Tag: civil court

High Court orders DRP Leader Thasmeen to settle MVR 1.9 million debt to Deputy Speaker Nazim

The High Court today upheld a Civil Court verdict in April 2011 ordering Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) Leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali to settle an outstanding debt of MVR 1.92 million (US$124,513) owed to Deputy Speaker Ahmed Nazim.

MP Nazim, who recently joined the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), sued the DRP presidential candidate in March 2011 to recover MVR 1.92 million (US$124,513) unpaid from a loan worth MVR 2.55 million (US$200,000).

While the High Court upheld the lower court verdict, the ruling (Dhivehi) invalidated the part of the Civil Court verdict ordering Thasmeen to pay Nazim MVR1,800 (US$140) incurred as lawyer’s fees based on a rate of MVR300 per hearing.

Nazim had claimed MVR100,000 (US$6,485) as compensation for lawyer’s fees.

The three-judge panel presiding over the case included High Court Chief Judge Ahmed Shareef, Judge Abdulla Hameed and Judge Ali Sameer.

The High Court judgment coincided with the launching today of the DRP’s fourth national congress at the Dharubaaruge convention center with 700 delegates.

At the final hearing of the Civil Court case in April 2011, Thasmeen’s lawyer reportedly claimed that Nazim agreed to sell Shaviyani Kabalifaru, which was leased for development as a resort in 2005, to raise funds to cover the MVR 2.55 million loan.

Thasmeen’s lawyer denied that an agreement was made between the pair to pay back the loan in a month, claiming that Nazim failed to find a buyer for Kabalifaru as agreed upon in November 2008.

The lawyer also denied Nazim’s claim that the loan was taken to pay back Thasmeen’s debts at the Bank of Maldives.

However, Nazim’s lawyer, Mohamed Saleem, disputed both claims, demanding documentation to prove that Thasmeen gave power of attorney to Nazim to sell the resort.

At a previous hearing, Nazim’s lawyer had produced a document with Thasmeen’s signature, prompting Judge Hathif Hilmy to note that the purported loan agreement had a reference number and that it was therefore reasonable to expect Thasmeen to be aware of the details of the amount in question.

At the time the case was filed, Thasmeen’s DRP was in a formal coalition with the minority opposition People’s Alliance (PA) led by Nazim and current PPM presidential candidate Abdulla Yameen.

The DRP-PA coalition agreement was terminated in July 2011 amidst internal strife within the then-main opposition party, which saw a breakaway faction loyal to former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom leaving the party to form PPM in October 2011.

Following an acrimonious war of words between then-DRP ‘Honorary Leader’ Gayoom and his successor Thasmeen, the former president withdrew his endorsement of the DRP presidential candidate in March 2011.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court overturns lower court ruling on Nexbis deal

The High Court on Thursday (April 18) overturned a Civil Court ruling declaring the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) could not terminate a border control system (BSC) agreement signed by the Department of Immigration with Malaysian mobile security firm Nexbis.

The latest High Court ruling (Dhivehi) clears the way for the Civil Court to hear the case filed by the ACC should it be resubmitted.

The Civil Court had ruled last year that it could not hear the case filed by the commission after previously declaring that the ACC did not have legal authority to terminate the contract signed with Nexbis in November 2010.

The ACC appealed the ruling at the High Court on February 27, 2012.

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.

While the High Court had overturned the previous Civil Court ruling that held the ACC did not have legal authority to terminate a contract, the High Court ruling was itself appealed at the Supreme Court, which has yet to issue a judgment on the case.

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.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

PPM presidential primary results challenged in court

A member of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), Rahma Moosa, has today lodged a case at the Civil Court challenging the results of the party’s presidential primary.

The Civil Court has confirmed that the case was filed today, adding it was uncertain when a first hearing would be scheduled.

According to local media, Moosa filed a case claiming that 8,915 people who were not officially registered as members of PPM had been allowed to vote in the primary.

She contended that the move contravened the Political Party Act and compromised the rights of all general members of the party.

The primary, held late last month, saw MP Abdulla Yameen selected at the PPM’s candidate to stand in the presidential election scheduled for September 7 this year.

Yameen defeated rival Umar Naseer with a 63 percent of the vote.

According to Moosa, while the Elections Commission (EC) website stated that the PPM had a total of 22,383 members as of March 10, the voter registry published by the party had 31,298 persons listed.

She claimed that members of parties other than PPM had also been included in the voter list, according to local media.

