Tag: civil court

Civil Court upholds JSC’s “indefinite suspension” of High Court Chief Judge

Civil Court ruled yesterday (October 9) that there are no grounds to annul the the Judicial Service Commission’s (JSC) decision to suspend High Court Chief Judge Ahmed Shareef, reports local media.

Shareef filed a lawsuit at the Civil Court for a second time against the JSC on June 20, 2013, challenging his indefinite suspension by the judicial watchdog.

The initial suspension came just hours after the High Court had temporarily halted the hearings of a case lodged by former President Mohamed Nasheed against the JSC.

Nasheed had accused the judicial watch-dog of exceeding its mandate when appointing the three-member judges panel to the Hulhumale Magistrate Court currently hearing a criminal case against him.

According to the JSC Chair Justice Adam Mohamed Abdulla, the suspension of Shareef – amongst the three judges presiding over Nasheed’s case – was a “precautionary” measure while investigation of the complaint was proceeding.

JSC Chair and Supreme Court insisted at the time that the disciplinary action had no relation to the former president’s case.

On June 17, the first case submitted by Shareef – requesting the court issue an injunction halting the suspension – was dismissed by Civil Court Judge Hathif Hilmy after the claimant did not attend the hearing and failed to provide the court with a valid reason for his absence.

The Civil Court ruling stated that Shareef’s suspension did not violate Supreme Court rulings, Article 141 of the constitution, Article 38 of the Judges Act, or the JSC Act according to local media.

Additionally, the court ruling stated that it is not mandatory for the JSC to establish investigation committees in response to complaints, referring to Article 23 (a) of the JSC Act.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP Chair’s company ordered to pay MVR1.3million

The Civil Court has ordered Heavy Load Maldives Pvt Ltd to pay MVR1.3million (US$84,41500) for the failed payment of several speedboats, reports local media.

Heavy Load – owned by the family of Maldivian Democratic Party Chairperson ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik – was ordered to reimburse Maldives Finance Leasing Company Pvt Ltd after the court found it had failed to meet the previously agreed payment schedule.

The unpaid amount – for which Moosa was reported to have been guarantor – is to be paid to the court within three months.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police to appeal against MC Hameed’s reinstatement

The Maldives Police Service has announced its decision to appeal the Civil Court ruling to reinstate former Chief Superintendent Mohamed ‘MC’ Hameed who was dismissed by the institution’s Disciplinary Committee in August 2012.

A spokesperson told local media that no officers would be reinstated until the appeals process had been exhausted in the country’s apex courts.

The Police Disciplinary Board decided to relieve Hameed and Superintendent Ibrahim Adhnan of duty and to demote Superintendent ‘Lady’ Ibrahim Manik to Chief Inspector of Police, and to remove the disciplinary badge on his uniform.

Newspaper Haveeru at the time claimed that the decision was made by the Disciplinary Board on allegations that the three officers had “worked for the political benefit of a certain party” using their police roles.

The decision to reinstate was based on the precedent set by the ruling on former Civil Service Commission (CSC) Chair Fahmy Hassan, whose dismissal by parliament was recently reversed by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruling stated that if Fahmy Hassan was dismissed from the position without being investigated and proven guilty, as per the criminal justice procedure, then his dismissal was to be considered as double jeopardy.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police and military officers reinstated based on precedents set in CSC Fahmy case

Civil Court Judge Maryam Nihayath yesterday (30 September) ordered the reinstatement of a police officer and a Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) officer, previously dismissed on criminal charges.

The decision was based on the precedent set by the ruling on former Civil Service Commission (CSC) Chair Fahmy Hassan, whose dismissal by parliament was recently reversed by the Supreme Court.

Former Intelligence Chief Mohamed ‘MC’ Hameed has also been reinstated this week based on the Supreme Court ruling 2012/SC-C/35.

MC Hameed was dismissed from the police after the controversial transfer of power on allegations that he had abused his authority as the chief of police intelligence for the benefit of a certain political party and that he had leaked secret information obtained by the police.

