Tag: civil court

No Maldivian statute requiring citizens to observe diplomatic law: High Court

The High Court has today (August 21) ruled that the Maldivian citizens are “not required” to act in compliance with Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR), as no national law currently exists in the country that requires enforcement of the convention.

The High Court’s ruling came alongside a decision made regarding an appeal case filed at the court concerning breach of a lease agreement between an individual named Mohamed Shareef and the High Commission of India.

During the hearings of the appeal case, the appellant Shareef’s lawyer claimed that in February 2006 the Indian High Commission, on behalf of the President of India, had entered into the agreement with Shareef concerning the leasing of Dhivehige of Henveiru Ward – the residence of the Indian High Commissioner to the Maldives.

According to the lawyer, the parties had agreed to specific terms that need to be fulfilled before the contract could be set aside, but the High Commission had dishonored those terms when it vacated the premises on September 2009 – claiming to have terminated the contract.

In breach of contractual duty, Shareef sued the High Commission in the Civil Court, claiming damages worth US$196,101 (MVR3,023,877.42). The claims included US$193,666 (MVR 2,986,329.72) as rent owed for the remainder of the contract period, while US$ 2,435 (MVR 37,547.7) was sought for refurbishment of the premises.

In 2010, the Civil Court rejected the case claiming that it did not have jurisdiction to look into the matter as the VCDR – to which the Maldives is a party – included immunity for diplomatic missions and diplomatic agents.

The court argued that these immunities had also been “implicitly incorporated” into the contract between the parties, with the result being that the Civil Court would be in violation of the treaty should it proceed with the case.

During the appeal, the Attorney General’s Office also intervened, admitting in court that national legislation was required to enforce an international treaty as well as requesting that the court make a decision on whether treaties such as the VCDR had been ratified prior to the enactment of the current constitution in 2008.

The Maldives ratified the 1961 VCDR in October 2007 under the leadership of then Foreign Affairs Minister Abdulla Shahid – now Speaker of Parliament. The convention outlays a framework for diplomatic relations between independent countries, and specifies privileges and immunities granted diplomatic premises.

Overruling the Civil Court decision, the High Court in today’s verdict claimed that under Article 93 of the Constitution, Maldivian citizens shall only be required to act in compliance with treaties ratified by the state and provided for in laws enacted by the parliament. The High Court claimed that no such law had been introduced.

Article 93(a) of the constitution states: “Treaties entered into by the Executive in the name of the State with foreign states and international organizations shall be approved by the People’s Majlis, and shall come into force only in accordance with the decision of the People’s Majlis.”

Article 93(b) states: “Despite the provisions of article (a), citizens shall only be required to act in compliance with treaties ratified by the State as provided for in a law enacted by the People’s Majlis”.

Issuing the final verdict, the High Court invalidated the Civil Court’s decision to dismiss the case in favour of Shareef.

However, both the High Court and the Attorney General’s verdict noted that such a case could strain the bilateral relations between India and Maldives. In hope of avoiding this, a period of three months has been given for the parties to come to an out-of-court settlement.

Should the parties not be able to come to an agreement within the given three months, the High Court in its verdict ruled that Civil Court has the jurisdiction to proceed with the case.

Meanwhile an official from the Indian High Commission said that it did not wish to comment on the matter while it remains in the court.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

AG’s office refiles case to block West Harbour development deal

The Attorney General’s office has today re-filed a case seeking to block the private development of Male’s West Harbour area. The original case was dismissed by the Civil Court the day before, allegedly after the prosecutor general arrived ten minutes late for a hearing.

Local media report that the Attorney General’s office was seeking a fast-tracked procedure to prevent work beginning on the US$30 million project (MVR462million). Male’ City Council announced its intentions to turn the development over to private company West Gate Assets earlier this month, with work scheduled to begin on September 1.

The project is designed to include coffee shops, cafes, petrol sheds, shopping malls, and spacious parking zones intended to resolve severe congestion in Male’ City.

