Tag: Court

Lawyers question reappointment of judges convicted of sexual misconduct

A group of lawyers have questioned the Judicial Service Commission (JSC)’s decision to reappoint two judges, previously removed from the bench for sexual misconduct, as magistrate court judges.

The lawyers, including Former Attorney General Husnu Suood, said on Thursday that  Gaafu Dhaalu Thinadhoo, Meeraaz Ahmed Shareef and Dhaalu Meedhoo Biloori Villa, Ali Shafeeg who were appointed as magistrate court judges had previously been convicted for sexual misconduct.

Speaking to Minivan News, Suood said the two judges were removed from bench in 2010 because they did not possess the “high moral character” required to be a judge according to the article 149 (a) of the amended constitution.

According to the records, Shareef – appointed to Gaafu Alifu Dhevadhoo Court – was sentenced to two months under house arrest on July 30 2001, for having an affair. He was former Chief Magistrate of Thinadhoo in Gaafu Dhaalu Atoll.

Ali Shafeeg, appointed to Kaafu Gaafaru Magistrate Court, was sentenced to four months banishment and subjected to seven lashes in 1989, for having an affair with a married woman.

Suood noted that, article 149 (a) of the amended constitution states “a person appointed as a Judge in accordance with law, must possess the educational qualifications, experience and recognized competence necessary to discharge the duties and responsibilities of a  Judge, and must be of high moral character”.

Referring to the previous convictions of the Judges, Suood said that the “two judges were not up to the moral standards required and that’s why they were disqualified in 2010”.

“We are preparing the documents to submit to JSC requesting them to investigate the case. It’s up to the JSC to hold the integrity of the judiciary,” he said.

JSC spokesperson Hassan Zaheen noted that Shareef and Shafeeg were also removed in 2010, under the article 285, which allowed  JSC to dismiss judge failing to meet the requirements in article 149.

However, he added, that Shareef and Shafeeg were reappointed “because the Judges Act now allows it.”

According to the article 15 of the Judges Act – which came into effect five days after the reappointment of judges with life time tenure – a judge will be considered as failing to meet the required ethical and moral standards if they had served a sentence for a criminal offence in the seven years prior to the appointment.

“Shareef and Shafeeg were sentenced before the seven year period,” Zaheen added.

In 2010 when Shareef was dismissed from the bench, he also protested against the JSC in court, claiming his conviction was 11 years old when he was removed from the bench on August 5, 2010, and his sentence had been suspended. The Judges Act was being debated in the parliament at the time of Shareef’s removal.

Therefore, JSC pointed out at the time, the Judges Act post-dated its decision to remove Shareef from the bench, and argued that it could not be expected to rely on legislation that did not exist.

The JSC reiterated that he was removed from bench under the article 285, that allowed JSC to dismiss the judges failing to meet the moral and ethical requirements of article 149.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Laamu drug kingpin sentenced to 25 years imprisonment

The Criminal Court on Wednesday sentenced a man identified by the police as one of the top drug dealers in the Maldives to 25 year imprisonment for illegal trade of narcotics, with an additional five years for possessing an illegal narcotic without a prescription.

The Criminal Court identified the person as Hassan Yousuf, Mathimaradhoo ward of Gan in Laamu Atoll.

The court saidthat  according to police officers that attended the scene to arrest Yousuf, he was holding a cigarette pack in his hand when he saw the officers and he threw the pack away.

When police picked up the cigarette pack and searched it, they found two grams of heroin inside.

Yousuf was arrested last year September in a special operation conducted by police, after they were informed that he was in possession of illegal narcotics.

“Police and society have recognised him as the top dealer in Laamu Atoll, and he has now been caught for the second time,’’ said Head of Drug Enforcement Department Superintendent Ahmed Jinah, at the time. “A recent case involving him is in trial, and he was again caught with suspected narcotics.”

Jinah said Yousuf was in police custody and the court had granted an extension of his detention to 10 days.