The Supreme Court ruling stated that if Fahmy Hassan was dismissed from the position without being investigated and proven guilty, as per the criminal justice procedure, then his dismissal was to be considered as double jeopardy.

Regardless of the ruling, subsequent disagreements between the court and the Majlis resulted in Fahmy’s replacement.

Judge Maryam Nihayath’s ruling stated that the Supreme Court (ruling 2012/SC-C/35) had brought into existence important procedures to follow when dealing with such cases.

The judge also stated that MNDF officer Ahmed Althaf was dismissed from the force on allegations that he lost a compressor valve and asked a lower rank officer to replace it with an older one.

Nihayath’s ruling stated that the court had found he was dismissed without completing the criminal justice procedure, which the Supreme Court ruling had argued violated articles 42, 50 and 51 of the constitution.

Yesterday’s ruling stated that the legal precedent had determined that a person was dismissed from his job in a criminal offence without having completed the criminal justice procedure could not be charged with the same case offence in a court of law without constituting double jeopardy.

In a separate case yesterday, where a police officer was dismissed from his position on allegations that he stole MVR 241,215 (US$15,640) from a safe in the police tow yard, the same Supreme Court ruling was cited.

Judge Nihayath noted that the police officer was not dismissed after completing the criminal justice procedure, and that even if he were, the precedent set in the Fahmy case would still not allow him to be charged and sentenced by a court of law.

In November last year parliament voted 38 – 32 in favour of removing the CSC chair after the Independent Institutions Committee investigated the complaint of sexual harassment lodged by a female CSC employee.

On 14 March 2013 the Supreme Court ruled that parliament’s decision to remove Fahmy from his position was not based on reasonable grounds and invalidated the decision.

In spite of this, the parliament appointed a new member to the Civil Service Commission to replace Mohamed Fahmy Hassan – 51 out of 54 MPs present in the parliament voted in favor of appointing Fathimath Reenee Abdulsathar.

On August 15, the Supreme Court issued an injunction to halt parliament’s appointment just as the President’s Office prepared to give credentials to Reenee.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil Court orders police to reinstate Chief Superintendent Mohamed ‘MC’ Hameed

The Civil Court has ordered the police to reinstate former Chief Superintendent Mohamed ‘MC’ Hameed – one time head of police intelligence – who was dismissed by the institution’s Disciplinary Committee in August 2012.

The court ruling issued today on Hameed’s case declared that he was to be reinstated within 15 days of the order.  He is also to be given back payment of his salary within 30 days.

Hameed today told Minivan News that he understood the court order had called for his reinstatement to a rank equal to that which he held at the time of his dismissal.

The Police Disciplinary Board decided to relieve Hameed and Superintendent Ibrahim Adhnan of duty and to demote Superintendent ‘Lady’ Ibrahim Manik to Chief Inspector of Police, and to remove the disciplinary badge on his uniform.

Newspaper Haveeru at the time claimed that the decision was made by the Disciplinary Board on allegations that the three officers had “worked for the political benefit of a certain party” using their police roles.

Hameed, Adhnan and ‘Lady’ Ibrahim Manik were among only a few police senior officers who did not join the events of February 7, which saw mutinying police officers hand out riot gear to opposition demonstrators and launch an all-out assault on the main military headquarters. The state broadcaster was also stormed during the time of the contraversial transfer of power.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police appeal for public assistance in locating man wanted by Civil Court

Police have asked for public assistance in locating a person identified as Mohamed Abdul Latheef of Madhadhu house in Villimale’, to present him before the Civil Court.

In a statement police said Latheef had ignored several summon chits sent to him by the Civil Court and that the court has ordered police to bring him to court under police charge.

Police asked anyone who knows Latheef’s whereabouts contact police custodial at 9991442 or police headquarters at 3322111.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

No legal authority for ACC to prevent signing of Nexbis contract, Supreme Court rules

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) did not have the legal authority to order the Department of Immigration and Emigration not to sign a contract with Malaysian mobile security firm Nexbis in 2010, to establish a border control system (BCS).

