Tag: constitution

President Waheed meets Norwegian, Canadian diplomats

President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan today met with Norwegian Ambassador accredited to the Maldives, Hilde Haraldstad.

According to the President’s Office, “At the meeting, the President spoke on the challenges faced by the government, and the measures taken to overcome those challenges. He also detailed on the progress being done on the roadmap through the ongoing multi-party.

“President Waheed assured Ambassador Haraldstad that his government was committed to continue important policies and projects initiated by the former administration. Particularly, the President highlighted the government’s plans in carrying out the carbon neutral policy.”

Yesterday Dr Waheed met Canadian High Commissioner to the Maldives, Bruce Levy.

“Discussions at the meeting were focused on strengthening bilateral ties between the two countries and the current political climate of the Maldives,” according to the President’s Office.

“Briefing the High Commissioner on the political situation, President Waheed said he was willing to hold early election, but that it could only be done within the Constitutional provisions.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament “working to resolve instability”: Speaker

Parliament is working to resolve the political instability currently at play in the capital Male’, Speaker Abdulla Shahid has said.

In a response to the accusations that Parliament was not addressing the matter of Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed’s arrest by the military last week, or the detention of opposition party members, the body stated that it had the authority to monitor and hold the government accountable for its actions when necessary, local media reports.

The statement added that parliamentary committees are important for enforcement purposes.

Speaking to local media, Shahid attempted to discredit the general accusation that Parliament has not done anything to resolve the situation and explained that the independent body was trying to address the matter in a responsible fashion.

Shahid emphasised that Parliament does not belong to any individual, and that its decisions are made collectively. He said the final results indicate the level of work done by Parliament members.

Relevant parliamentary committees are evaluating the political situation, he added.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Political tensions flare amid constitutional crisis over judiciary

Male’ is bracing for further protests after a weekend of violent demonstrations involving several hundred opposition supporters, as political tensions spiral over the military’s detention of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, Abdulla Mohamed.

Eight opposition-aligned political parties held a joint press conference on Thursday afternoon calling on the public to join their series of protests “to defend the Maldivian constitution” and “bring the government back into legal bounds”.

Police said in a statement that five officers were “seriously injured” in protests that evening after opposition supporters in front of the Maldives Monetary Authority (MMA) building attempted to break through the police blockade.

A number of other police officers sustained minor injuries while a window of the MMA building was smashed and three police vehicles, one MNDF vehicle and the car of Civil Service Commission (CSC) head Mohamed Fahmy Hassan were damaged.

Opposition protesters also broke into the home of Youth Minister Hassan Latheef and vandalised his living room, while his wife and children were in the house. The homes of other ministers were also vandalised from the outside, and palm trees lining the main roads of Male’ were uprooted.

The Maldives National Broadcasting Corporation (MNBC) claimed that six of its reporters were attacked on Thursday evening by the opposition protesters, including a cameraman who had paving stones and oil thrown at him, and a camera woman who had an unknown substance sprayed in her eyes as demonstrators attempted to take her video camera.

A group of male demonstrators also reportedly surrounded a female MNBC journalist and threatened to kill her and dump her body into the sea, before she was rescued by other reporters in the area.

Protesters also attempted to gather outside the MNBC premises and threw rocks and other objects at the walls.

Police arrested 43 people over the weekend, including former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) MP Ahmed Mahlouf, Adhaalath Party President Imran Abdulla, and spokesperson for the coalition of NGOs campaigning against the government’s religious policy, Abdulla Mohamed.

Charges included disrupting peace, damaging public and private property, including youth minister’s residence, breaking police lines, and inciting violence.

The Criminal Court today however ruled the arrests were unlawful and ordered the release of all those arrested.

The Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) meanwhile called on the protesters to be mindful of the rights of others and to exercise their right to free assembly responsibly.

The commission observed that as a result of the manner of speech heard at such protests, “inducing anger, hatred and fear in people’s hearts”, public order and peace was “being very adversely affected.”

“As a consequence of such actions, the country’s social fabric is weakened and the trust and respect we should have towards one another are lost, forming numerous obstacles to establishing an environment that fully guarantees rights,” the commission said.

Hundreds of supporters of the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) meanwhile gathered at a heated rally near the tsunami monument on Saturday afternoon. The ruling party launched a campaign earlier this month dubbed “You can’t say that anymore” against the opposition’s “use of religion as a weapon for political purposes.”

Today’s rally at the tsunami memorial area was part of the campaign, which has seen eight rallies held at the party’s Haruge headquarters in past weeks.

