond three days’ house arrest, claiming that there were no reasonable grounds to hold the MPs.

Yameen was subsequently taken into protective custody by the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) and held on the Presidential Retreat for 13 days.

The MNDF at the time claimed that Yameen had sought their protection after violent clashes between MDP supporters, police and another group outside his house on the evening of July 14. However Yameen claimed he refused the offer of protection and requested that security forces control the crowd outside his residence.

In August last year the Civil Court ruled that the government’s detention of Yameen was unconstitutional and declared that the MNDF had violated articles 41, 19, 21, 26, 30, 37, 45 and 46 of the constitution.

Explaining the decision to award Yameen compensation, Judge Aisha Shujoon said that the Supreme Court had at the time of Yameen’s detention determined that the arrest was unlawful.

Police had claimed that the case could not be filed against the police because the High Court had subsequently extended Yameen’s detention.

However, Judge Shujoon said that despite this ruling the Supreme Court had ruled that there were no judicial grounds to believe that Yameen was arrested in accordance with the law, and that therefore it was to be believed that the arrest was unlawful from the time he was arrested.

The Civil Court judge then ruled that Yameen’s detention from 29 June to 11 July was unlawful, and that Yameen had the right to be compensated for the 13 days and 20 minutes he was unlawfully held in detention.

Judge Shujoon said that considering respect for human dignity, detaining someone unlawfully could not be considered a minor offence.

She awarded Yameen Rf 1500 (US$972) for aggravated damage, Rf 41,600 (US$2697) for exemplary damages, and Rf 20,915.70 (US$1356) to reimburse Yameen for upgrading the security of his house.

The court also ordered police to pay the money within 30 days.

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Mohamed Musthafa recently submitted a resolution to parliament calling for an investigation into allegations that Yameen as former head of the State Trading Organisation (STO) had been complicit in trading subsidised oil to the Burmese military junta on the black market.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MIRA sues to recover over US$2.5 million from Giraavaru Island Resort

The Maldives Inland Revenue Authority (MIRA) has filed a case at the Civil Court today to recover over US$2.5 million owed to the state by Giraavaru Island Resort owner Abdul Rauf, M. Sunrose.

Haveeru reports that the US$2.5 million was incurred as fines for non-payment of lease rent. The resort had failed to make timely rent payments for the past three years.

MIRA calculated the fine at 0.5 percent of the amount due for every additional day after the rent payment deadline.

The tax collection authority appealed today for a court order to compel Rauf to make the payments in full. The judge adjourned the first hearing after providing a ten-day period for Rauf to respond to the claim.

Likes(1)Dislikes(0)

MBC to sue Finance Minister for withholding its budget

The Maldives Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) has declared it will sue Finance Minister Ahmed Inaz for withholding its annual budget approved by the parliament for the year 2011.

The parliament-created MBC and the 100 percent government corporation the Maldives National Broadcasting Corporation (MNBC) have been engaged in a long-running tug-of-war for control of the assets of the state broadcaster, formerly Television Maldives (TVM) and Voice of Maldives (VoM).

The government contends that the MBC board is stacked with opposition supporters and that its attempt to gain control of MNBC is effectively a media coup, while MNBC has been criticised for favouring the ruling party. Proponents claim that given the opposition’s influence over private broadcast media the consolidation of media ownership in the hands of a few opposition-leaning MPs, the government has no alternative.

Even the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) has waded into the debate at the behest of the Maldives Journalists Association (MJA), in support of MBC and an independent state broadcaster.

In a statement issued yesterday the MBC said that the corporation had been unable to pay rent for its office building as well as other bills, and had been fined as a consequence.

“MBC decided to sue the Finance Minister after informing the ministry about all these issues and repeatedly seeking to solve them, but the ministry has failed to explain why the budget was withheld,’’ the statement read. ‘’The MBC has been unable to find a solution to this through the parliament and Maldives Broadcasting Commission (MBC).’’

The MBC said the court was the last resort after exhausting all other avenues.

Finance Minister Ahmed Inaz told Minivan News that he did not wish to comment on the matter.

The MBC was formed by a law enacted by the parliament, which attempted to force a transfer of MNBC’s assets to the new corporation.