Despite the council’s insistence that the deal had been approved by both the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) and the Housing Ministry, Housing Minister Mohamed Muizz told Minivan News last week that no such approval had been given by his department.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

AG accuses Civil Court of negligence as City Council proceeds with US$30 million development of West Harbour

The Attorney General has filed a complaint at the Supreme Court accusing the Civil Court of negligence in holding a hearing of a case filed by the state, seeking to prevent Male City Council from outsourcing the development and operation of the West Harbour Area.

Last Sunday Male City Council announced its intention to hand over the development and operation of the West Harbour Area – locally known as the ‘T-Jetty Area’ – to a local company called West Gate Assets Private Limited for a lease period of 25 years.

The project, worth US$30 million, once completed will include coffee shops, cafes, petrol sheds, shopping malls and spacious parking zones intended to resolve severe congestion in Male’ City.

Meanwhile, in its complaint filed at the Supreme Court, the Attorney General’s office claimed the Civil Court’s failure to proceed with the case meant that the government could take no action against the project.

“If that agreement proceeds as it is now, [the Attorney General’s Office] believes that will be carried out unlawfully and this office will continue to take necessary actions against the project,” read a statement from the AG’s office.

The AG further claimed that last December, when the city council announced opened bidding for the project, a case was filed at the Civil Court to invalidate the process through an injunction to stop the bidding process.

However the Attorney General’s office said the Civil Court had failed to hold any hearings into the case since May.

The statement claimed excuses for hearings being delayed included the city council’s lawyer calling in sick, the court being unable to deliver court chits and the judge being on leave.

The project

In a press conference on Sunday, West Gate’s Consultant Ismail Firag told the press that the company intended to develop the area as a phase by phase project with development of the first phase to commence on September 1.

The City Council claimed that the lease agreement had been signed by the City Council and West Gate six months ago, after the project received approval from both the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) and the Housing Ministry.

Male City Council Member Ibrahim Sujau at the press conference said the council would try its best to make arrangements to ensure that the project was completed smoothly without disruptions.

He added that the decision to complete the project in several phases was made to ensure its smooth completion.

The councillor claimed that area was leased to West Gate for a sum of MVR 400,000 (US$ 25,940.34), approximately MVR 320,000 (US$ 20,752.27) more than the current MVR 80,000 (US$ 5,188.07) a month generated in income generated from the area by the City Council.

Opposition

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)-dominated Male City Council has come under heavy fire from the government over the project as both the Housing Ministry and the Attorney General have voiced against outsourcing of the harbour development.

Shortly following the announcement, Housing Minister Mohamed Muizz dismissed the claim made by the City Council that his ministry had given approval to the project.

Speaking to local newspaper Haveeru, the Minister claimed the city council had not shared anything with the ministry before handing the project over to West Gate.

Muizz further contested that city council could not take such major decisions without consulting the ministry as the West Harbour area is considered an important economic zone in Male’ City.

“It is a very important strategic location in Male’. On the other hand, development of that area is a massive project. They can’t hand over the development of the area without obtaining permission from the ministry. We even do not know how they plan to develop the area. It is an outright lie that we had given them the approval,” he said.

Housing Minister claimed the ministry had previously made a master-plan to develop the area and said that he did not believe the city council could hand the project to West Gate under a new master-plan.

Previously, the housing ministry’s bid to stop the project through the Anti Corruption Commission failed after the commission concluded that there was no corruption involved during the bidding process.

But Muizz claimed that he was determined to stop the project.

“We will look into ways to stop the project. But we have not yet decided what will be our actions. Previously, similar attempts had been made to stop other such projects. But the current legal framework itself has difficulties for such actions,” he said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil Court halts judicial watchdog from taking further action against High Court Chief Judge

Civil Court on Thursday issued an injunction ordering the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) not to take any action against the suspended Chief Judge of High Court Ahmed Shareef, until it decides on the legality of his suspension.

The injunction comes the same day the Civil Court cancelled a hearing of the lawsuit filed against the JSC by the suspended chief judge, after the JSC claimed it could not “print a statement” that was to be presented to court due to an “IT failure”.