“The atolls have lately been used by drug traffickers for transportation and establishing hideouts,’’ Jinah said. ‘’We have conducted special operations in the islands to curb the number of users and dealers, which is hard and challenging due to the low numbers of police officers in the atolls and the large areas [to cover].’’

Jinah in September said police had observed that Addu Atoll, Laamu Atoll and Noonu Atoll were being used by dealers and users for transportation of drugs and the construction of hideouts.

Another drug related case against Yousuf is still ongoing in the court.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Man sentenced to six months for possession of sex toys

The Criminal Court has sentenced a man to six months imprisonment after the police discovered two plastic sex toys inside his room.

The court identified the offender as Musthafa Hussein of Mahchangolhi Feyruge.

According to the Criminal Court, possession of objects shaped like sexual organs were prohibited under articles 4(c) and 13(c) the Contraband Act of 1975.

While article 4 of the Act states that pornographic material cannot be brought into the country, under article 13[c] images, sounds or videos depicting sexual activities as well as objects made to look like sexual organs shall be considered pornographic material for legal purposes.

Musthafa was therefore charged with possession of pornographic material.

The sex toys were discovered by police when they searched his room during a special operation on April 30, 2011.

Likes(0)Dislikes(2)

Comment: Is the President serious about reforming the judiciary?

Has Anni given up the fight for an independent judiciary?

“We will reform the JSC”, President Nasheed said in May.

“When the powers were separated and the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) became the executive we came into a situation where the previous regime had a majority in the parliament.

“But in many minds the situation with the judiciary was far more worrying. Nothing had changed – we had exactly the same people, the same judges, the same manner of thinking and of dispensing justice.”

On Wednesday he appointed as his member at the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) Kurendhoo Hussein Ibrahim, a man who first came to public attention during the drafting of the 2008 Constitution as someone vigorously apposed to gender equality.

As a member of the Special Majlis, Hussein Ibrahim was vociferously opposed to the appointment of women as judges, and was particularly vitriolic in his comments against changing the Constitution to allow women to run for office of the President.

“He was very clear about where women should be in society – in a place where they have no say in the running of public affairs,” a senior member of the law community, who wishes to remain anonymous, told Minivan News.

“To be honest, I am very surprised that the President would appoint such an individual as Velezinee’s replacement,” he said.

Aishath Velezinee was the President’s Member at the JSC until 19 May this year, when she was unceremoniously removed from the position. Although there were unconfirmed reports, including in this newspaper, about a backroom deal that made her removal politically advantageous for MDP, neither President Nasheed nor Velezinee have so far spoken publicly about the reasons for her removal.

Hussein Ibrahim’s views are diametrically opposed not just to Velezinee’s, but also that of a President who frequently espouses his commitment to the democratic ideal of equality and non-discrimination.

The President’s Press Secretary, Mohamed Zuhair, said Hussein Ibrahim might have distanced himself from such hard-line views since he sat on the Special Majlis for redrafting the Constitution.

“It is quite possible that he has changed,” Zuhair said. Pressed on the question of whether he knew this for a fact, Zuhair said, “We believe that in accepting the position as the President’s Member, he is entering into a ‘social pact’.”

“It is our hope”, Zuhair said, “that he will work towards the realisation of the President’s goals and to further his views in his new job.”

Even if Hussein Ibrahim, seemingly appointed on a wing and prayer, does show himself capable of leaving behind his misogyny, there is still the question of his professional ability to push a reform agenda.

A misogynist with a sentencing certificate

Hussein Ibrahim has no formal qualifications and is one of the many ‘lawyers’ allowed to sit on the bench on the basis of a Sentencing Certificate – a legacy of the Gayoom era. Having served as a magistrate in two different lower courts, he later did a stint as an ‘Islam Soa’ at Aminiya School.

In other words, he is a member of the very same brigade of “exactly the same people, the same judges, the same manner of thinking and of dispensing justice” President Nasheed said he wanted removed from the judiciary.