Detained Judge

Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed is at the centre of the constitutional impasse currently being played out in the Maldives. The opposition contends that the judge’s “abduction” by the military last week and its refusal to release him or present him in court, despite being ordered to do so by the Supreme Court, represents a constitutional violation by the government.

The government – and former whistleblower on the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), Aishath Velezinee – present Abdulla Mohamed as the corrupt heart of a “silent coup” by the former government to assume control of the judicary, “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist” and ensuring legal impunity for key opposition figures.

Presented with a litany of allegations against the judge, the JSC, as the watchdog body charged with overseeing the judiciary, formed a complaints committee to investigate the cases against the judge in December 2009.

However in November 2011 the Civil Court ordered the judicial watchdog to take no action against Abdulla Mohamed, despite a report by the JSC claiming that he had violated the Judge’s Code of Conduct by making  statements favouring the opposition in an interview he gave to private broadcaster DhiTV.

The government’s decision to take action against the judge followed his opening of the court outside normal hours, to order the immediate release of Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed, deputy leader of the minority opposition Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP).

Police had attempted to arrested two senior members of the party on charges of slander and hate speech after they published a pamphlet alleging, among other claims, that the government was plotting with “Jews and Christian priests” to undermine Islam in the Maldives.

The Chief Judge was first summoned by police for questioning on January 16, but did not appear.

Instead, he filed a case at the High Court requesting the summons be cancelled on the grounds that it was illegal. The High Court then issued an injunction ordering police to halt enforcement of the summons pending a ruling.

Police subsequently requested the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) take Abdulla Mohamed into custody, as “the Criminal Court was not cooperating with police and that as a consequence of Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed obstructing police work, the country’s internal security was threatened and police were unable to maintain public order and safety.”

The judge was taken to the MNDF training island of Girifushi, where he currently remains.

“In good health”

HRCM in an “emergency” press conference yesterday stated that it had visited the judge and that he was in good health and being well treated, with the ability to freely roam the island. He had been granted, but had refused, access to his family, HRCM said.

In response to HRCM’s comments, the opposition accused the human rights body of “backing down” from its responsibilities. Deputy Leader of the Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP), Ibrahim Shareef, attacked the statement as “tame” and “mellow”, claiming that the “kidnapping” of the judge was inhumane.

Reaction

The detention of the Chief Judge has polarised Maldivian society – and the government – even amid the country’s already intense political divide.

In an especially dramatic tangent, Vice President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan declared on his blog that he was “ashamed and totally devastated by the fact that this is happening in a government in which I am the elected the Vice President.”

“Besides all the international legal obligations, the government of the Maldives is bound by the Maldives Constitution 1988 which prohibits arbitrary arrest and forced disappearance. We have just witnessed the first possible violation since the dawn of democracy in our country. I cannot understand why this is not an issue for everyone in this country,” Dr Waheed said.

“Those of us who have struggled for freedom in this country for over 30 years, are wondering whether we have wasted our efforts.”

The European Union Heads of Mission issued a statement expressing “concern at recent developments in [the Maldives], including the arrest of a criminal court judge by members of the security forces.”

“EU Heads of Mission reiterate their support for the process of democratic transition in the Maldives and note the importance of the principles underlying that transition, including respect for the constitution, due process, independence of the judiciary, the rule of law and freedom of expression are central to this process,” the statement read.

“EU Heads of Mission call on all parties in the Maldives to act in accordance with these principles and to refrain from inflammatory language or other action which could incite hatred.”

Secretary General of SAARC, Diyana Saeed, the youngest person and first woman to be appointed to the post, today confirmed her resignation following her public criticism of the executive’s refusal to obey the Supreme Court order to release the judge, during a press conference on VTV.

“[The Chief Judge’s detention] is a violation of individual human rights, a violation of the independence of the judiciary, and the violation of the constitution,” she told Minivan News on Thursday.

The government’s ignoring of a Supreme Court order is not without precedent in the Maldives.

Prior to the appointment of the new Supreme Court in August 2010 on conclusion of the constitution’s interim period, the existing bench sent a letter to the President declaring themselves permanent.

The letter was ignored, and the MNDF confiscated the keys to the Supreme Court until the new bench was eventually appointed by parliament – a process of intense and rapid backroom political compromise that was at the time hailed as a rare cross-party success for the institution.

Breaking the impasse

A government legal source told Minivan News that the JSC itself had found evidence of “gross misconduct” by Abdulla Mohamed, but was blocked from proceeding on the matter as the chief judge “has undue influence over at least one other judge of the Civil Court who issued a court order against the JSC and prevented it from performing its constitutional role.”