The Chief Judge of the High Court was “indefinitely suspended” by the JSC shortly after the High Court cancelled a hearing of the appeal case filed by former President Mohamed Nasheed.

The hearing of Nasheed’s case was scheduled to decide on procedural issues raised by the JSC contending that the High Court did not have the jurisdiction to hear the case, which involved the legitimacy of a panel of judges appointed by the commission to preside over the former president’s trial at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

The JSC however, in a press conference denied any connection with the case but claimed that Shareef’s suspension was regarding a complaint filed against the judge over a year ago.

The Chair of the JSC, Supreme Court Justice Adam Mohamed, was quick to give his reasoning of the suspension, contending that it was a “precautionary” measure while investigation of the complaint was proceeding.

Following the decision, Judge Shareef subsequently challenged the JSC’ decision in Civil Court claiming that the decision contrasted the existing laws and had undermined the independence that a Judge require in executing his legal duties. He had also, through the lawsuit, requested the Court to issue an injunction halting his suspension.

Shareef is represented by veteran lawyer and former Attorney General Husnu al Suood and his law firm Suood Anwar & Co.

The Civil Court Judge Hathif Hilmy dismissed the case after Shareef and his legal team failed to appear before the court on time. However, Shareef’s lawyers again re-filed the case on the same day.

Had it not been cancelled, the JSC was expected to respond to the lawsuit on Thursday’s hearings, but lawyers representing the JSC told the court that commission’s intranet network crashed and therefore they were not able to print the statements which they planned to present to the court.

When the presiding judge proposed to delay the hearings for a later time in the evening, the lawyers claimed the problem could not be fixed within the day.

Responding to the claim, Shareef’s lawyer Suood argued at the court that JSC could have easily printed the statement from another printing shop using a flash drive.

However the JSC lawyers told the court that it would not be able to present the statements the same day even if the printing was done externally.

Following the claim, the presiding judge cancelled the hearing without scheduling a future hearing.

Despite the JSC’s suspension of Judge Shareef following the High Court case regarding Nasheed, the commission is yet to take a similar “precautionary action” against Supreme Court Justice Ali Hameed – who appeared in a leaked video indulging in adultery with a with foreign women that is now circulation on social media networks.

Hameed’s sex tape came into media limelight after the arrest of Ahmed Faiz on charges of blackmail – a senior Council Member of President Waheed’s Gaumee Ihthihaad Party (GIP) and former Project Advisor at the Housing Ministry.

A police investigation is already proceeding and Hameed was also summoned for questioning. In the meantime, the JSC itself formed a five member committee to look into the matter which includes JSC Vice Chair Abdulla Didi, commission members Latheefa Gasim, Ahmed Rasheed and two outside lawyers.

Senior figures of the state including President Mohamed Waheed have expressed “sadness” over the incident with the president noting that should the video be authentic, it raises “serious questions”.

However, JSC is yet to take any action against the Supreme Court Justice, who continues to preside over Supreme Court cases even for a precautionary measure.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

DRP Leader Thasmeen settles MVR 1.9 million debt owed to Deputy Speaker

Running mate of incumbent President Mohamed Waheed Hassan and Leader of the Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP) Ahmed Thasmeen Ali has settled a debt of MVR 1.9 million (US$ 124,513) owed to the Deputy Speaker of Parliament Ahmed Nazim, the Civil Court has announced.

Deputy Speaker Nazim filed a court case at the Civil Court in March 2011 against the DRP Leader to recover the money – which is the remnant of a loan worth MVR 2.55 million (US$200,000) given by him to Thasmeen.

In April 2011, the Civil Court ordered the then-opposition leader to pay back the sum to the court in installments within a period of six months until the repayment was complete.

Sitting Judge Hathif Hilmy also ordered Thasmeen to pay Nazim MVR 1,800 (US$140) incurred as lawyer’s fees, based on a rate of MVR 300 (US$19.45) per hearing. Nazim had however claimed MVR 100,000 (US$6,485.08) in compensation for lawyer’s fees.

