Tag: civil court

President declares Addu Atoll a city again, after Civil Court overturns decision on technicality

President Mohamed Nasheed has declared Addu a city – for the second time – after the Civil Court ruled yesterday in favour of the Dhivehi Quamee Party (DQP) that the President had no authority to do so.

The Civil Court of the Maldives ruled that the President did not have the authority to declare islands as a city before the Local Government Authority had established a criteria to determine cities, as the law stated that “all cities should meet the criteria established by the Local Government Authority.”

The President’s Office said this afternoon that the Local Government Authority had now established the criteria and published it in the government’s gazette, and stated that a city council had been formed for Addu in accordance with Decree number 2010/15, and Annex 2 of the Decentralisation Act.

The President also sent a letter to the Elections Commission, informing them of his decision to declare Addu a city. In the letter, he requested the Elections Commission to hold elections for the Addu city council as scheduled and in accordance with law.

The Local Government Authority’s criteria for establishing a city include that it have a minimum population of 25,000 people, and have a GDP of no less than RF 1 billion.

Statistics from the Department of National Planning show the GDP of Addu in 2010 as more than Rf 2 billion, while the population is almost 30,000.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC fails to convince Civil Court of its misconduct complaints procedure

The Judicial Service Commission (JSC), an independent body constitutionally mandated to oversee the ethical standards of the country’s judiciary, yesterday failed to convince the Civil Court that it had any form of standardised procedure for dealing with complaints against judges.

The JSC is currently defending itself against allegations of allowing bias and favouritism to influence its decisions on complaints of judiciary misconduct and was yesterday required to provide documentary evidence to the court proving the contrary. However, the evidence may have opened up more questions about its operations in the court.

The current case relates to action being taken by Treasure Island Limited, which is suing the JSC over allegations that the body had dismissed three complaints of misconduct it made against Interim-Supreme Court Justice Mujthaz Fahmy and Judge Ali Naseer for reasons of favour and bias towards the judges.

Civil Court Judge Mariyam Nihayath said that the documents submitted by JSC did not clarify for her – as had been claimed they would – that a standard operations procedure was in place to prevent arbitrary decision-making on complaints of judiciary misconduct. She added instead that the documents submitted to court by JSC as evidence had raised questions of whether the commission had any procedure at all for dealing with complaints.

Judge Nihayath said in addition that it appeared that any member of the Commission had been free to individually decide that a complaint did not need further investigation, despite having claimed otherwise.

The JSC, set up by the 2008 Constitution, is required to get a majority or consensus vote from members in all complaints-related decisions. It is also required to keep records of how each member voted for a specific decision to be reached.

At the behest of Treasure Island, the court had asked to see records of meetings at which Commission members agreed not to look into the company’s allegations any further. The JSC failed to locate the documents after conducting a “thorough search”.

Last week, the JSC admitted that some complaints procedures did not conform to either constitutional stipulations or its own regulations, though the commission maintained that it did have a specific method in place nonetheless.

This method, as explained by the JSC in the court, involved a process of “administrative screening”, whereby the Chair pre-selected which complaints were about judiciary misconduct and therefore worthy of deliberation and decision by members.

The rest were responded to by a letter, signed by the Chair, informing the complainant that a decision had been made not to investigate the matter any further. Treasure Island had received two such responses to its complaints.

This ‘administrative’ method, the JSC said, was far less time-consuming than that stipulated in the Constitution and saved members time to attend to their constitutional duties.

Of the three randomly selected such responses submitted to court by the JSC yesterday, Judge Nihayath noted that they were not signed by the Chair – only one of them was found to have been signed by the Vice Chair and another by a member.

Furthermore, she said, two of the letters included the words “the Commission has decided”, allowing the inference to be made that the decision not to investigate had been taken by the JSC and not the signatory acting alone.

JSC Legal Representative Abdul Faththah said he could not explain why the decisions had been conveyed by the three different figures instead of the Chair alone, as in the “administrative screening” process he outlined last week.

The phrase “the Commission has decided” being included in the responses, Faththah explained, was not about the individual decision itself, but related to a decision taken in November 2008 in which the ‘administrative” alternative to the Constitution had been agreed upon.