The PPM has previously said that although the additional persons had not been registered at the Elections Commission by March 10, they were allowed to vote as they had submitted membership forms to the party.

However, according to the Elections Commission website, in addition to the PPM’s 22,383 registered members, the party had submitted only an additional 1671 membership forms to the commission.  These forms are currently awaiting verification. This leaves the membership still 7244 shy of the number of voters registered in the party’s primaries.

Elections Commission Vice President Ahmed Fayaz said that the commission has temporarily halted processing political party membership forms.

“We are very hectically working on drafting and finalizing the regulations which must be made following the ratification of the Political Parties Act, as it does not even have any clauses to give us an interim period. Hence, we have temporarily stopped processing the verification of membership forms submitted by any political party, unless in special circumstances. By this, I mean a case like, say, in the instance where some persons need to be registered due to party primaries,” Fayaz said.

Moosa has meanwhile told local media that the case was submitted on the request of a large number of party members, who she said believed that the primary was not conducted in a free and fair manner.

In the first public appearance after Abdulla Yameen winning the primaries, PPM Leader and former President Maumoon Abdul Gayyoom referred to the recently concluded vote as “the most responsible, free and fair, transparent primaries ever held by a political party in the country to date.”

Umar Naseer however accused Yameen of “rigging” the election, alleging undue influence on voters, vote buying, intimidation of his supporters and denying a number of his supporters the right to vote by omitting their names from the voter list.

PPM has since given Umar Naseer a period of seven days in which he is expected to ‘reform and realign with the party’s charter or regulations’ or face expulsion from the party.

Rahma Moosa is reported in local media as being a PPM member who had supported Umar Naseer in the party’s primaries.

PPM Spokesperson Ahmed Mahloof’s phone was switched off, while the party’s presidential candidate Abdulla Yamin was not responding to calls at the time of press.

Umar Naseer’s secretary stated that, as a rule, he will not conduct interviews with Minivan News.

She said that no particular reasons were stated, and that those were the orders she had been given.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Court case could deprive Maldivians of Hajj pilgrimage, Islamic Ministry warns

Minister of State For Islamic Affairs Mohamed Didi has expressed concern that Maldivians might not be able to make the Hajj pilgrimage this year if a court case contesting the choosing of eight groups authorised to transport pilgrims is not resolved in time.

The Civil Court issued a stay order or temporary injunction (Dhivehi) on Thursday (April 11) instructing the Islamic Ministry not to proceed with the chosen Hajj groups pending a ruling on the legality of the selection process.

The order was issued after four Hajj filed a lawsuit against the Islamic Ministry for allegedly deciding not to evaluate their proposals. The four companies claimed that the ministry violated procedures and guidelines in place for choosing Hajj Groups.

A quota of 874 pilgrims for the Maldives was meanwhile divided among the eight companies selected by the Islamic Ministry.

The quota was reportedly filled an hour after the eight chosen Hajj groups were officially authorised or licensed to serve pilgrims, prompting complaints from the public.

Permanent Secretary Mohamed Didi told Minivan News today that the Islamic Ministry had to sign an official agreement with the Saudi Arabian government to finalise the approved Hajj Groups.

“We have already sent the names of Hajj Groups that we have allowed and the Saudi government will call us to sign the agreement any moment now.  If we had to say no we can’t sign the agreement because we are not sure these Hajj Groups would be able to take people to Saudi Arabia this year as planned, then the Saudi government might not give us another chance,” Didi explained.

If the Civil Court case was not resolved before the agreement with the Saudi government had to be signed, Didi warned of the possibility that all Maldivians wishing to make the pilgrimage this year through local Hajj Groups would miss the opportunity.

“We will respect the court ruling and we are waiting for the court to reach a conclusion on the case,” Didi said.

The lawsuit was filed at the Civil Court by Almanasik Hajj Group, AlFath Hajj And Umra Group, Alsafa Hajj Group, Classic Hajj and Umrah Group.

Performing the annual Hajj pilgrimage at least once in a lifetime is among the five pillars of Islam.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Raajje TV wins court battle against President’s Office over discriminatory treatment

The Civil Court has today ruled in favour of private broadcaster Raajje TV in its lawsuit against the President’s Office for barring the opposition-aligned television station from President Dr Mohamed Waheed’s press conferences and functions.

“[The court] orders the President’s Office not to discriminate against Raajje TV in providing opportunity to cover functions, events and press conferences,” reads the judgment (Dhivehi).