The MBC won its first suit against the government on June 12, with the Civil Court ordering that all the assets and staff including the land of MNBC was to be be transferred to MBC within 20 days.

However, the government claimed that the MNBC was a private TV station and that as long as the MNBC board opposed the transfer of assets and staff it would be violation of the corporation’s rights.

Now the government has appealed the Civil Court’s ruling in High Court on July 6, which ordered the Civil Court’s decision be delayed pending a final ruling.

Meanwhile Independent MP Mohamed Nasheed said last week that staff at the former Television Maldives (TVM) and Voice of Maldives (VoM) could not work with the parliament-approved MBC board.

Responding to a question by a journalist at a forum organised by the Maldives Media Council (MMC) on July 25, Nasheed explained that the MBC Act was intended to transform the corporatised state media into a public broadcaster but the board voted through by opposition MPs was engaged in “political football.”

“Everything went right, but because of those who were chosen for the director’s board, the whole thing turned into political football,” MP Nasheed said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Opposition expects government will transfer state media assets in spite of High Court ruling

Opposition MPs remain confident that the government will eventually hand over key assets of the Maldives National Broadcasting Corporation’s (MNBC) TV and radio operations, despite a High Court decision yesterday to suspend an existing lower court ruling requesting such a transfer.

Back in May, the Civil Court appeared to have ended a year-long tug of war between opposition MPs and the government over state media by ordering the MNBC to transfer assets and staff from its radio and tv operatons to the parliament-established Maldives Broadcasting Corporation (MBC).

Despite Yesterday’s High Court ruling to withhold the Civil Court’s earlier verdict on transferring Television Maldives (TVM) and Voice of Maldives (VOM) to MBC, Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Dr Abdulla Mausoom believed the government would in the long-run have to hand over the broadcast assets.

“The government has to follow the rule of law on this issue,” he said. “I think ultimately the government will have to hand over the [MNBC assets] as has been required under the [Majlis] legislation.”

The High Court had now ruled in favour of the government over the dispute, announcing that any transfer of assets from the MNBC would be withheld until it ordered otherwise.

According to Mausoom, the High Court’s decision was presently being seen as a temporary ruling, claiming the judiciary had already had the final say on the fate of TVM and VOM after the lower court ruled that the MNBC was legally obligated to hand over the assets.

However, online local news service Sun has reported that upon passing the High Court judgement, Chief Judge Ahmed Shareef claimed he had acted on “legal” and “equitable considerations” in withholding the Civil Court decision, a decision he claimed was made on the basis of reasons provided by the MNBC.

The case had been ongoing for over a year and become an increasing contentious issue following an initial government decision to transfer the assets and staff from Television Maldives (TVM) and Voice of Maldives (VOM) to the 100 percent government-owned corporate entity MNBC.  TVM is now broadcast as the MNBC One channel.

By April 2010, the opposition-majority parliament had taken action to create MBC and passed an order for the government to transfer MNBC’s assets and staff to this body.

MNBC has been labelled pro-government by critics, while proponents argue that as most other mass media is owned by senior opposition political figures and favours the opposition, the government had no alternative voice. In being formed by parliament, the MBC has a board appointed by the Majlis, to which it is also answerable. The government has claimed this structure serves only to ensure political influence in the running of the state broadcaster and refused to comply with the legislation on these grounds.

Opposition figures and high profile political activists such as Umar Naseer, a dismissed Deputy Leader of the DRP, have held protests requesting the “freedom” of state media from what they allege is government control and influence.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

DQP MP Riyaz Rasheed loses case against STO

The Civil Court on Thursday ruled in favour of the State Trading Organisation (STO) in the claim filed by minority opposition Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) MP Riyaz Rasheed contesting changes STO made to its agreement with Riyaz’s company Meridian Services.

Meridian Services argued in court that STO in August 2010 lowered its credit limit from Rf20 million (US$1.5 million) to Rf10 million (US$778,210) and shortened the payment period from 40 to 30 days without consulting the company as stipulated in clause 15.3 of the agreement.

Judge Abdulla Jameel Moosa however ruled that as STO had given a month’s notice of the changes in writing on 29 August, 2010 and clause 15.2 of the agreement authorises the government company to lower credit limits and payment periods, there were no grounds to establish breach of contract.