Judge Nihayath also asked Faththah why it was that two of the letters had been signed by the then JSC Chair and Vice-Chair respectively, yet a member with no other authority, Hassan Afeef, could also write to a complainant dismissing their claims.

“I don’t really know why that happened on that day”, Faththah said. “Perhaps, I said in the last submission that the procedure was for the Chair to sign the responses’, but, he said, that did not seem to be the case.

Fathah added that he had randomly selected the letters shown during the case from a file especially kept for responses to complaints dealt with by the “administrative screening process” of the JSC as opposed to its Constitutional stipulations.

Judge Nihayath will also hear Treasure Island’s response to JSC evidence on January 5, when she will also rule on whether or not to summon witnesses that have been requested by both sides.

She has scheduled the last hearing for 19 January 2010 when both sides are expected to make their closing submissions.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC to show Civil Court samples of its extra-constitutional complaints procedure

The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has been asked by Civil Court to provide examples of its use of a self-modified procedure for investigating complaints against the judiciary as an alternative to Constitutional stipulations, in defence against allegations of negligence.

The JSC is currently defending itself against allegations of professional negligence made by Treasure Island Limited, which accuses the Commission of failing in its Constitutional duty to uphold ethical and disciplinary standards of the judiciary.

Judge Nihayath, who is overseeing the case, asked the JSC yesterday to submit “two or three” examples to Civil Court in order to demonstrate how a proposed alternative to Constitutional procedure was being used to deal with complaints.

Judge Nihayath has not yet received an answer from the JSC to her inquiry about the number of complaints the commission has received and agreed to cancel a hearing scheduled for this morning until December 27, 2010.

The negligence case focuses on three separate complaints made to the JSC last year, which Treasure Island alleges related to misconduct by a number of judges, including some prominent figures of the tourism industry, over a sum of money amounting to over a million US dollars.

JSC legal representative Abdul Faththah told the court at last week’s sitting that Constitutional stipulations regarding how the JSC dealt with complaints were very “time-consuming”, leading to new procedures being adopted.

At the time of the complaints in 2009, he said, the Commission was experiencing a lot of housekeeping problems and Members’ time was valuable.

As an independent body set up by the 2008 Constitution with the mandate to maintain the ethical and disciplinary standards of the judiciary, the JSC is required to put any decision regarding a complaint against the judiciary to a members vote.

Article 163 stipulates that it is only by consensus or, failing that, a majority decision of the 10 member Commission, that any such decision can be taken. It is also required to maintain a record of every such decision, and how each member voted.

Instead, the JSC revealed last week that it had set up an alternative mechanism that Faththah described as a process of “administrative screening”.

The alternative process is said to have constituted all complaints being “administratively” pre-screened by the JSC Chair who, acting on his own, decided whether or not they contained allegations of judiciary misconduct.

Only complaints hand-picked by the JSC Chair were passed on to members for their deliberation or decision.

Valuable time was saved by the modified procedure, Faththah told the court. He also told Judge Nihayath that existence of the “administrative screening” process was proof that JSC did not have a specific mechanism in place for dealing with complaints, as had been alleged by Treasure Island.

Treasure Island has accused the JSC of arbitrarily dismissing its complaints of misconduct against two judges, therefore failing in its Constitutional duty to uphold the ethical and disciplinary standards of the country.

The court earlier agreed to Treasure Island’s submission that JSC be made to produce documentary evidence of having followed proper procedures in dismissing its complaints of misconduct against Interim Supreme Court Justice Mujthaz Fahmy and Civil Court Judge Ali Naseer.

JSC was asked to provide the court with the minutes and agendas of the meetings where the decisions were put to a members’ vote, and also the records of how they voted.

JSC was unable to provide the evidence at last week’s hearing. Faththah told the court of an alternative system of “administrative screening” instead.

Judge Nihayath asked the JSC yesterday to submit to court a sample amount of “two or three” other complaints dealt with according to the extra-constitutional procedure.

An answer from the JSC to her inquiry about the number of complaints the commission has received was not made available as of this morning.