“The allegations levelled against him are of serious concern to the Maldivian government and community. It is apparent that both the Maldivian High Court and the Supreme Court remained silent on the matter,” the source stated.

“This is tacit acceptance of a ploy to prevent the JSC from exercising its powers under the constitution, and the JSC’s acceptance of the Civil Court order is an indication of the extent of undue influence that members of the judiciary have over the JSC.”

The government was, the source said, “taking appropriate action in extraordinary circumstances involving allegations of serious corruption and gross misconduct by a senior judge. Public statements seeking to define his detention as a human rights issue are part of the web of protection which surrounds Judge Abdulla Mohamed.”

Independent MP Mohamed Nasheed told Minivan News that the arrest of the judge could legally only have been ordered by the High Court.

“We have the security of the constitution, but while the print may be there it is evident that it doesn’t matter very much. If I am going to be arrested I deserve to expect certain rights. The arrest of Judge Mohamed should have been made on the order of the High Court,” he said.

He noted that Parliament had a standing committee, which had in turn formed a sub-committee, to investigate the JSC.

The hearings and interviews have been concluded at the sub-committee level said Nasheed, a member of that sub-committee and chair of the Independent Institutions Committee, and the information was to be compiled into a report and forwarded to the full committee.

“It’s possible we will have the investigation addressed within the first session of parliament this year,” Nasheed said.

He said the sub-committee had considered a reformation of the JSC.

“It’s the one institution that has not really taken off. It’s been bogged down with personality issues and procedural issues. Bring in a change of membership, some new blood, and give it a new chance,” he speculated, although adding that this would require bodies such as the Supreme Court to each revoke their own representatives on the commission.

The constitution also includes provision for the appointment of foreign judges from other Islamic countries, he noted.

Foreign judges may sit on court benches during the first 15 years of the constitution “only because we would like some technical assistance and expertise during the transition. This provision is the only area in which Maldivian citizenship is not required of a judge,” Nasheed said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Abuse of Article 285 makes us all complicit in the state of our judiciary

A skewed foundation will not a straight building raise, so goes an old Maldivian saying. The arrest of a Criminal Court judge by the army does not belong in a democratic landscape. We all cry foul – Unconstitutional! Dictatorial! Autocratic! Yes, of course. If the judge being removed was put on the bench constitutionally, our current situation would indeed be beyond the democratic pale.

But the abuse of the Constitution which gave rise to ‘Justice’ Abdulla Mohammed did not occur when he was arrested on 16 January 2012. It happened on August 7, 2010, when Article 285 of the Constitution, which required the judiciary to be cleansed of the unqualified and the criminal by that date was allowed to lapse without so much as a murmur from the general public or the civil society. That was the time when we should have cried foul, when the NGOs, the Human Rights Commission, and learned members of the judiciary should have come out to protest the abuse of our democracy.

But no one did, except for a lone individual who was mocked, ostracised and finally stabbed in the back for her efforts. It was on this day that we began our journey on this crooked path, it was then that we all became complicit in today’s actions – we knowingly allowed criminals, child molesters, fraudsters and mobsters to remain on the benches of our courts. We did this, and now, as we confront the consequences of our (in)actions, we conveniently forget our role in it.

The 2008 Maldivian Constitution must be one of the most abused such documents in the history of democracy. Within the space of three years, it has become the plaything of every Mohammed, Ahmed and Fathimath within arm’s length of political power. When Parliamentarians are taken to court for embezzling millions from the public coffers, it is the Constitution that is cited as containing no stipulation that makes lying or fraud a crime. When opposition leaders malign the executive and the country itself with baseless lies, it is the Constitution that is once again cited; its provision of freedom of expression held up as freedom to defame with impunity. When religious intolerance is exercised to such high levels that living a life free of fear is all but impossible for a Maldivian in the Maldives, it is the Constitution that is once again cited as the source for legitimising such repression.

The Maldivian Constitution does not allow criminals to be judges; it does not give free reign to defamation; and it does not condone religious intolerance. Those who say that ‘Justice’ Abdulla Mohammed has been removed unconstitutionally, read Article 285 and compare what it says against the man’s criminal record and his penchant for victims of sexual offences to re-enact their abuse in court to satisfy his twisted appetites. Those who cite Article 27 of the Constitution as giving freedom to defame, read Article 33, which says that everyone has the right to a good name and protection of their reputation. And those who cite Article 9 of the Constitution as stipulating that every Maldivian citizen must remain a Muslim by law, it would be a worthwhile exercise to re-read it with some due diligence.