Judge Ali Rasheed Hussain noted that the President’s Office’s decision to not cooperate with Raajje TV was proven at court by its own admission.

Summoned by parliament’s Government Oversight Committee last week following a complaint filed by Raajje TV, President’s Office Media Secretary Masood Imad claimed that Raajje TV was not invited to press conferences because the station did not fit criteria or standards of reporting set out by the President’s Office.

According to Masood, the policy of the President’s Office was to invite “responsible and experienced” media outlets, which include private broadcasters DhiTV and VTV, state broadcaster Television Maldives (TVM), newspapers Haveeru and Miadhu, as well as internet publications Sun Online and Minivan News.

Meanwhile, followings its own inquiry into the matter, the Maldives Media Council (MMC) asked the Prosecutor General’s (PG’s) Office to press charges against the President’s Office over what it found to be discriminatory treatment.

The non-cooperation by the President’s Office with Raajjee TV have also been met with condemnation from both international and local NGOs, including the Maldives Journalist Association (MJA).

At the Civil Court trial, the President’s Office, represented by the attorney general, alleged that Raajje TV had attempted to capture video footage of the premises, disrupting internal security at the office.

However, the judge dismissed the claim on the grounds that the President’s Office had the right to file a complaint at the Maldives Broadcasting Commission (MBC) over the alleged violation of broadcasting rules.

As the President’s Office was an institution that “served the people,” the judge ruled that the it should also comply with the Maldivian constitution, which guarantees equal treatment and administrative fairness.

Press freedom and freedom of expression were also protected as fundamental rights in the constitution, the judge noted.

Speaking to Minivan News, Chairman of Raajje TV Akram Kamaaluddeen said today’s verdict was a huge success for Raajje TV well as for the Maldivian media.

“Today, the court has guaranteed that no one can meddle with the rights vested in the constitution and that no one can discriminate the media,” he said.

Akram added that he expected Raajje TV to be invited to future press conferences and events at the President’s Office.

Invitation only

Despite the Civil Court judgment, Masood Imad denied that the government failed to cooperate with Raajje TV.

“We talk to them and provide them with answers to their queries. In future too, we will maintain our position of cooperation,” he told Minivan News.

Masood added that he has been in touch with officials at Raajje TV today and invited them for a meeting at the President’s Office tomorrow (April 15)  to “talk out” any differences.

Akram said that he had not been aware of any communication with the President’s Office since the court ruling at time of press.

The Civil Court previously ruled that a similar decision taken by the Maldives Police Service to not cooperate with Raajje TV station was unconstitutional. The Civil Court Judge, issuing the ruling against the Police at the time, said that he believed such a decision was “extremely dangerous and significantly serious” and could result in “chaos and infringement of social harmony.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Maldives Media Council submitting case against President’s Office “to create a free media”

The Maldives Media Council (MMC) has voted to submit a case against the President’s Office to “create a free media” in light of the discriminatory treatment of Raajje TV.

The President’s Office is violating equal rights by not inviting the opposition-aligned TV station Raajje TV to events and has not been adhering to the MMC’s requests that it give equal opportunities to all media, the MMC Secretariat told Minivan News (April 9).

The case will be submitted to the Prosecutor General’s (PG) office April 10.

“MMC members have voted to submit the case. Members have a strong feeling that it is a necessary step to take in order to create a free media in the Maldives,” said the MMC Secretariat.

The MMC has been very active the past two months trying to solve these problems and is now sending the case to the PG, Raajje TV Deputy Chief Executive Officer Abdulla Yamin told Minivan News.

The President’s Office has not been inviting Raajje TV to press conferences, has denied reporters entry press events in the President’s Office, and has not sent the channel any government press statements, Yamin claimed.

The President’s Office also asked government ministries and state-owned companies not to give information to Raajje TV and for these companies to stop providing private sponsorship to the media outlet.

Yamin said that they had observed this treatment was particular only to their channel.

“The President’s Office said they have not invited us because it is their privilege to decide whether to invite Raajje TV or not,” said Yamin.

“We are talking about rights granted in the constitution, not a privilege. There must be a situation [in the Maldives] where independent media can run.

“Article 28 of the constitution guarantees the right to freedom of the press and article 29 assures the right to freedom of information,” Yamin declared.

Yamin explained that the MCC had acted as a mediator to try and resolve the lack of cooperation shown by the President’s Office to Raajje TV.