Judge Nihayath was expected to rule today on whether or not to summon as witnesses the Speaker of Parliament, Abdulla Shahid, former Attorney General Husnu al-Suood, former Civil Service Commission Chair Dr Mohamed Latheef, and High Court Chief Judge Abdul Ghani Mohamed.

The decision was deferred to the next hearing on 27 December after Judge Nihayath acceded to Faththah’s request to cancel today’s hearing.

Faththah said the Judge’s 40-minute delay in starting the procedures meant he would be late for a funeral prayer at noon. The hearing had been scheduled for 11am.

Treasure Island had also asked the court to summon Member Aishath Velezinee as a witness; a request that was rejected outright on grounds that she had been present at all preceding hearings.

Judge Nihayath had also rejected an earlier application by Velezinee for Third Party entry to provide information she alleged the JSC was withholding from the court.

The JSC rejected 122 complaints in 2009. Of over 140 complaints received since the beginning of the year, none have been investigated.

The JSC also faces allegations that it has failed to adopt a standard of procedure by which its behaviour is bound, an issue that has caused deep internal division with the Commission. The JSC Act required the standards of procedure to have been adopted by last January.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil Court asks JSC for documentary proof it is carrying out constitutional responsibilities

The Civil Court has given the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) a week to locate ‘missing’ evidence it claims will exonerate it from accusations of bias and unconstitutional conduct.

JSC, the independent body constitutionally mandated to maintain ethical and disciplinary standards of the judiciary, is facing charges of professional negligence arising from its decision not to investigate complaints of serious misconduct made against two judges by Treasure Island Limited in 2009.

Treasure Island alleges that JSC decisions to dismiss his complaints against former Supreme Court Justice Mujthaz Fahmy and Judge Ali Naseer were taken arbitrarily and in breach of the Constitution. At the time Treasure Island made the complaints to the JSC, Justice Fahmy was the Commission’s deputy chair.

The JSC has denied any wrongdoing and, since the case began in early October last, has maintained that proper procedure was followed in responding to the complaints.

JSC regulations, and the Constitution, require that any decision or action it takes regarding a complaint against the judiciary must have the majority support of its ten members. The regulations also require that records be kept of the members present and how they voted when the decision was taken.

On Sunday Judge Mariyam Nihayath acceded to Treasure Island’s repeated requests for the court to demand that JSC provide documentary evidence to support its claims of having observed proper procedure.

JSC legal representative, Abdul Faththah, admitted in court yesterday that despite his many valiant efforts he had been unable to locate any such evidence – “yet”.

The court also noted that JSC had responded to one of the complaints by Treasure Island saying it was beyond the Commission’s duties to review the ruling of a judge. The letter sent, in August 2009, was signed by then Chair of JSC, High Court Chief Justice Ghani.

Faththah admitted in court yesterday that there was no evidence to prove the letter was based on a majority decision taken by Commission members as is required.

He told Judge Nihayath, however, that he had consulted with Ghani on the matter, and had been advised that circumstances do exist in which the JSC Chair has the legitimate authority to deal with a complaint without a majority vote by members.

Proof of when and how the JSC chair can exercise the said discretionary power, however, have not been located “yet”, Faththah said.

Judge Nihayath told Faththah the court could not wait indefinitely for the proof to turn up, and ruled that JSC provide the court with the documents when the case resumes on 14 December 2010.

She will also decide then, she said, whether to agree to Treasure Island’s request to summon as witnesses some current and former members of the JSC to verify their involvement – or lack thereof – in a majority decision not to investigate the company’ complaints.

The JSC has been increasingly riven with conflict. Some members have accused current Chair Supreme Court Justice Adam Mohamed Abdulla – in association with several others – to have deliberately and systematically avoided adopting a Standard Operating Procedure according to which it should be run.

Tensions escalated further last week when one of its members, Aishath Velezinee, accused Justice Abdulla of being mentally unfit to hold office. She has also accused certain members of the JSC of abusing their powers and using the JSC to sabotage all efforts to consolidate the new Maldivian democracy.

The JSC was required to have adopted a Standard Operating Procedure by 26 January last, but has so far failed to do so. By October this year there were over a 100 complaints against the judiciary the JSC had not attended to.

