Tag: civil court

Failing to obey superior court’s decision violates constitution and Judges Act, Supreme Court warns Naeem

The Supreme Court has said that refusing to follow a decision made by a superior court violates the constitution and violates the Judges Act.

The Supreme Court’s statement comes after Civil Court Judge Mohamed Naeem said he would not accept cases concerning the state because the parliament had not then decided whether to give consent to reappointed Attorney General Dr Ahmed Ali Sawad.

Sawad has now been dismissed by the parliament for the second time, following his second reappointment by President Mohamed Nasheed.

The Supreme Court’s statement said that judges should at all times avoid any matters that could harm the reputation of the judiciary or cause people to lose confidence in the justice system.

The court also noted that it was against the code of conduct of the judges to disobey a decision made by a superior court.

The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has formed a sub-committee to investigate judge Naeem after he told the press that he had decided not to accept cases concerning the state, despite the High Court’s decision to accept cases.

Judge Naeem revealed that the Civil Court judges were split on the issue, however the majority of the judges said they wanted to accept and conduct trials of cases concerning the state despite the fact that Dr Sawad’s appointment procedure was then not completed.

President’s Member of the JSC, Aishath Velezinee, has stated on her Article 285 blog that “Judge Naeem has been under investigation since the interim Commission, [for] nearly two years. No updates on the investigation [have been] tabled despite the legal requirement that a report must be submitted in writing every 30 days.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil Court stops conducting hearings of cases related to the state

The Civil Court’s Judge Mohamed Naeem has declared that he will not conduct any cases related to the state unless parliament gives consent to the reappointment of Attorney General Dr Ahmed Ali Sawad, reports SunFM.

MPs of the parliament have not yet given the consent of the parliament and Supreme Court has recently declared that cabinet ministers cannot remain in their posts if they do not have the consent of the parliament.

SunFM reported Judge Naeem as saying that the Civil Court Judges were split on the matter.

”The section I handle will not conduct trials on cases related to the state,” SunFM quoted Judge Naeem saying.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil Court orders DRP to pay its Rf 510,497 bill with Island Aviation Services

The Civil Court has ordered the  main opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), led by MP Ahmed Thasmeen Ali, to pay Island Aviation Services Rf 510,497 (US$39,727).

Judge Abdul Sameer gave the party one month to repay the debt.

In June 2010 the DRP was given 13 days by the Civil Court to complete an examination of documentation and invoices from Island Aviation Services, after the party claimed it needed more time and requested an extension.

In the previous hearing held on the case, the DRP’s lawyer appealed for more time to examine the documentation and invoices presented by the national airline. Island Aviation Services had contended that the DRP was trying to delay the payment as long as it could, as there was no dispute that a payment was pending.

Citing Island Aviation Services’ annual audit report, local newspaper Haveeru reported that on August 21, 2008, ahead of the Presidential election, Island Aviation Services provided the DRP a credit limit of Rf 100,000 which was due to be repaid within 15 days.

However, the Rf 100,000 rose to more than Rf 800,000 (US$62,256) and DRP had not paid the balance after four months, Haveeru reported.

DRP MP Ahmed Nihan said today that the party was unable to pay the debt because of “difficulties” relating to its financial condition.

”But the DRP will always follow the courts of law,” said Nihan. ”We have always raised our voice for others to follow the courts, and the DRP [itself] will definitely follow the court [ruling].”

He said that he was unsure about the reason for the delay in settling the debt.

DRP leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali was not responding to calls at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

International Commission of Jurists raises courts concerns ahead of Maldives report launch

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has told Minivan News that it has serious concerns over the structure and operations of the Maldives judiciary, which are set to be outlined in the findings of a “comprehensive” new report to be released next week.

Roger Normand, director of the ICJ’s Asia Pacific operations said that although he could not reveal specific details of the report ahead of its publication on Monday, a number issues will be raised by the NGO concerning the independence of the Maldives judiciary, as well as the conduct of the government during last year’s constitutional “crisis” over the legitimacy of judges in the country.

The comments were made as institutions such as the country’s High Court are said to effectively be on “hiatus” due to ongoing legal disputes involving the appointment of a bench to oversee its cases – a trial that is currently awaiting a final decision by the country’s Supreme Court .

The appointments issue was initially raised in Civil Court by Criminal Court Judge Abdul Baary over claims that the appointment procedures of the local watchdog body, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), were unjust.

Eventually the Supreme Court ruled that the Civil Court did not have the mandate to rule on appointments of a higher authority such as the High Court and that it should therefore have the final say on such a constitutional matter.

In this environment of judicial uncertainty, High Court Chief Judge Abdul Ghani Mohamed told Miadhu today that the issue of completing the bench was a huge challenge for the institution.

However, he claimed that various parties were working on a solution to ensure human rights were not being lost out on due to concerns that the court was “now almost on hiatus” due to the ongoing appointments case.