Local daily Haveeru meanwhile reports that STO has sued Meridian Service to recover over Rf19 million (US$1.4 million) owed for oil released on credit as well as Rf384,198 (US$29,800) as fines for non-payment.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Bank turns to courts over judge’s alleged loan repayment failure

The Bank of Maldives has reportedly turned to the country’s Civil Court in a bid to reclaim Rf2.5 million it alleges was loaned to High Court Judge Abbas Shareef and his father but never paid back.

Haveeru has reported that lawyer Hussein Siraj, who will be representing BML during the trial, claimed at a hearing today that the judge had signed as a guarantor for a Rf 2.5million loan taken out in 2008 for his father Ali Shareef. The bank is now seeking Rf2.6 million in repayments from the original loan within a single transaction.

According to the news report, BML’s lawyer told the court that the finance group sought to sell a mortgaged boat, said to be owned by Judge Shareef and his father, if the requested payment could not be met in a single monetary transaction. Siraj requested that the defendants should also bare the brunt of any charges relating to the sale of the vessel.

Haveeru claimed that the trial is ongoing, though presiding Judge Abdulla Ali is reportedly yet to set a date to reconvene the case following the conclusion of today’s hearing.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court upholds Civil Court’s ruling in favor of CSC regarding salary issue

The High Court has today ruled that Finance Ministry does not have the legal authority to overturn the salaries and allowances of civil servants against the will of the Civil Service Commission (CSC).

In April last year the Civil Court ruled in favor of the Civil Service Commission in a case against the Ministry of Finance regarding civil servants’ salary cuts. The CSC successfully contended that the Finance Ministry did not have the legal authority to make amendments to civil servant salaries.

Delivering the verdict at the time, Civil Court Judge Aisha Shujoon said that the Finance Ministry was not authorised to order offices to prepare salary sheets according to its revised (lower) salaries, and also ruled that the Ministry could not issue an order narrowing the powers of the commission to decide the civil servants’ salaries under articles 6, 18(a) and 43 of the Civil Service Act.

The salaries of the Civil Servants were reduced in October 2009 for three months, after an agreement between the Finance Ministry and CSC, part of austerity measures favoured by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

After the three months duration was over, the Finance Ministry extended the duration for another three months without the consent of the CSC.

In January 2010, the CSC ordered permanent secretaries to submit the sheets with salaries at the levels prior to the government’s reductions in October, while the Finance Ministry threatened legal action against any civil servants who filled in salary sheets according to the restored amount.

Civil servants held protests in Male’ over the salary reduction, with the support of the opposition, after the government refused to restore the salaries to pre-cut levels citing the poor economic condition of the country.

The situation became especially heated that Feburary after the Finance Ministry filed a case against the CSC with police, alleging the commission was attempting to “to sow discord between the government and public”, and “bring the government to a halt.”

The Finance Ministry further claimed that certain members of the CSC were using the issue as a cover to attain “a hidden political agenda.”

“The CSC is making it difficult for the government to implement the necessary economic policies [and are therefore] indirectly trying to damage the economy,” the Ministry said in a statement, at the time.

“[The CSC’s actions] will result in an increased budget deficit, make it difficult to maintain the value of the rufiyaa against the dollar and will damage the Maldivian economy, affecting each and every citizen of this country.”

After the matter descended into the court system, the government appear to accept that it was unlikely to shake the CSC’s hold on the salary issue, as demanded by the IMF, and instead embarked on an ambitious program of corporatisation whereby entire departments were transformed into 100 percent government-owned corporate entities, outside the jurisdiction of the CSC.

More recently, cabinet launched a program to encourage civil servants to leave the government and enter the private sector or further their education, a move welcomed by the CSC.

Under the scheme, civil servants and government employees were eligible for one of four retirement incentive packages: no assistance, a one time payment of Rf 150,000 (US$11,700), a payment of Rf 150,000 and priority in the small and medium enterprises loan scheme (for those 18-50 years of age), or a lump sum of Rf 200,000 (US$15,600) and priority in government training and scholarship programmes (for those 18-40 years of age).

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)