It also failed to meet the deadline for appointing an interview panel to approve judges to the High Court bench, almost two months after the deadline for applications elapsed.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil Court returns missing Rf10,000 to owner

The Civil Court of the Maldives has returned Rf10,000 (US$778) after the money was lost by its owner.

The Rf10,000 was found by a person the court identified as Abdulla Zuhury of Hithadhu in Seenu Atoll.

Zuhury found the money on the pavement near Sultan Park on October 22, and handed it to the Civil Court, Chief Judge Ali Sameer said.

The Civil Court then issued an announcement informing the public that it held lost Rf 10,000 and asked the owner of the money to claim for it.

A person named Mohamed, of Alimasge of Hulhudhu in Seenu Atoll, came forward to claim the money.

The court decided that Mohamed was the legitimate owner of the money after he told the court the color of the bag the money was in, the area it was found in, and the denomination of notes.

The court handed the money to him declaring that later if the court found out that he was not the owner of it, it would be handed over to the court again.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Criminal Court stops accepting new cases, Civil Court returns to normal

The Criminal Court has told the Prosecutor General not to send any new cases to the court until further notice as it is busy implementing administrative changes required by the Judicature Act.

The Civil Court, which had suspended “all matters of justice” for seven days from Sunday to make administrative changes necessitated by the Judicature Act, will be returning to normal tomorrow, Chief Judge Ali Sameer told Minivan News.

“Four days” in which justice was suspended so the court can focus on administrative jobs, Chief Judge Sameer said, was “not bad”.

Chief Judge Sameer denied that President Nasheed’s ratification of the Act on Thursday 21 October had taken the court by surprise. Rather, he said, the Court was unsure as to whether President Nasheed would ratify the Act or not.

“Had he not ratified the Act as passed by the Majlis, pre-emptive action on our part would have meant that we would have made changes that were unnecessary, and also incurred a huge amount of expenses unnecessarily”, he said.

The Judicature Act was enacted to bring the nation’s judiciary in line with the standards set by  the 2008 Constitution to establish an independent judiciary replacing the administrative system of justice that was in place prior to the passing of the Constitution.

It creates the country’s courts, establishes their system of hierarchy and forms regulations according to which they should function.

The Act, which the President ratified within the specified 15-day period, changed the name of the Madhanee Court to Civil Court and the name of the Jinaaee Court to Criminal Court. ‘Madhanee’ means ‘civil’ in Arabic and ‘jinaaee’ means ‘criminal’.

Changes in the Act also affect the operation of courts in various islands. Attempts by Minivan News to contact the Chief Judicial Administrator Ibrahim Adam Manik to clarify the full range of administrative changes that has necessitated the interruptions to justice proved unsuccessful.

When Minivan News was able to get Manik on the phone after a two hour period in which his secretary repeatedly said he was “on his break” he requested that the question be sent to him by email.

Manik ignored the email when it was sent as requested.

The Criminal Court announcement states the difficulties have arisen because “relevant authorities of the judiciary have not taken the required decisions” on the procedures to be followed in the cases that are now brought to the court.

Nor have the said authorities taken a decision on how island courts should be addressed when the Criminal Court is sending out summons or messages to people involved in the cases being brought to the court.

The Court does not specify a date when it will resume accepting cases from the Prosecutor General. It says, however, “even though the Court is encountering administrative difficulties in implementing the many changes required by the new Act”, it will resume normal business “as soon as the work is completed”

Mohamed Nasheed, Independent MP for Kulhudhuffushi, who was a member of the Parliamentary Committee in charge of the Bill said the courts should have been in a position to meet the changes required by the Judicature Act head on.

The Bill had been in the Parliament since the beginning of the year, and the Parliamentary Committee had worked closely with the Courts during the re-drafting stages, asking for their opinion, comments and feedback all along the way, Nasheed said.

“The Judicature Act does not bring about a change so fundamental or so radical that the process of dispensing justice has to be interrupted. There should have been a smooth transition in which the courts seamlessly integrated the changes as the Act was ratified,” Nasheed said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil Court defers JSC negligence case indefinitely in the absence of official seal

The Civil Court ruling on whether or not the Judicial Service Commission is guilty of neglecting its Constitutional responsibilities has been delayed indefinitely because the court lacks an official seal with which to stamp the decision.