The apex court today overturned a previous High Court judgment, which itself overturned a Civil Court ruling last year declaring that the ACC did not have legal authority to terminate the contract signed with Nexbis in November 2010.

However, the High Court judgment was appealed by Nexbis at the Supreme Court, which today ruled in favour of the Malaysian company.

The controversial BCS project was terminated by the government in August this year and replaced by the Personal Identification Secure Comparison and Evaluation System (PISCES) provided by the US government on August 20.

According to local media reports, today’s Supreme Court judgment was delivered with the unanimous consent of all seven Justices on the court bench. However, Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain and Justice Muthasim Adnan noted different points to the other five.

Delivering the majority decision at today’s hearing, Justice Abdulla Saeed reportedly said that the High Court violated judicial and legal principles in overturning the lower court verdict, noting that the ACC’s order was made after the agreement was signed.

Referring to domestic contract laws and the ACC Act, the Supreme Court upheld the Civil Court ruling, which had determined that the ACC did not have the legal authority to order the Immigration Department to terminate the BCS project based on alleged corrupt dealings.

The Supreme Court had also previously overturned a High Court injunction blocking the implementation of the BCS project, prompting ACC Chair Hassan Luthfy to claim that the independent body had been rendered powerless.

“If this institution is simply an investigative body, then there is no purpose for our presence,” Luthfy said in September last year. “Even the police investigate cases, don’t they? So it is more cost effective for this state to have only the police to investigate cases instead of the ACC.”

Luthfy contended that the ruling had rendered the ACC powerless to prevent corruption, even if it was carried out on a large scale.

“In other countries, Anti Corruption Commissions have the powers of investigation, prevention and creating awareness. If an institution responsible for fighting corruption does not have these powers then it is useless,” he argued.

Corruption allegations

In December 2011, the ACC submitted corruption cases to the Prosecutor General’s Office (AGO) against former Immigration Controller Ilyas Hussain Ibrahim and Director General of the Finance Ministry, Saamee Ageel, claiming the pair abused their authority for undue financial gain in awarding Nexbis the MVR 500 million (US$39 million) BSC project.

Ex-controller Ilyas – brother-in-law of President Dr Mohamed Waheed and current state minister of defence and national security – pleaded not guilty to the charges at the first hearing of the trial on April 10 this year.

Meanwhile, on December 25, 2012, parliament voted unanimously to instruct the government to terminate the BSC agreement with Nexbis.

All 74 MPs in attendance voted in favour of a Finance Committee recommendation following a probe into the potential financial burden on the state as a result of the deal.

In September 2012, the ACC informed the committee that the deal would cost the Maldives MVR 2.5 billion (US$162 million) in potential lost revenue over the lifetime of the contract.

The Finance Committee meanwhile found that the government had agreed to waive taxes for Nexbis despite the executive lacking legal authority for tax exemption.

Following the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the US government in March this year to provide a border control system to the Maldives, representatives from Nexbis told Minivan News that the company was uncertain what the MOU would mean for the group’s own border control technology.  The technology has been in use at Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) since September 2012.

“We do remain confident that the Maldivian government will honour its obligations under the 2010 concession agreement,” read a statement from lawyers representing the company.

“We are confident also of the support we have received by the Immigration Department in implementing and fully operating the system, but remain cautious of individuals that continue to pose obstacles to prevent the success of this project is stemming the national security issues faced by the Maldives today.”

Concession agreement

Under the concession agreement signed with the Maldives government, Nexbis levied a fee of US$2 from passengers in exchange for installing, maintaining and upgrading the country’s immigration system.  The company also agreed a fee of US$15 for every work permit card issued under the system.

Nexbis in July 2013 invoiced the Department of Immigration and Emigration for US$2.8 million (MVR 43 million) for the installation and operation of its border control technology in line with the concession agreement – requesting payment be settled within 30 days.