Removing unqualified judges was a Constitutional requirement, stipulated by Article 285. Put in charge of carrying out the task, however, the JSC dismissed Article 285 as “symbolic” and allowed all but a handful of the unqualified judges to remain in the judiciary. The President has now appointed just such a man to represent him at the JSC.

Hussein Ibrahim’s presence at the JSC means that female members of the judiciary, few in number but who as a group represent the most qualified judges in the country, now have another man overseeing them who not only thinks they are biologically and intellectually inferior to him, but also knows less about the law than they do.

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), which in February this year published a highly critical report on the JSC, pointed to members’ lack of technical ability and knowledge as one reason for its inability to do its job of ensuring the judiciary’s ethical and professional standards.

Citing ‘administrative efficiency’, as the reason, the JSC abolished the Complaints Committee in May this year. It was the mechanism by which the JSC was to have investigated complaints against the judiciary.

The JSC’s 2010 annual report shows there are over 200 complaints – some involving judges at the country’s highest courts – that are yet to be investigated. Any attempts to force the JSC to investigate complaints using the courts system have so far been unsuccessful.

Meanwhile, any criticism of the judiciary is becoming increasingly difficult as the courts gag the media, or issue threats against those who speak against its actions – even when they are clearly unconstitutional.

Recent examples include the Criminal Court’s decision to ban the media from Deputy Speaker Ahmed Nazim’s alleged corruption hearings and the Supreme Court’s reprimanding of President’s Advisor Ibrahim Ismail (Ibra) for urging the public to fight for their right to an independent judiciary.

What is even more shocking is that the JSC convened an emergency meeting to discuss Ibra’s remarks where members agreed to ask ‘relevant authorities’ to investigate Ibra.

The JSC is constitutionally mandated to investigate complaints against the judiciary made by members of the public. It has no authority to investigate complaints against members of the public made by the judiciary.

Clearly the JSC needs someone who, at the very least, knows what its own role is.

As seen in the case of Velezinee, who was stabbed in the back in January this year, fighting for judicial reform is one of the most dangerous jobs in the country.

Hussein Ibrahim is a religious conservative who thinks women should be covered up and chained to the kitchen sink when they are not occupied with the holy task of breeding. He has no record of pushing a democratic agenda, and has no formal qualifications in any profession. It is hard to imagine him taking on the JSC let alone the judiciary.

Which begs the question: is President Nasheed serious about reforming the judiciary?

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)

Parliament sends Indian legal assistance treaty to National Security Committee

The parliament has today sent a request made by the President Mohamed Nasheed to sign a ‘’Treaty between the Republic of India and the Republic of Maldives on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters,’’ to the National Security Committee to revise the matter further.

The objective of the treaty was to strengthen the strong diplomatic relations between the Maldives and India by allowing legal assistance from one country to another, said the parliament on its official website.

In a letter sent by the Home Ministry to the President’s Office, the ministry said that the Attorney General (AG)’s legal advice was sought regarding the matter and that the AG had no objections.

The ministry’s letter said that the advice of the Finance Ministry was also sought, which also had no objections.

Assistance in the treaty included locating and identifying persons and objects, serving documents, including documents seeking the attendance of persons.

Assistance included search and seizure, taking evidence and obtaining statements, authorising the presence of persons from the requesting state at the execution of requests, making detained persons available to give evidence or assisting investigations, facilitating the appearance of witnesses or the assistance of persons in investigations.

It also includes taking measures to locate, restrain or forfeit the proceeds of crime and taking measures to locate, freeze and confiscate any funds or finances meant for the financing of acts of terrorism in the territory of either party and any other form of assistance not prohibited by the law of the requested tate was as well mentioned in the assistances that one country will provide to the other according to the treaty.

Article 6[2] of the treaty states that assistance may be refused if the execution of the request would be contrary to the domestic law of the requested state.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Adopting Rome Statute benefits domestic legal systems, says Coalition for the International Criminal Court

The Maldives’ decision to accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) will provide many opportunities to improve the country’s domestic legal system but is a significant commitment, according to Evelyn Balais-Serrano, Asia-Pacific Coordinator for the ICC’s advocacy NGO the Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC).