Following the verdict, Thasmeen appealed the case at the High Court. The High Court upheld the Civil Court ruling but invalidated the order concerning the payment of lawyer fees.  The case was presided by now-suspended-High Court Chief Judge Ahmed Shareef, Judge Abdulla Hameed and Judge Ali Sameer.

Despite the High Court ruling, Thasmeen had not paid the debt which forced Nazim to file another lawsuit in Civil Court requesting the court to enforce its previous verdict that was upheld by the High Court.

Civil Court subsequently issued a court order freezing the bank accounts of Thasmeen and withholding his passport – preventing him from leaving the country. During the hearings, Thasmeen’s lawyers told the court that they were preparing to appeal the High Court ruling at the Supreme Court.

However, the Civil Court judge responded that the civil case would proceed until such a time when the Supreme Court decides to hear the appeal.

In an announcement made on Wednesday (July 3), the Civil Court said that since Thasmeen has paid the court the sum of money, the court order freezing his bank accounts and withholding his passport will cease to have its effect.

Meanwhile former MP for Thimarafushi Constituency Mohamed Musthafa has filed a case at the Supreme Court requesting the apex court to declare the seat of Thasmeen in parliament vacant, over the unpaid debts.

As per the Maldivian constitution, “a person shall be disqualified from election as, a member of the People’s Majlis, or a member of the [parliament] immediately becomes disqualified, if he has a decreed debt which is not being paid as provided in the judgment.”

The former opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP – who lost his own seat through a Supreme Court ruling over unpaid debts – said Thasmeen’s seat is already deemed vacant as he had failed to pay in accordance with the court order.

Musthafa contested that even if Thasmeen repays the money, he would still lose his seat.

The former MP filed the case on the same precedent that unseated him from his seat, where the Supreme Court in 2012 concluded that Musthafa was constitutionally ineligible to remain in the seat over his failure to pay the debts.

Should the Supreme Court rule in favour of Musthafa, apart from losing his seat Thasmeen would face serious complications in becoming the running mate of a presidential candidate since the same constitutional prerequisite – to not have a decreed debt that is not being paid as ordered by a court – applies to those contesting for the position of president and vice president.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil Court rules in favour of PPM over contested primary results

The Civil Court today ruled in favour of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) in a case filed by former PPM Deputy Leader Umar Naseer, challenging the outcome of the party’s presidential primary in March 2013 in which he lost to the party’s parliamentary group leader, MP Abdulla Yameen.

Umar sought invalidation of the primary results on the grounds that 8,915 people who were not officially registered as PPM members had been allowed to vote in violation of the Political Parties Act.

In the verdict (Dhivehi) delivered this afternoon, Civil Court Judge Aisha Shujoon ruled that a decision by the PPM strategic planning committee to not omit from the official registry names of members who changed parties during the period from December 1, 2012 to February 28, 2013 was unlawful.

However, she noted, Umar Naseer did not submit any evidence to prove to the court that registered members of other political parties voted in the PPM primary.

Moreover, as the Political Parties Act did not clearly specify procedures for members to register with a party, Shujoon noted that PPM members whose forms had been accepted by the party and listed in the membership rolls could participate in the primary, despite their forms not being processed by the Elections Commission (EC) and entered into the official registry.

The judge also noted that despite a provision in the PPM’s charter or regulations for the party’s election committee to make the list of eligible voters public two weeks before voting, the list was not released in accordance with the PPM’s charter.

However, as Umar Naseer did not lodge an official complaint using the party’s internal mechanisms, the court believed that “Umar Naseer did not have any complaints regarding the matter and even though it happened, it did so with Umar Naseer’s consent.”

Based on the procedural points raised by both sides during the trial, Judge Shujoon ruled that there were no legal grounds to grant Umar’s request to invalidate the primary.

According to newspaper Haveeru, Shujoon said after reading out the verdict that the court believed there were irregularities in the PPM primary, but explained that the case was concluded based on relevant procedural issues and available evidence.

Prior to submission of the case, Umar was dismissed from the PPM on April 27 this year after levelling serious allegations against PPM presidential candidate MP Abdulla Yameen at a rally held shortly after he was defeated in the primary.