Nexbis’ lawyers argued that the company had expected the fee to be included in the taxes and surcharges applied to airline tickets in and out of the country, according to local media.  However, lawyers argued these payments had not been made due to the government’s “neglect” in notifying the relevant international authorities.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: The Maldives – a case study in contemporary diplomacy

This article was originally published on UAE Diplomacy. Republished with permission.

The Maldives is normally known for beautiful beaches and breath-taking blue sea. But these days it also brings up for a highly interesting case study in diplomatic law and contemporary diplomacy. A friend drew my attention to a recent court ruling on a case in which the Indian High Commission in Maldives failed to comply with its contractual duties as per the rent of its mission premises. According to a local newspaper article, the private landlord took the issue to the civil court which, in the first instance, rejected the claim due to a lack of jurisdiction. While this is not surprising, the court’s reasoning is. The Maldivian Civil Court ruled that it could not look into the matter because the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR) included immunity for diplomatic missions and diplomatic agents.

Jurisdiction is always a tricky notion as the term itself is not always clear. Sometimes it refers to territory (custody) only, however, most of the time it can be likened to power exercised by a state over persons, property or events. So, when a Court rejects the power of jurisdiction, it is probably that it does not consider itself the correct authority to legislate in respect to the issue of the person, property and event. Referring to the current case, it will mean that the Civil Court has decided that it is not in a position to make a judgement on the President of India, who was acting on behalf of the Republic of India. Generally-speaking, diplomatic missions and personnel enjoy certain privileges and immunities to carry out their duties or for the representation of their government. While diplomatic privileges and immunities have a long tradition, they were codified in 1961 by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR).

The VCDR regulates diplomatic privileges and immunities of diplomatic missions and its agents but has little to say on civil proceedings and matters with private subjects of international law. It primarily regulates aspects of state to state relations but not the relations with international organizations, let alone private entities or individuals. The VCDR touches, for instance, in Article 21 on the obligation of the receiving state to assist in obtaining suitable accommodation (being bought or leased). In Article 23 it states that the head of mission is exempt from dues and taxes in respect of the premises of the mission and through Article 31 the diplomatic agent receives immunity from execution (measures concerning his/her personal inviolability). Interestingly enough, subparagraph 31.4 says that the immunity of a diplomatic agent from the jurisdiction of the receiving state does not exempt him from the jurisdiction of the sending State.  In other words, and this is the only connection to the Civil Court’s ruling, without a waiver of immunity, civil proceedings against a  diplomat can only be taken in his home country.

Unsatisfied with the Civil Court’s ruling, the private landlord appealed –with quite considerable success. On 21 August, 2013 the High Court ruled in favour of the private, Maldivian landlord. In its judgment the High Court found that ‘Maldivians are not required to follow the VCDR as there is no national legislation enforcing the regulations of the convention’ (see linked newspaper article). This decision is based on the Maldivian Constitution, which stipulates in Article 93 that citizens shall only be required to act in compliance with treaties ratified by the state AND provided for in laws enacted by the parliament.

Now, there are several ways international law can be aligned with domestic law. One way is for the constitution to comment about it in a general way. For instance, the German Constitution provides a hierarchy of law, putting constitutional law first, then provisions of international treaties and then other national or federal regulations. Sometimes, when there exists international conventional law, this can interfere with national laws. As a result, states are required to legislate, meaning that they adapt to international standards or, if the terms of the international convention are not acceptable, the country in question will not ratify the convention (approval by the parliament or any other appropriate legislative body in the country).

In the current case, the Constitution of the Maldives refers a mere 12 times to international law without establishing any kind of hierarchy nor giving any specific hint as to how international law needs to be integrated in relation to national law. The closest it comes to is in Article 93 which states that ‘Maldivian citizens shall only be required to act in compliance with treaties ratified by the state and provided for in laws […].’ In this case, there appears to be an absence of clear national legislation in reference to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which the Maldives ratified back in 2007. Looking at other Commonwealth Nations such as the United Kingdom, we will find the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act of 1964 (the year the VCDR came into effect). This Act regulates the application of the VCDR, going into detail about potential extensions or interpretations of the articles.