Parliament voted almost unanimously on June 14 that the Maldives sign the Rome Statute of the ICC, the founding treaty of the first permanent international court capable of trying perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.

In October 2010, MPs clashed over signing the Rome Statute, using the debate to condemn the “unlawful and authoritarian” practices of the previous government, while MPs of the opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party-People’s Alliance (DRP-PA) coalition MPs accused the current administration of disregarding rule of law and negating parliamentary oversight.

President Mohamed Nasheed had sent the matter to parliament for ratification. Following the hour-long debate, during which time  DRP MP and recently-dismissed Judicial Services Commission member Dr Afrashim Ali insisted that the convention should not be signed if it could lead to “the construction of temples here under the name of religious freedom,” a motion by DRP MP Dr Abdulla Mausoom to send the matter to committee was passed 61-4 in favour.

Last week, parliament voted 61-3 in favour of signing the treaty, on the recommendation of the national security committee.

“A major benefit of [ratifying] the treaty is the opportunity for judges and lawyers to participate in exchange and internship programs,” Balais-Serrano told Minivan News, explaining that the domestic legal system of many countries had benefited through exposure to the ICC.

Didactic benefits aside, the decision has ramifications for Maldivian law. Implementing the treaty requires a national commitment to adjust domestic law where it conflicts with the Rome Statute, “or to find ways for it to align,” Balais-Serrano told Minivan News.

One possible reason for the slow uptake of the Rome Statute in Asia is its position on capital punishment – the death penalty – which is legal in many countries in the region but is not present in the ICC treaty, “as are laws concerning immunity, protecting monarchs and members of the royal or ruling family [from prosecution].”

Ratifying the treaty is a pledge to make those revisions, Balais-Serrano said, and to make sure such laws were present whenever crimes under the ICC’s jurisdiction were committed.

She noted that the CICC’s experience was that despite initial concerns in some countries regarding clashes between the legal obligations of ICC signatories and Islamic Sharia law – as in the case of the death penalty – Sharia experts in ICC signatories Afghanistan, Jordon and Malaysia had found no conflict between the Rome Statute and Sharia.

Balais-Serrano acknowledged “frustrations” on behalf of people and governments over misconceptions of what crimes fell under the ICC’s jurisdiction.

“For example, in Bangkok there is a debate between the red and yellow shirts about how to use the ICC to get rid of each other,” she noted.

‘The ICC only covers major crimes, such as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of aggression. Crimes must be widespread, systemic and of concern to the international community. The ICC does not deal with small cases, even if the victims may be in the hundreds.

“Also present is the concept of command responsibility – the ICC only deals with the big fish. In the past only the small fish may have been sacrificed to show a semblance of justice – but the ICC targets the highest level of responsibility: the head of state, generals, kings.”

Another benchmark for whether the ICC would consider taking on a case was willingness and capacity on behalf of a country’s own judiciary to handle such contentious cases.

Currently the ICC is investigating situations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Central African Republic, Darfur, Sudan, Kenya and Libya.

Sri Lanka was an emerging candidate, she noted, following the UN’s claim that videos of alleged insurgents being executed by government soldiers were genuine and evidence of war crimes.

“That was how Dafur started,” Balais-Serrano said, explaining that outside an invitation from the Sri Lankan government, the UN’s launching an international investigation would require a mandate from either the UN Security Council, or the UN Human Rights Council.

“China will block [an investigation] in the UN Security Council, so the emphasis is on the Human Rights Council [of which the Maldives is a member],” Balais-Serrano said.

Foreign Minister Ahmed Naseem has previously described the UN’s report into the closing days of Sri Lanka’s civil war as “singularly counterproductive.”

Ratifying the Rome Statute would also have diplomatic ramifications, Balais-Serrano agreed.

“Becoming a member of the ICC can increase a country’s prestige and reputation, through its commitment to human rights,” she said.