The rally was organised without the approval of the PPM council, which contended that it was held in violation of the party’s rules mandating support for the presidential candidate after the primary.

Umar went ahead with the rally despite pleas for unity by the party’s leader and figurehead, former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, half-brother of the primary winner.

Umar alleged at the rally that primary winner Yameen was backed by the Gayoom family and the PPM parliamentary group, controlled all of the party’s organs, including the council and election committee, and had “rigged” the primary by ballot stuffing, falsifying the count and “pouring black money” to buy votes.

He further alleged that criminal gangs, convicts and drug smuggling “networks” were part of Yameen’s campaign team.

“Less than 24 hours after my brother Abdulla Yameen won the primary, the foremost person in the Maldives’ corruption network, Deputy Speaker of the People’s Majlis Ahmed Nazim joined the PPM,” Umar said, declaring that he would not back Yameen if he contests the September presidential election with “corrupt people” in his team.

Yameen meanwhile denied the accusations, while the PPM later asked Umar to apologise for his remarks or face disciplinary action.

According to local media reports, supporters of Umar Naseer have been joining business magnate Gasim Ibrahim’s Jumhooree Party (JP) and campaigning for the JP presidential candidate. Among the high-profile defections from Umar’s camp following the disputed primary was PPM MP Ilham Ahmed, also a deputy leader of the party, who joined the JP in April this year.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP Youth Wing President sues police for “unlawful” confiscation of mobile

The Youth Wing President of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), Aminath Shauna, is suing the Maldives Police Service (MPS) for the “unlawful” confiscation of her cell phone, reports local media.

Her mobile phone was confiscated following her arrest during a July 2012 MDP protest. As her phone was held against a court order, according to Shauna, she is seeking a Civil Court ruling that declares the police action was illegal.

“I was arrested on allegations that I obstructed police duty. After arresting me around 6pm, the [Criminal] court order to confiscate my phone was sought around 10pm,” Shauna told local media. “The court order’s date was stated as July 7, but I was arrested on July 13.”

MPS attempted to return her mobile after she filed the Civil Court case, however Shauna refused to accept the phone until the court issues its verdict.

“I said I will accept the phone only after the court makes a decision on the matter,” Shauna said.

“Moreover, only through the trial I came to know that the police are trying to place terrorism charges against me. But I was arrested on charges of obstruction of police duty,” she added.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP MP Jabir claims MVR 77 million in compensation for arrest

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP and businessman Abdulla Jabir has filed a case against police alleging that his arrest damaged himself and his family, and claimed MVR 77 million (US$5 million) in compensation.

According to local media, the first hearing into the case was held at the Civil Court yesterday where the state attorney told the court that no court of law had declared that the arrest was unlawful.

Media reported that Jabir’s wife, former Attorney General and SAARC Secretary General Dhiyana Saeed, acted as his lawyer.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil Court dismisses case submitted by High Court chief judge against the JSC

The Civil Court has today dismissed a case submitted by Chief Judge of the High Court Ahmed Shareef to overturn his indefinite suspension by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).

The case was dismissed by Civil Court Judge Hathif Hilmy after the claimant did not attend a hearing scheduled for today, while also failing to provide any reasonable grounds for his absence.

The Civil Court said that the hearing was scheduled for 1:00pm.

Judge Ahmed Shareef was suspended on the same day that the High Court cancelled a hearing of a case involving former President Mohamed Nasheed.

The hearing was scheduled to decide on procedural issues raised by the JSC contending that the High Court did not have the jurisdiction to hear the case, which involved the legitimacy of a panel of judges appointed by the commission to preside over the former president’s trial at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Shortly after the cancellation, the JSC declared that the commission had indefinitely suspended Shareef.

He was the presiding judge in former President Nasheed’s case against the JSC.

JSC Chair and Supreme Court Justice Adam Mohamed Abdulla insisted at a press conference later that day that the disciplinary action had no relation to the former president’s case.

The JSC then announced it had appointed Judge Abdul Rauoof Ibrahim as acting Chief Judge of High Court until the conclusion of its inquiry into complaints filed against the suspended chief judge.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)