While there is obviously a need for national legislation in the Maldives to clarify its position on the provisions of the VCDR, it is arguable whether this convention is relevant, at all, to the current problem. The case we have here is a situation in which a private, Maldivian individual is filing a law suit against the President of India, who was acting in the rental agreement on behalf of the Indian people. However, as stated in its preamble, the VCDR is a convention between states. Therefore, it falls into the category of public international law but has little relevance to private international law. Meanwhile, cases in which private individuals file a law suit against states do occur every now and then, these cases fall into a certain category which is internationally codified, inter alia, under the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property. While this convention was negotiated in 2004, it still has not achieved the necessary minimum number of ratifications in order to come into force. Most developed states have domestic laws regulating state immunities. For example, in the US such a law is called ‘Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’. It stipulates that foreign governments are immune from suit in the US (state and federal courts) unless the claim falls within certain exceptions. Such exceptions include when a statesperson acts in a private capacity or is engaged in private business activities.

From the above we can draw a number of conclusions. First, the VCDR has little relevance to the case in question. It does not deal with private international law but mainly deals with matters between states and the granting of diplomatic privileges and immunities to its permanent diplomatic missions and personnel. Second, both court rulings are based on interesting justifications due to a lack of national legislation in the field of diplomatic privileges and immunities, as well as regarding the area of state immunity.  Building up to this, I would like to take up the cudgels for the Maldivian Courts. While the underlying case shows that the VCDR is partly incomplete and in some detailed aspects antiquated at best, it begs the question, are the courts of a relatively inexperienced and small country such as the Maldives to know about these details? Both courts probably had no independent experts at hand nor would the argued amount of money (US$200,000) justify a very detailed background research. Hence, the lack of clarity of the situation (why the Indian High Commission ended the rental agreement prematurely), and the fact that the High Commission would enjoy diplomatic immunities (inviolability of mission premises, immunity of diplomatic personnel) would have made investigations difficult and tedious. The take away message is that the Maldives might want to look into some vital legislative actions in order to incorporate and align international law with domestic law. This would lead to more transparency and clarity for future rulings.

Kai Bruns is an Associate Professor at the American University in the Emirates. He holds a PhD in the field of Diplomatic Studies – his doctoral thesis focused on the negotiating process leading to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR).

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Judge’s public sexual misconduct charge upheld

The High Court yesterday (27 August) concluded a case appealed by former Civil Court Judge Mohamed Hilmy and his wife Aiminath Ali after the Criminal Court ruled that they were guilty of having sex in public.

On December 21, 2011, the Criminal Court ruled that the pair were guilty as charged and sentenced them to six months banishment and 15 lashes.

Hilmy had argued that his arrest was part of a police set-up.

The High Court ruling stated that, according to the statements provided by the police officers that attended the scene, they first saw a motorbike parked on the road near the beach area and, discretely approaching the beach, saw the pair sitting on the shadowy beach with their pants down.

According to the police officers the shadows of the pair were visible each time the Hulhule’ tower light passed them and as they walked closer they noticed that Aiminath Ali had her pants down to her feet, Hilmy’s trousers were down to his knees, and Aiminath was sitting on Hilmy’s lap.

When the police officers approached within six feet and turned the searchlights on the pair, Aiminath Ali got up and moved quickly to put up her pants but one of the police officers ran and held her hand. Police said she tried to pull her pants up using her other hand but another officer came and handcuffed her.

According to the police officers Hilmy got up and started running but he was also stopped and handcuffed.

The officers reported back to their superior in Hulhumale’ police station – Sub-Inspector Muthaba Abdulsattar – and he instructed the officers to take pictures of the couple as they were.

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.

Shahinda Ismail, then 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 Judicial Services Commission (JSC), alleging that the judge was arrested through a police set up regarding an issue that had arisen as a result of his work in the courts.

“In their letter, the JSC said the JA are saying that he has complained to them, that he was walking in with his fiancé and police came and handcuffed both of them and basically undressed them by force,” she said.

The police denied the accusations at the time 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.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)