“The President’s Office said if we do certain things they will cooperate. However, then the President’s Office is forcing their influence on our editorial policy,” said Yamin.

“We are not going to negotiate our constitutionally guaranteed right to information,” he added.

Ongoing government discrimination

Raajje TV filed a case against the President’s Office in the Civil Court in September 2012, complaining that the station had been boycotted from official events. Yamin expects the civil court to issue their verdict later this week.

Raajje TV also submitted a case to the parliamentary committee on government accountability regarding the president’s office discriminating against the media outlet. Parliament invited the president’s office to attend the committee twice, but never received a response, according to Yamin.

Additionally, Raajje TV lodged a complaint against the Maldives Broadcasting Commission (MBC) with the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC), alleging it was “using its power to give benefits” to other TV channels by providing them funding.

The Maldives Broadcasting Commission (MBC) was contacted by the ACC regarding the matter, but did not respond, according to Yamin.

“The MBC have not done anything regarding our right to information. They should be working on these issues to make sure rights are assured,” said Yamin.

Minister of Home Affairs Mohamed Jameel Ahmed previously named Raajje TV as an “enemy of state” in a press conference held in July, the same day on which the Maldives Police Services publicly stated its refusal to provide cooperation or protection to the channel.

Raajje TV also filed a case against the Maldives Police Services in September 2012 over their decision to deny cooperation or protection to the channel. In February 2013, the Civil Court ruled that the decision by the Maldives Police Service to cease cooperating with Raajje TV was unconstitutional.

Dismissing the police argument that it had the sole discretion to decide who to invite to press conferences and functions, the court stated that the action more resembled a deliberate attempt to limit the constitutional rights of freedom of expression, freedom of media and the right to information.

Raajje TV believes this verdict will apply to the President’s Office as well.

“If the court is fair and balanced a similar verdict will come. I believe the court won’t be that corrupt because the constitution and laws are clear. It’s written in black and white,” Yamin said.

Raajje TV is one of the five private broadcasters in the country and is the only television station aligned with the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP). The TV station has come under substantial pressure and criticism from groups including the government and political parties aligned with it.

RaajjeTV has been the subject of continuous verbal attacks by the state following the transfer of power in February.

In early August 2012, Raajje TV’s control room was sabotaged by intruders.

Press freedom organisation Reporters Without Borders at the time condemned this attack, stating “This targeted and well-prepared operation was the foreseeable culmination of the new government’s escalating verbal attacks on Raajje TV. How the authorities respond will be seen as a test of their commitment to media pluralism.”

The President’s Office Media Secretary Masood Imad and the Maldives Broadcasting Commission were not responding to calls at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Court commences police chief’s ‘baaghee’ defamation case against former president

The Civil Court yesterday ( April 8 ) began hearing statements in a defamation case filed by Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz against former President Mohamed Nasheed.

Riyaz is seeking MVR3.75 million (US$243,506) in damages from Nasheed, who is accused of labelling the commissioner a ‘baaghee’ (traitor) following the controversial transfer of power on February 7, 2012, which saw sections of the police and military mutiny against the former government.

Nasheed is accused of continuing to call the commissioner a ‘baaghee’ even after a Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) later concluded the government of President Dr Mohamed Waheed came to power constitutionally.

A Civil Court spokesperson confirmed to Minivan News that lawyers representing both Riyaz and Nasheed were present yesterday during the first of five hearings anticipated to determine the charges against the former president.

During the hearing, the presiding judge asked the defence to answer the allegations against Nasheed. The next hearing of the case is expected to allow Nadheed’s representatives to present a statement in his defence, according to a spokesperson for the Civil Court.

No date was set for the next hearing, the court claimed.

Riyaz’s defamation case had been scheduled to begin last year, but was later postponed upon request of the commissioner himself.

MDP MP and lawyer Mariya Ahmed Didi said the party has previously issued a statement following the postponement of the hearings, claiming that Nasheed was “anxious to proceed with the case”.

Mariya alleged that Commissioner Riyaz was hesitant to proceed with the defamation case for fear that he would not be able to prove that his standing in society or his wider reputation had suffered as a result of the former president’s comments.

“There are hundreds of witnesses just waiting to give their evidence in court. In addition, senior police and Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) officers including [former] commissioner of Police Faseeh and Defence Force chief Moosa Jaleel have testified to the relevant committee of parliament that the events of February 7 and February 8 were indeed a coup,” she claimed. “We are confident that if we get a free and fair trial we will get a judgement in our favour.”