“But it also adds pressure to a government to fulfill its obligations as a signatory, and not pay only lip service to human rights and its other international commitments.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court and Judicial Administration claims protesters obstructed court work

The High Court and the Department of Judicial Administration have said that yesterday’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)-led protest calling for the arrest of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom had obstructed the work of the courts, and called on the armed forces not to allow protesters to gather near the court buildings.

In a press release the Department of Judicial Administration said protesting near the courts was banned according to relevant laws.

The Department said the constitution stated that no one should influence the work of judiciary and that everyone should respect the courts, and assist the court in all ways.

Meanwhile the High Court issued a press release stating that the work of the High Court was interrupted, and disturbed those summoned to the court as well as staff.

A pregnant woman who came to enter the court was squeezed between the steel gate of the High Court and the protesters and was hurt, the High Court claimed.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament confirms ongoing “confidential” investigation of JSC

Parliament’s Committee for Independent Commissions has confirmed it is conducting a closed-door investigation of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), the body responsible for the appointment of judges and oversight of the judiciary.

The JSC has been both the subject of a damning report by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and an investigation by the Anti-Corruption Commission into the JSC’s awarding of extraneous committee allowances.

Several judges – including Chief Judge of the Family Court Hassan Saeed – who were passed over for appointment to the High Court by the JSC have come forward to complain about issues relating to the JSC’s procedures after his appeal was dropped by the Supreme Court.

During a press conference held in parliament today, Committee Chair Mohamed Mujitaz confirmed that a sub-committee was conducting an ongoing investigation into the JSC, but said the members of the sub-committee had decided to keep the proceedings confidential.

According to Parliament’s regulations, closed door meetings can be held on issues relating to national security, law enforcement, or where a person is at risk of being defamed or perceived “as having committed a wrong.”

Minivan News understands that the three members of the Sub-Committee include Chair Ahmed Hanza, Mohamed Mujitaz and Independent MP Mohamed Nasheed. Hamza and Nasheed had not responded to Minivan News’ request for comment on the matter at time of press.

The President’s Member of the JSC, Aishath Velezinee, an outspoken whistleblower and critic of the JSC who has previously accused it of not just compromised independence but collusion with members of parliament to oust the executive, said the sub-committee had shown no interest in answering the letter of no-confidence she had sent in February 2010.

“On August 4 I sent a letter requesting an injunction order on the reappointment of judges until parliament had completed its investigation [of the JSC],” she said, adding that this too had gone unanswered.

Velezinee confirmed that JSC members had been summoned by the sub-committee, but had been informed that the questioning had related to her own conduct.

“The focus of the investigation appears to be taking action against me,” she claimed. “They’ve also asked for attendance sheets. Why is this being conducted in secret?”

“I’ve named five people – including two members on the sub-committee – as involved in this ‘silent coup’,” she said.

“The judiciary has not transformed [since the introduction of separation of powers], just transferred. The old boys [of the former administration] are trying the legitimise their return to power with a court order. Judging from the recent behaviour of the Supreme Court, it is in on it now which is utterly irresponsible and a tragedy.”

Professor Murray Kellam, a former Australian Supreme Court Justice who recently spent several weeks observing the JSC on the invitation of UNDP, pressed for transparency stating that “sunlight is the best antiseptic”.

“The process in your Constitution is that [in the event of] gross misconduct and gross incompetence, the Majlis (parliament) has the job of dismissing [the JSC], and that’s consistent with other places in the world,” he said.

“But the problem here is that the body making the recommendation is also the membership.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

PG will take DRP council member for Villi-Maafannu to court

The Prosecutor General will take successful Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) candidate for Villi-Maafannu, Ahmed ‘Fly’ Hameed, to court for allegedly beating a police officer.

Haveeru reports that Hameed was being prosecuted for allegedly obstructing police attempts to control a crowd of 11,000 at Dr Zakir Naik’s sermon in May 2010, which became hostile after Ahmed Nazim questioned Naik over the penalty for apostasy.

Police confirmed a case was sent to the PG’s office on 22 August, 2010.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)