Forward looking report

Although not wishing to discuss any specifics ahead of the publication of the ICJ report, Normand said that the findings could be expected to detail a number of issues claimed to be specifically at odds with judicial structure and general practice designed to ensure greater transparency in line with the independence of certain courts in Europe and Asia.

“[The findings] are going to be part of a forward looking report for the country, given that you can’t have democracy without strong judiciary,” he said. “It’s essential for all political parties to work towards strengthening an independent judiciary under the framework of the Supreme Court.”

The report’s findings could prove hugely significant for groups such as the JSC that has faced criticism in recent months over their transparency.

The attacks are perhaps more significant in that they come from one of the JSC’s own members in the form of Aishath Velezinee, who now faces internal disciplinary action for her work in leaking details of their operations.

Velezinee, an outspoken critic of the JSC’s refusal to adopt a Standards of Procedure as required by the Constitution, earlier this month accused several fellow members of corruption and treason.

She has published a large cache of JSC documents, including audio recordings of Commission meetings, on her personal website as evidence, she says, to support her accusations.

The JSC last month appointed a special three-member team to decide on the best course of action against JSC member Aishath Velezinee for removing official documents from the Commission’s premises.

The JSC, which is yet to adopt a Standards of Procedure a year after the 26 January 2010 deadline, earlier this month, passed new secrecy regulations that make it an offence for members to reveal any Commission business to the public without prior authorisation.

A number of JSC members contacted by Minivan News were not available for a response at the time of going to press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

DQP alleges MDP involvement in judicial obstruction

The Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) led by former Attorney General Dr Hassan Saeed has today issued a statement condemning the alleged attempts ”of the ruling” Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) to obstruct the judicial system and threaten judges.

The party said in a statement that the alleged action of some MDP MPs within protests that barred entry to Male’s Justice Building was a constitutional violation. The protests had been held in opposition to a ruling by the Civil Court that Addu Atoll did not fulfill criteria to be considered a city.

”By the hard work of the citizens, the judges have become independent according to the new constitution. And we call on the police and the chief justice to take immediate actions against those who attempt to obstruct the judicial system,” the DQP said in the statement. ”This is an additional circle to the series of attempts by the MDP’s government to challenge the constitution, obstruct judicial administration, mock the judges and to create civil unrest.”

The DQP said it was the lawful duty of the police and the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) to uphold the constitution ”as you have swore by god to uphold the constitution.” The party also called for police and the MNDF to take action against those trying to influence and threaten the judiciary.

The criticisms made by the DQP follow similar claims made this week by the People’s Alliance Party (PA), which is led by Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom, has today condemning attempts to ”influence and threaten the judiciary”, following the protests in Male’.

A PA statement said “reasonable grounds” existed to believe that there were political links in the attempts to block entrance to the cour, based on media reports comments made by MDP MP Alhan Fahmy that Adduans ”would not let courts in Addu open.”

Some Maldivians have reacted in anger to the Civil Court’s ruling that the Local Government Authority established by the government to determine the criteria of cities was incomplete and that the Local Government Authority’s determination that Addu meets the requirements to become a city was invalid.

This resulted in similar protests to those seen in Male’ also being held in Addu Atoll, where people allegedly chain locked the main door of Hulhudhoo court.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Protesters bar entry to courts after Civil Court’s Addu ruling

Protesters temporarily barred entry to the Justice Building of the Maldives last night, in response to the Civil Court’s ruling that the Addu city criteria were invalid, forcing the Elections Commission (EC) to cancel the local council election in Addu this Saturday.

Today the Department of Judicial Administration said that the court of Hulhudhoo in Addu Atoll was also locked this morning, and had to be opened with the assistance of police.

Local radio station SunFM reported Alhan Fahmy, a Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP in Addu Atoll, as saying that he ”would not let courts in Addu to be opened.”

Fahmy was present at protests in Addu, SunFM reported, as Adduans expressed fury over the Civil Court ruling.

The Judicial Administration Department meanwhile said that it had requested additional security from police following media reports of further protests.

The department said it had informed police to provide security to magistrates, judges and courts and to investigate the attempts to obstruct the work of the courts.

Civil Court Judges Aisha Shujoon Mohamed, Hathif Hilmy and Ali Naseer examined the case, which was filed by Hassan Nasir of Annaaru Villa/Addu Atoll Hulhudhoo.

The Court ruled that the criteria established by the Local Government Authority – consisting solely of Home Minister Hassan Afeef – were invalid.

Establishing the criteria required majority of the board, the Court said, as “if a law requires a certain decision to be taken by a particular council or a committee, the decision should be taken by the majority of the council or the committee unless interpreted otherwise.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Addu election canceled after Civil Court rules Addu city criteria invalid

The Civil Court has ruled that the government’s criteria to declare Addu a city are invalid, days before the local council elections are due to take place.

Yesterday evening the decision led the Election Commission to cancel the elections in Addu.