“Undermining” commisioner’s esteem

Riyaz’s lawyers have previously accused Nasheed of undermining the esteem and respect of the police commissioner by labelling him as a “traitor.”

The legal team also argued at the time that Nasheed’s words had compromised the safety of Riyaz, requiring security at his residence to be strengthened.

Commissioner Riyaz and Police Spokesperson Chief Inspetor Hassan Haneef were not responding to calls at time of press.

Meanwhile, MVR3.75 million in damages are being sought from Nasheed by serving Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim, who has also accused the former president of damaging his reputation by labelling a traitor during a public address last year.

Newspaper ‘Haveeru’ reported at the time that following a speech by Nasheed attacking the defence minister, a group of protesters came outside Nazim’s house, “leaving Nazim’s family in fear”.

Former Youth Minister Dr Hassan Latheef, who defended Nasheed at a Civil Court hearing held in October 2012, told the presiding judge at the time that the former president denied the charges against him.

Nasheed’s legal team has previously contended that Riyaz had filed the defamation case in the civil court at a time when the police were continuously arresting people for calling them ‘baaghee’ on the streets. The same representatives also accused the country’s criminal court of continuing to provide extensions of detention periods for people arrested under the charges.

Further charges

Nasheed is also currently in the process of being tried on charges that  he illegally detained a senior judge during the end of his presidency.

However, all trials concerning the judge’s detention were suspended earlier this month pending a High Court ruling on the legitimacy of the bench of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court conducting Nasheed’s case.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

State must prove ‘MC’ Hameed’s dismissal was lawful: Civil Court

The Civil Court has ruled that it is the state’s responsibility to prove that former head of police intelligence Chief Superintendent ‘MC’ Hameed’s dismissal was lawful and in accordance with the constitution.

The Police Disciplinary Board dismissed Hameed from his position over allegations he provided confidential information to an opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) report written by the former government’s Environment Minister Mohamed Aslam, and National Security Advisor Ameen Faisal.

Local media claimed 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 filed a lawsuit in the Civil Court against the Maldives Police Service (MPS) on August 25, claiming that his dismissal from the institution was unlawful.

“The [judge’s] ruling is in reference to the state’s attorney ‘holding onto witnesses’ who would provide testimony regarding my dismissal in which I was sacked unlawfully. This is not the final verdict,” Hameed told Minivan News today.

“The MPS believe they have the privilege of not falling under general employment regulations because they are a separate entity,” he added.

Speaking previously to Minivan News Hameed stated, “I have noted that the dismissal was against the constitution and the Police Act. We have noted many articles that were violated in the dismissal.”

Judge Mariyam Nihayath, presiding over the Civil Court hearing, ruled in favor of Hameed’s lawyer’s argument that it is indeed the responsibility of the state to prove Hameed’s dismissal was legal.

Nihayath explained that all citizens are guaranteed the fundamental right to employment and if that right was withheld, it must be in accordance with Article 16 of the constitution, according to local media.

Article 16 guarantees the “rights and freedoms” enumerated in the constitution for all citizens – including employment – are “subject only to such reasonable limits [as] prescribed by a law” and these limits must be “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”.

When asked about today’s Civil Court ruling, Police Spokesperson Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef instead referred to the Criminal Court case being brought against Hameed by the police.

“The case is being investigated and has been sent to the Prosecutor General’s office. You’ll have to ask them if they have enough supporting evidence,” Haneef told Minivan News.

Prosecutor General’s (PG) Office Media Official Hussain Nashid confirmed to Minivan News that the PG had received the case against Hameed “last November or December” but was “not sure” if the civil court ruling would have any bearing on the state’s criminal court case.

Hameed also confirmed that the MPS previously filed the criminal case against him with the PG’s office, but did not know of any further developments in this regard.

“I have not yet received a summons [to appear in court], so I guess the case is still pending,” stated Hameed.

The Police Disciplinary Board also relieved Superintendent Ibrahim Adhnan of duty and announced it was demoting Superintendent ‘Lady’ Ibrahim Manik to Chief Inspector of Police, removing the disciplinary badge on his uniform, in June 2012.

Hameed, Adhnan and Manik were among only a few police senior officers who did not join the events of February 7, which saw mutinying police hand out riot gear to opposition demonstrators and launch an all-out assault on the main military headquarters.

Hameed’s arrest and detention

In June 2012, Police arrested Hameed over allegations he had contributed to the MDP’s report into the controversial transfer of power on February 7, the publication of which was derided by the government as an “act of terrorism”.