Article 9 (d) says that nobody can become a Maldivian citizen unless they are Muslims. The word ‘become’ requires the taking of a deliberate action. Children born to Maldivian parents, which cover well over 99 percent of the population, do not have to become citizens, they are born such. The Constitution also says that nothing can take Maldivian citizenship away from an individual that already possesses the same. Where then is the Constitutional requirement that demands every Maldivian citizen to be a Muslim? And where does all this talk of having to be a Sunni Muslim come from? The Constitution only requires the President, and members of Parliament, the Cabinet and the judiciary to be Sunni Muslims. As far as ordinary citizens go, there is not a word in the Constitution about which sect of Islam a citizen must belong to.

The facts of the matter are that we are a people who have become pawns in a game played by a handful of oligarchs who want to retain political and financial power at any cost. All the talk of fighting for democracy, for ‘Islam’, for the people – it is nothing but a register of words conveniently deployed to build a façade of legitimacy both nationally and internationally.

Just look at the people involved in all these ‘crises’ that have rocked the country in the last two months. There were few among the leaders of the ‘Defending Islam’ protest on 23 December 2010 who did not own a tourist resort or did not have a vested interest in the industry. That these people who make millions of dollars everyday from peddling their products to ‘infidels’ would be so audacious as to call for the purification of Maldivian Muslimness is shocking in itself.

What is more breathtakingly shameless is that among those calling for strengthening Sharia in the Maldives was DQP’s Dr Hassan Saeed who co-authored the book, Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam (2007), which is introduced as ‘a contribution to the thinking that freedom of religion is a fundamental principle of Islam…’

That the co-author of this book would be at a gathering that protested against religious tolerance and rallied people to strengthen Sharia rule in the Maldives is a betrayal not just of the Maldivian people but of the ethics and principles of the wider academic community to which he belongs. It beggars belief that such a figure would stand up in an effort to work people up into a frenzy to support the other side of his own argument, and is now on a crusade to prove an alleged hidden ‘anti-Islamic agenda’ pursued by the current government. There could be no more blatant an example of just how low these ‘political leaders’ of the new Maldivian democracy are willing to stoop to get their backsides onto the executive chair.

If the Maldivian democracy is to be rescued from the clutches of these oligarchs, we the public need to take ownership of our Constitution. Their vested agendas have been made clear: (a) take Maldivians to the depths of religious intolerance which would stop the general public from laying a claim to their rightful share of the tourism industry, hence leaving them in control of the billions that pour in every year; and (b) bring down the current government whatever it takes. Or, to put it in their own words, ‘put President Nasheed behind bars’.

We need to distance ourselves from these political games. It should not matter to us whether it is President Nasheed, Rasheed or Waleed that is in power, as long as we, the people, are able to retain and exercise our will to be governed democratically. And to do that, we need to begin to think for ourselves rather than jump on every malevolent bandwagon that comes our way.

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)

MDP to petition for removal of Prosecutor General

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) intends to file a petition with parliament to remove Prosecutor General (PG) Ahmed Muizz from office.

The petition was announced during a party rally last evening at MDP headquarters during which MP Mohamed Shifaz requested MDP Chairperson MP Moosa ‘Reeko’ Manik “do this on behalf of our members who are always calling for a better judicial system”.

Shifaz said there are “many reasons why we don’t have confidence in the PG, and why many politicians have legal issues with the PG not sending cases to court.”

“Also he has good relations with [Chief Criminal Court Judge] Abdul Ghazee, people say they are always having coffees. We believe they shouldn’t have this kind of relationship in public.”

Calling for the PG’s arrest, Fuvahmulah MP Shifag Mufeed accused Muizz of incompetency in investigating corruption cases.

“To be honest, it’s the PG’s obligation to investigate the alleged US$800 million corruption case and the fact that he has failed is testament to his incompetence and violation of constitutional law”, Mufeed told local media earlier today.

The corruption case implicated former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s half brother Abdulla Yameen for alleged involvement in an international money laundering racket involving the Burmese oil trade.

PG Muizz could not be reached at time of press.

Deputy Prosecutor General Hussain Shameem has said the PG Office has not been contacted by MDP, but noted that nothing required the party to communicate with the accused.

“To remove the PG a party would have to first send the motion to a committee, which would forward the motion to the Parliament floor, where the motion would only be passed with a two-thirds majority,” Shameem explained.

“But previously the PG’s position has been that if the government files a ‘no confidence’ vote in Parliament, he will resign.”

Shifaz told Minivan News that the petition would be available for signing at MDP Haruge after 8:00pm this evening, and that all citizens of any party are invited to sign.