Local newspaper Haveeru reported that Civil Court Judges Aisha Shujoon Mohamed, Hathif Hilmy and Ali Naseer had examined the case, before ruling that the criteria established by the Local Government Authority – consisting solely of Home Minister Hassan Afeef – were invalid. According to court documents cited by Haveeru, this ruling came from a case filed by Hassan Nasir of Annaaru Villa/Addu Atoll Hulhudhoo.

Establishing the criteria required majority of the board, the Court said, as “if a law requires a certain decision to be taken by a particular council or a committee, the decision should be taken by the majority of the council or the committee unless interpreted otherwise.”

Afeef said he was unable to comment as he had not yet seen the Civil Court’s ruling.

The Civil Court first overturned the President’s declaration of Addu as city last month, citing the technicality that the criteria to establish the definition of a city had not been established as required by the Local Government Authority.

That case was filed by the minority opposition party Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP), and strong feelings on the subject among Addu citizens in Male’ and Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) supporters led to protests outside the house of DQP Leader Hassan Saeed – himself a prominent Adduan.

In response, President Nasheed appointed Afeef to then-empty Local Government Authority – leaving other positions empty – who hastily published city criteria in the government gazette.

The criteria stated that a region would be considered a city if it had a minimum population of 25,000 people and a GDP of no less than Rf 1 billion. The GDP of Addu in 2010 was more than Rf 2 billion, while the population is almost 30,000, according to the Department of National Planning.

The President then declared Addu a city for the second time, even as the Elections Commission (EC) warned that it could be obligated to repeat the voter registration process in Addu, potentially delaying the local council elections in Addu by two weeks. The EC subsequently decided to continue with the election on February 5, on correction of the procedure.

Minivan News sought response from the Attorney General Dr Ahmed Ali Sawad, but had not received any at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court to look in to High Court judges case

The Supreme Court of the Maldives has today announced that it will conduct a trial on the issue of appointing High Court judges that had originally been scheduled for the country’s Civil Court, amidst ongoing debate over the institution’s right to influence the workings of a higher authority.

The case was first filed in Civil Court last week by Criminal Court Judge Abdul Baary over concerns that there were policy and legal issues related to the Judicial Service Commission’s (JSC) appointment procedures, such as giving higher priority to appointees on the basis of gender.

Judge Baary claimed in Haveeru at the time that the JSC policy stated that if a female and a male scored even marks, higher priority should be given to the female when appointing judges for the High Court bench. This, he said, was against the Constitution and the Labour Act.

A Writ of Prohibition was issued by the Supreme Court last week in an unprecedented step against the Civil Court designed to order the institution to hand over the case to determine whether it had the authority to deal with the functions of a higher court.

The Supreme Court has today ruled that the issue was a constitutional matter and that the Civil Court did not have the authority to decide on constitutional matters such as the legality of appointing members to the High Court bench.

”If the matter was conducted in the lower court, the case would get appealed and would cause a delay in the appointment of High Court judges which will lead to a loss of basic rights for the administration of justice,” said the Supreme Court in a statement posted on their website.

High Court judges appointed by the JSC last week included Juvenile Court Chief Judge Shuaib Hussein Zakariya, former Law Commission member Dr Azmiralda Zahir, Civil Court registrar Abdu Rauf Ibrahim, lawyer of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, Abbas Shareef and Civil Court Chief Judge Ali Sameer.

A JSC spokesperson was unavailable to comment on the issue at the time of going to press, though told Minivan News that the commission had not had any communication with the Supreme Court over today’s decision.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court enters legal wrangle over High Court appointments

The Supreme Court of the Maldives has ordered the Civil Court to halt its case regarding the Judicial Services Commission (JSC)’s appointment of five High Court judges last week, and hand the matter to the Supreme Court.

The Judicial Service Commission appointed five judges, Shuaib Hussein Zakariyya, Dr Azmiraldha Zahir, Abdul Rauf Ibrahim, Abbas Shareef and Ali Sameer to the High Court bench last week. Zahir is the first woman to be appointed to the High Court bench in the Maldives.

However once the appointments were concluded, Criminal Court judge Abdul Baary filed a case in the Civil Court against the appointment of the new judges, claiming that there were policy and legal issues in the JSC’s appointment procedure.

Judge Baary told Haveeru that there were issues with the High Court Judges Appointment Policy as established by the JSC itself.

He claimed that the JSC’s policy stated that if a female and a male scored even marks, higher priority should be given to the female when appointing judges for the High Court bench. This, he said, was against the Constitution and the Labor Act.

The Civil Court issued an injunction halting the appointment of the High Court judges prior to taking their oath.

However the Supreme Court today stated that it had issued a Writ of Prohibition to the Civil Court, ordering it to hand over the case file to the Supreme Court before 4:00pm tomorrow.

Six JSC members have been accused of criminal charges by the President’s Member on the Commission, Aishath Velezinee, while the Commission as a whole is under investigation by the Anti-Corruption Commission for allegedly embezzling money by paying itself a ‘committee allowance’.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)