Following reports that police who cooperated with the Ameen-Aslam report were being rounded up and detained, police initially denied allegations of a “witch hunt” and issued a statement accusing the media of “circulating baseless and false reports”. However court warrants for the arrest of Hameed and Staff Sergeant Ahmed Naseer were subsequently leaked.

The Criminal Court arrest warrant stated that Hameed was accused of “misusing” or leaking information acquired through his position for “the political gain of a particular group”, and participating in the compilation of the “misleading” Ameen-Aslam [MDP] report, which undermines “the public’s respect for the security services.”

It justified his detention on the grounds that Hameed might influence witnesses and attempt to get rid of evidence as “others are suspected of involvement in the case.”

Police issued a statement that day confirming that Hameed had been arrested on charges of leaking “important information collected by the Maldives Police Services intelligence related to national security” as well as providing “untrue and false information” intended to benefit a specific [political] party, which could pose a threat to national security and create “divisions between the police and the public.”

Hameed’s actions were in violation of the Police Act, the statement insisted.

Hameed was held for five days following his arrest. The Criminal Court’s decision to detain Hameed was appealed by his family in the High Court, which ruled that there was no grounds to rule an extension of his detention was unlawful at the time.

The Criminal Court extended his detention period to five days before releasing him on the grounds that it did “not believe the detention should be extended any further,” just a few hours after the High Court upheld its decision to keep him detained.

Hameed’s lawyer Ismail Visham argued during the High Court hearing that his client had been subjected to discrimination.

Visham told the court that there were police officers accused of more serious crimes who had not been detained, alleging that in one instance, a senior colleague presently stood accused of attempting to rape a woman.

He further contended that the Criminal Court judge had extended Hameed’s detention period not based on police evidence, but on the judge’s own view. Visham contended that Hameed had therefore lost the right to respond to the accusations against him.

In response, the state attorney said that Hameed was accused not of a disciplinary matter but a criminal offence, and argued that the Criminal Court judge had declared Hameed a threat to society because police told the judge he might seek to “intimidate witnesses” and “destroy evidence”.

Following his detention, the family of Chief Superintendent Hameed expressed concern over his detention and noted that he was widely respected in the force as “a man of principle”. He has been in the service for over 17 years and has a masters in policing, intelligence and counter-terrorism.

Following the raid and extrajudicial dismantling of the MDP’s protest site at Usfasgandu on May 29, Hameed tweeted: ” Called a ‘baaghee’ [traitor] on the road twice today. Rightly so when our own actions are unjustifiable and thuggery like!”

After his dismissal, Hameed tweeted: “Ayan: Daddy, why were you fired from your job? My response: Because I did not join the bad guys.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court overturns Civil Court ruling against Male’ City Council over MDP protest site

The High Court has invalidated a Civil Court ruling ordering Male’ City Council (MCC) to hand over the MDP’s protest site to the government.  The area was previously leased to the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

Earlier this month, the Civil Court ordered Male’ City Council to clear the land plot and hand it over to the Housing Ministry. The MCC appealed the Civil Court ruling, claiming that the court had not given the council an opportunity to defend itself, making the ruling unlawful.

The High Court today ruled that the Civil Court had failed to follow legal procedures in its hearing of the case, concluding that its ruling at the time was unlawful.

Presiding judges Justice Azmiralda Zahir, Justice Yousuf Hussain and Justice Abbas Shareef all backed the verdict today. Following the High Court ruling, police removed the barricades on Boduthakurufaanu Magu behind the STELCO and reopened the Usfasgandu area.

The area was cordoned off by police late last month after the High Court issued a warrant requesting the area be kept under police custody until it reached on verdict on the case.

MDP protesters clashed with the police several times after they cordoned off the site.

Lease dispute

Male’ City Council (MCC) leased the Usfasgandu area to the ousted ruling party in March 2012, prompting repeated attempts by the government to reclaim the area on the grounds it was being used for criminal activity, including the practice of black magic.

The MDP had moved to the area after a previous protest camp at the tsunami monument was dismantled and completely repainted by police and military on March 19, 2012.

On May 29, police raided the Usfasgandu site after obtaining a search warrant from the Criminal Court, ordering the MDP to vacate the area. The Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) then began dismantling the protest camp.

The Housing Ministry filed a case with the Civil Court after MCC refused to hand the land plot to the ministry.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)