“Our main aim is to build a better judicial system. What happened in the past, we don’t want to see again,” Shifaz said, adding that the party hoped for 5,000 signatures. He said the matter still needed to be discussed by MDP’s parliamentary group.

Local media has reported that the party intends to submit the petition to Parliament within the next two days. Parliament is currently on recess until March. However, Parliament’s petition committee president and MDP MP Mohamed ‘Colonel’ Nasheed has been requested to expedite the process.

Nasheed said, “if I get any petition I will go according to house rules.”

MDP’s motion comes 24 hours after the PG sided with the High Court and Supreme Court in requesting the release of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed was arrested on January 16 for corruption and for “allowing his judicial decisions to be determined by political and personal affiliations and interests”, according to a statement by Foreign Minister Ahmed Naseem.

The courts subsequently cancelled hearings, and the Supreme Court ordered the Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) to release the judge. The MDNF today confirmed that the judge was still being held and no decision had been made regarding the court order.

PG Muizz yesterday told media that police are required to consult the PG before taking a judge into custody.

Article 223 of the Constitution requires the PG to “(a) to supervise the prosecution of all criminal offences in the Maldives” including “(d) to oversee the legality of preliminary inquiries and investigations into alleged criminal activity; (e) to monitor and review the circumstances and conditions under which any person is arrested, detained or otherwise deprived of freedom prior to trial.”

Police provided crowd control outside judge’s home at the time of the arrest.

MNDF confirmed that their officers had taken the judge into custody but did not wish to comment on matters concerning their level of obligation to the PG.

Meanwhile, in a hearing of the case filed by the judge against the police summon Deputy Solictor General Ahmed Usham said MNDF does not have the authority to make arrests related to criminal offences, reports local media.

Ushaam alleged that the Attorney General’s (AG) Office had received no details of the arrest except from what had been reported by local media.

The Criminal Court also ordered the PG to prosecute the the Chief of Defence Forces within the next three days, along with others involved in “contempt of court”.
A group of lawyers filed a similar case at the High Court yesterday after MNDF ignored orders from both the High Court and Supreme Court for Judge Abdulla Mohamed’s immediate release.
Shifaz maintained that MDP’s petition “has nothing to do with the Chief Judge’s arrest”.
Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Criminal Court orders release of Dr Jameel, rules arrest unlawful

The Criminal Court ordered the immediate release of minority opposition Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) Deputy Leader Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed from police detention for a second time tonight, ruling that his arrest on charges of slandering the government was unlawful.

The former cabinet minister under both current and previous governments was first summoned for questioning Thursday night after the President’s Office requested an investigation into “slanderous” allegations that the government was working under the influence of “Jews and Christian priests” to weaken Islam in the Maldives.

Jameel was taken into custody on Sunday night after being repeatedly summoned for interrogation along with DQP council member ‘Sandhaanu’ Ahmed Didi.

Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, Abdulla Mohamed, ordered his immediate release after midnight and ruled that the arrest was unlawful. Police however summoned Jameel again last night and took him to Dhoonidhoo detention.

Dr JameelSpeaking to press outside the Justice Building following his release around 9.30pm tonight, Dr Jameel criticised police for arresting him for a second time for the same offence despite the court ruling that the arrest was unlawful.

Jameel said the court has vindicated DQP’s stance that the government could not silence the opposition “every time we stand up and speak in defense of the country’s sovereignty, independence, businesses and mostly importantly the country’s religion.”

The former Justice Minister explained that the court ruled that section 125 of the 1968 penal code was invalid in reference to articles 27 and 66 of the constitution.

Section 125 of the penal code states, “Where a person makes a fabricated statement or repeats a statement whose basis cannot be proven, he shall be punished with house detention for a period between one to six months or fined between Rf25 and Rf200.”

In an earlier statement, DQP noted that the provision was “one of the most frequently invoked clauses by the 30-year rule of President Gayoom to suppress press freedom and dissenting views,” arguing that the liberal constitution adopted in 2008 and decriminalisation of defamation in 2009 rendered the offence of slander or lying “invalid.”

While article 27 of the constitution guarantees freedom of expression “in a manner that is not contrary to any tenet of Islam,” article 66 states, “All existing statutes, regulations, decrees and notices inconsistent with the fundamental rights and freedoms provisions in this Chapter shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, become void on the commencement of this constitution.”

Jameel meanwhile strongly criticised police officers involved in his arrest for allegedly questioning him after he exercised the right to remain silent.

“In my view, what these few police officers have done is rob the Maldivian people of constitutional protections,” he said.

Meanwhile, roving protests by opposition supporters – sparked by the arrest of Jameel and the unprecedented move by the Maldives National Defence Force’s (MNDF) to take Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed into custody last night – continue in Male’.