The Civil Court has been shut for business since President Mohamed Nasheed ratified the Judicature Act on Thursday due to a change in the Court’s name from Arabic to English. A Dhivehi word is not in use to refer to it.

Until President Nasheed signed the Judicature Act into law, the official name of the court had been Madhanee Court – ‘madhanee’ being the Arabic word for ‘civil’.

The Judicature Act, passed by the Majlis on 4 October, uses the English word ‘civil’ instead of the Arabic word ‘madhanee’ to refer to the court.

The Civil Court stopped its work once the Judicature Act came into force as it does not have an official seal bearing its new name with which to stamp its hearings and other official documents.

The Family Court and the Criminal Court, too, are suffering the same plight of being unable to rubber stamp their decisions after the name change.

A period of seventeen days was available between the Majlis passing the Judicature Act and President Nasheed ratifying it in which the seals could have been made.

Treasure Island Ltd is suing the JSC for professional negligence, alleging that it failed to investigate complaints of misconduct against two judges, one of whom is the former head of JSC and former Surpreme Court Justice Mujthaz Fahmy.

The JSC is an independent body Constitutionally mandated to oversee the judiciary and maintain its ethical and disciplinary standards.

Judge Mariyam Nihayath of the Civil Court, who on October 19 refused to admit additional infromation offered by potential JSC whistleblower, President’s member Aishath Velezinee, was set to hold a further hearing on the case today.

It is not known when the courts will have the necessary tools with which to resume justice.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Dhoni Services MD sentenced to six months banishment for bounced cheque

Managing Director of Dhoni Services Ali Moosa, the company awarded a government contract last year to establish a transport network in the South Central Province, was found guilty by the Civil Court yesterday of issuing a bounced cheque and sentenced to six months’ banishment.
The court found that Ali Moosa had issued a cheque of US$100,000 (Rf1,285,000) to local company Sonee in January 2009 from a Dhoni Services account registered in Habib Bank.

While the penalty for the offence is banishment or incarceration for a period between six months to two years under article 39(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act of 2002, the judge said Moosa would be banished for six months as it was his first conviction.

In addition to the claim by Sonee, Ali Moosa faces a number of civil lawsuits over unpaid debts and bounced checks.

According to local daily Haveeru, the Dhoni Services MD has been sued by different claimants for unsettled debts amounting to Rf50 million.

In September last year, Dhoni Services was sued by a business associate of Ali Moosa for Rf1.2 million and MGH Investment to recover Rf149,034 for oil purchased on credit.

Ali Moosa was arrested in April this year on charges relating to outstanding debts upon his arrival in the country after a long absence.

State Minister for Transport “Maizan” Ahmed Manik told Minivan News today that the conviction will not have any bearing on the government’s agreement with Dhoni Services to provide ferry services to Thaa and Laamu atolls.

“The contract does not mention anything about terminating it if he’s banished or arrested,” he said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil Court issues injunction on land sales

The Civil Court of Maldives issued an injunction yesterday to temporarily cease the auctioning of plots in the Male’ southwest harbour, pending a ruling on the case filed by the opposition joint coalition challenging the legitimacy of the process.

‘’If the opportunity is given to continue the transactions, the court believes its potential consequences may be irreversible,’’ reads a statement from the court.

The four opposition parties in parliament, Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), People’s Alliance (PA), Jumhooree Party (JP) and Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP), contested the policy in court on the grounds that the cabinet made the decision in violation of the Land Act 2002, article three of which states that the president should declare policy.

As the cabinet has not been approved by parliament, the coalition argues it did not have the authority to hand over the task to Male’ municipality.

Moreover, the coalition claims that the transactions violate article 250[a] and article six of the constitution.

On July 20, the President’s Office announced the cabinet’s decision to sell off 11 plots of 50,000 square feet of land as part of the policy to develop the southwest harbour area.

”Proceeds from the sale of this land will be used to finance the development of entire harbour area, and build multi-purpose buildings to lease,” the President’s Office revealed at the time.

Over Rf100 million has been raised so far from the sale of four plots in the first phase of the auction.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)