As of press time, protesters were headed towards the residence of Home Minister Hassan Afeef.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court backs down from issuing ruling on legality of selling pork and alcohol

The Supreme Court has rejected the government’s request for a consultative opinion over whether the Maldives can import pork and alcohol without violating the nation’s Shariah-based constitution.

Pork and alcohol are prohibited items under Shariah law.

The judges unanimously rejected the case on the grounds that the matter did not need to be addressed at the Supreme Court level.

The Court did note, however, that pork and alcohol have been imported under provisions of the Contraband Act and that there is a regulation in favor of the trade. As no law has declared the regulation unlawful, the import of pork and alcohol is indeed legal, the court claimed.

Meanwhile, Article 10 of the Constitution states that “No law contrary to any tenet of Islam shall be enacted in the Maldives.”

The Constitution also states that any law not struck down by the courts is valid.

The government last week requested a consultative opinion from the Supreme Court on the matter to level a heated debate over the compatibility of resort tourism and Maldives’ national religion Islam, prompted by protests on December 23, 2011 in defense of Islam.

Responding to demands made of the government by the protesting coalition of religious NGOs and opposition parties, the government issued a circular closing spas in all resorts and announced it was considering a ban on pork and alcohol, in a move to align government policies with Islamic standards.

While the trade of alcohol is not conducted by the government, the government receives a significant profit of the trade from the Goods and Services Tax (GST).

In particular, opposition Jumhoory Party (JP) Leader and MP ‘Burma’ Gasim Ibrahim owns Villa Hotels resort chain and is allegedly one of the biggest beneficiaries of the alcohol trade.

A tolerant society with a dependent economy

Since resorts first opened in the Maldives in the 1970s, tourism has been the core of the island nation’s economy. To accommodate the industry as well as the national Islamic faith, in 1975 the Ministry of Economic Development regulated the sale of pork and alcohol to tourist establishments (Act 4/75).

While there is no regulation or set of guidelines specific to spa operations in resorts, Article 15(a2) of the Goods and Services Tax Act stipulates that spas are legally accepted in the Maldives as tourism goods, and therefore may be operated in compliance with tourism regulations.

After its formation in 2009 the Parliament had nine months to reject any legislation which did not conform with the Constitution.

Parliament did not reject the regulation on the sale of pork and alcohol in 2009, thus allowing it to stand by default.

Speaking to Minivan News last week, Attorney General (AG) Abdulla Muiz believed that although the regulations were clear, legal clarification would mitigate concerns. He suggested that the recent debate has had more to do with internal politics than the oft-cited public preference.

“We are quite a tolerant society, although there a few elements which walk a hard line,” he observed. “I don’t think there is a public concern over the sale of alcohol and pork in resorts.”

The AG pointed out that the majority of the nation’s citizens are primarily interested in the quality of their daily life. He added that the population of 350,000 is annually trumped by the over 700,000 tourists would come to- and invest in – the Maldives.

“If there is a decision prohibiting the sale of alcohol in the tourism sector, it will have a great impact on the economy. The 2012 State Budget of Rf14 billion [US$946.8 million] is very much based on the estimated revenue from the tourism sector. And the government has obligations to investors–it has leased 100 resorts and awarded 5o to 60 islands for development. I hope the Supreme Court will take the economy into account,” he said prior to the Court’s decision.

Muiz said a court ruling would assure investors that the current system is valid.

A problematic profile

Two months ago, protestors demanded that UN Human Rights Chief Navi Pillay be “slain” for her comment against flogging as a punishment for extra-marital sex. One month ago, the coalition formed by religious groups and opposition parties for the “defend Islam” protest called for stricter regulations in keeping with Shariah law, notably stricter regulations on the sale of pork and alcohol and the closure of massage parlors “and such places where prostitution is practiced.”

International media subsequently reported the story with varying degrees of accuracy, presenting a Maldives starkly different from widely-marketed white sand and turquoise waters.

Noting that the tourism sector had suffered many cancellations in past weeks, MATI Secretary General Sim Ibrahim Mohamed previously pointed out that “people get jittery when you talk about fundamentalism, radicalism, extremism–since 9/11 these have been very sensitive words.”

Speaking to Minivan News last week, religious conservative Adhaalath Party chief spokesperson Sheik Mohamed Shaheem Ali Saeed said, “Maldivians are very nice people, you don’t see any country like the Maldives in the Islamic world, so why would we want to damage these people? These are Muslim people and they like moderate views.”

Calling tourism “the backbone of our national economy”, Shaheem said he was “100 percent sure there is no prostitution in the tourism industry here. It is very professional, it is the most famous tourism industry in the world and is accepted by the international community. Why would we want to attack ourselves?”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Government lifts week-long ban on resort spas, massage parlors

The government has lifted a controversial nationwide ban on spas and massage parlors with immediate effect while it awaits a ruling from the Supreme Court over the legality of spa operations and sale of pork and alcohol in resorts.

The announcement was made by President Mohamed Nasheed during a press conference today at Kurumba Island Resort, the country’s first resort which opened in 1972.

The week-long ban, which has made headlines in both local and international media, was lifted “because the government does not want the economy to suffer any damage during the time Supreme Court takes to come to a decision,” President Nasheed said.

Sale of pork and alcohol would also continue while other goods and services “such as casinos” demanded by the tourists, said Nasheed, would be allowed under the Contraband Act of 1975 until a judicial declaration is reached.

As the Maldivian constitution states that “Islam shall be one of the basis of all the laws of the Maldives” and prohibits the enactment of any laws “contrary to any tenet of Islam”, Nasheed said that the Tourism Ministry requested advice on legality of spa operations and sale of pork and alcohol at the recently-concluded ‘Islamic Scholars Symposium.’

However the scholars recommended that the government seek a judicial declaration, he revealed. Nasheed urged the apex court to settle the dispute in the near future.

Asked if the ban was necessary, Nasheed responded that the move was prompted by allegations made at the December 23 ‘Defend Islam’ demonstration.

Nasheed also dismissed opposition parties’ contention that the government should bear full responsibility for the economic consequences, arguing that “in a democracy, it is difficult to decide who’s responsible”, though conceding that the tourism sector’s reputation has been damaged in the process.

“We wanted to impress upon everyone where the opposition’s demands were ultimately going to end,” Nasheed explained.

The government’s ultimatum “woke the nation from its slumber and sparked a healthy national debate about the future direction of the country,” he insisted.

“The extremist demonstration on 23 December attracted a sizeable crowd. But their radical demands awoke the silent majority who categorically reject extremism,” Nasheed said.

The reason Maldives tourism industry have flourished for years, said Nasheed, is because the sector has been “free from religious fundamentalist demands.”

Referring to controversy over allowing Israeli airlines to operate flights to the Maldives, President Nasheed said that the tourist arrivals would be adversely affected “if we start saying that only certain nationals or certain airlines can come to Maldives,” noting that a sizable portion of tourists were Jewish.

The government’s decision rests on a decision made by parliament on recommendations by its National Security Committee, he said.

The December 23 religious rally organised by a coalition of NGOs and opposition parties was the “biggest use of religion as a political tool” in Maldivian history, Nasheed contended.

“We all must know such fundamentalist demands will damage the Maldives tourism industry’s [image] in the international community,” he said. “News will not always reach the international community in the way we prefer.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Islamic Minister, MPs, PPM and religious groups condemn UN Human Rights Commissioner

Statements by visiting UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay calling for a moratorium on flogging as a punishment for fornication and criticising the Muslim-only clause for citizenship in the Maldivian constitution have been widely condemned by religious NGOs, public officials and political parties.

In an address delivered in parliament last Thursday, Pillay said the practice of flogging women found guilty of extra-marital sex “constitutes one of the most inhumane and degrading forms of violence against women, and should have no place in the legal framework of a democratic country.”

The UN human rights chief called for a public debate “on this issue of major concern.” In a press conference later in the day, Pillay called on the judiciary and the executive to issue a moratorium on flogging.

On article 9(d) of the constitution, which states “a non-Muslim may not become a citizen of the Maldives,” Pillay said the provision was “discriminatory and does not comply with international standards.”

Local media widely misreported Pillay as stating during Thursday evening’s press conference that she did not believe the Maldives had a Constitution, which prompted a great deal of public outrage. Her comment, however, was in response to a challenge from Miadhu Editor Gabbe Latheef, who asked “if you believe we have a Constitution, why are you speaking against our Constitution?”

“I don’t believe you have a Constitution, you have a constitution. The constitution conforms in many respects to universally respected human rights. Let me assure you that these human rights conform with Islam,” Pillay said on Minivan News’s recording of the press conference, however her phrasing was widely misinterpreted by the media.

Shortly after Pillay’s speech in parliament, Islamic Minister Dr Abdul Majeed Abdul Bari told local media that “a tenet of Islam cannot be changed” and flogging was a hudud punishment prescribed in the Quran (24:2) and “revealed down to us from seven heavens.”

Bari noted that article 10 of the constitution established Islam as “the basis of all the laws of the Maldives” and prohibited the enactment of any law “contrary to any tenet of Islam,” adding that the Maldives has acceded to international conventions with reservations on religious matters such as marriage equality.

In his Friday prayer sermon the following day, Bari asserted that “no international institution or foreign nation” had the right to challenge the practice of Islam and adherence to its tenets in the Maldives.

Meanwhile, the religious conservative Adhaalath Party issued a statement on Thursday contending that tenets of Islam and the principles of Shariah were not subject to modification or change through public debate or democratic processes.

Adhaalath Party suggested that senior government officials invited a foreign dignitary to make statements that they supported but were “hesitant to say in public.”

The party called on President Mohamed Nasheed to condemn Pillay’s statements “at least to show to the people that there is no irreligious agenda of President Nasheed and senior government officials behind this.”

The Adhaalath statement also criticised Speaker Abdulla Shahid and MPs in attendance on Thursday for neither informing Pillay that she “could not make such statements” nor making any attempt to stop her or object to the remarks.

The party insisted that Pillay’s statements and the SAARC monuments in Addu City were “not isolated incidents” but part of a “broad scheme” by the government to “pulverize Islam in the Maldives and introduce false religions”.

Later that night, the Civil Society Coalition – a network of NGOs that campaigned successfully against regulations to allow sale of alcohol in city hotels to non-Muslims last year – announced a nation-wide mass protest on December 23 against the government’s alleged efforts to securalise the country.

Spokesperson Mohamed Didi claimed the current administration was pursuing an agenda to “wipe out the Islamic faith of the Maldivian people” through indoctrination and “plots” to legalize apostasy and allow freedom of religion.

He suggested that “the few people who cannot digest the religion of the people should immediately leave the country.”

The NGO coalition said it expected “over a 100,000 people” to participate in the planned protest.

Former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) announced today that it would join the protest. PPM interim council member and religious scholar MP Dr Afrashim Ali told newspaper Haveeru that Pillay “can’t say that to us” and condemned the statements on behalf of the party.

Afrashim called on the executive, parliament and judiciary to enact a law prohibiting any statements that “opposes the principles of Islam.”

In a statement today, religious NGO Islamic Foundation of Maldives (IFM) strongly condemned Pillay’s remarks and criticised MPs for not objecting at Thursday’s event.

Pillay’s statements in parliament amounted to calling on MPs “to legalize fornication and gay marriage,” IFM contended.

“Therefore, anyone who agrees to this surely becomes an apostate,” the statement reads. “And if this [fornication and homosexuality] is spread anywhere, Almighty God has warned that fire will be rained upon them from the seven heavens.”

Meanwhile, a Facebook group was formed yesterday with members calling for her to be “slain and driven out of the country.”  The group currently has 207 members.

One member posted a banner to open a public debate on whether citizens should rise up and either “kill or lynch” those who “deny the Quran, not tolerate Islam and undermine the constitution.”
The opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) also issued a statement calling on the government not to accept Pillay’s suggestion for a public debate on flogging.
Although DRP Leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali was the first to shake Pillay’s hand after her address, the party’s statement argued that “neither a Maldivian nor a foreigner has the right to consider the enforcement of a punishment specified in Islam a violation of human rights.”

Independent MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed meanwhile told newspaper Haveeru that Speaker Abdulla Shahid had to “bear full responsibility” for allowing Pillay to “talk about changing penalties of Islam in front of Muslims,” adding that Dhivehi translations of her address were distributed to MPs in advance.

“This is a very serious problem. You can’t say flogging is a form of violence against women,” he said.

Nasheed explained that Pillay’s remarks were tantamount to proclaiming in the Indian parliament that “worshiping cows is so uncivilised.”

Echoing Nasheed’s sentiments, MP Abdulla Abdul Raheem of the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) said allowing Pillay to make her statements was “a mockery of parliament”, arguing that the Speaker’s decision to allow her “to openly speak against the constitution” violated parliamentary rules of procedure.

Local daily Haveeru also published an op-ed by editor Moosa Latheef censuring Speaker Abdulla Shahid and the MPs in attendance for not objecting to Pillay as her call for a public debate on flogging “made it very clear that she was working to shake the main pillar of Maldivians.”

Speaking at a UNDP event yesterday, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Ahmed Faiz noted that the constitution placed limits on free speech and the right to free expression “cannot be used under any circumstances outside of Islamic principles or in violation of a tenet of Islam.”

Protests led by religious groups that began outside the UN building yesterday are set to continue tonight near the tsunami memorial.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)