Tag: courts

MDP decides to stop following court orders until judicial system is reformed

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has released a statement saying it will no longer follow any orders given by the courts of the Maldives until the changes proposed by international entities are brought to the Maldivian judicial system.

The party said the decision was reached as to date, they had observed no efforts to improve the judicial system based on the recommendations put forward in reports released by numerous international organizations.

Former Minister of Foreign Affairs Ahmed Naseem proposed a motion regarding the matter at the party’s 128th National Executive Council (NEC) meeting Thursday, which was seconded by Former Minister of Environment and Housing Mohamed Aslam.

The motion stated that the party believed the increasing number of arrests and allegations of serious crimes like terrorism against a large number of citizens, parliament members, city councillors, and other elected political leaders were politically motivated. It further stated that this was unjust manipulation of the judiciary by the government to weaken political competition, and an attempt to prevent Nasheed from contesting in the upcoming presidential elections.

The MDP also states that with reference to the reservations put forward by former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team on Wednesday, it does not believe any of the existing courts would be able to give Nasheed a fair and just trial.

MDP furthermore intends to go ahead with the trips to the atolls planned to commence on October 1, after the motion was passed unanimously at the NEC meeting.

The Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court has placed Nasheed under island arrest effective from Tuesday, with regard to a case concerning the arrest of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed last year.

In reaction to this, MDP has also announced its intention to conduct a nationwide protest on Friday.

A number of international actors, including the UN Human Rights Committee, Amnesty International, European Union and the United States have previously emphasised the importance of judicial reform in the Maldives.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed case proceedings against laws and norms: Nasheed’s legal team

Former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team has expressed concern that Nasheed is not being given the opportunity to have a fair trial.

At a press briefing held on Wednesday they detailed concerns about the procedural and legal matters around the case against Nasheed, stating much of the proceedings were against both the constitution and the laws of the Maldives.

Nasheed has been currently placed under island arrest, with regard to a case concerning his arrest of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed last year.

Hulhumale’ court’s legality in question

Member of Nasheed’s legal team Hisaan Hussain voiced concerns that the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, tasked with presiding over the case, was formed unconstitutionally. Quoting Article 141 (a) of the Constitution and Articles 53 (b) and 62 of the Maldives Judicature Act, Hisaan stated that it was clear the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was established out of the boundaries of law.

Hassan also noted that there was an existing case in the Supreme Court, where the court had been asked to rule on whether the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court had been formed in accordance with existing laws. She said that although they did not know who had filed the case, it had been filed prior to the decision to have the court preside over the case against Nasheed. The Supreme Court has not yet made a ruling on the case.

However, an official from the Hulhumale’ Court who did not wish to identify himself said to Minivan News today, “We are not officially aware that such a case regarding this court exists.”

He further said that the Department of Judicial Administration was mandated to provide details on similar issues to the media.

However, Department of Judicial Administration’s Spokesperson Latheefa Gasim said that they did not wish to comment on the issue at this point in time.

Panel of Three

Former Minister of Youth and Sports and member of Nasheed’s legal team, Hassan Latheef stated that the panel of three magistrates which are to preside over the case was selected in violation of Article 67 of the Judicature Act, which specifically outlines how magistrates can be assigned to courts. He said that none of the three magistrates assigned by JSC were appointed to the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Latheef said that in contrast to international practices, the magistrates for this particular case had been “handpicked from around the country”. According to him, this was in direct violation of the Maldives Judge’s Act.

In addition to this, Hassan revealed that one of the three magistrates assigned by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) was currently being investigated by the commission on two different offenses, a charge of corruption and of sexual offence.

Latheef further said since the strongest penalty against Nasheed in this case was a 3 year jail sentence, the case could not be considered an offence serious enough to warrant three magistrates to preside over it. He confirmed that this was the first time a case regarding an offence against Article 81 of the Penal Code was being overseen by a panel, rather than a single judge.

The legal team noted that they believed Nasheed was being discriminated against due to his political views. They pointed out that this was in violation of Article 17 of the constitution.

JSC Media Officer Hassan Zaheen spoke to Minivan News today regarding the concerns raised by MDP.

“It is not MDP that gets to decide whether or not a panel needs to be formed. In Islamic Shariah there is nothing to stop us from doing something just because it hasn’t been done before,” he said.

Zaheen further stated that it was constitutional to bring in magistrates from any part of the country to sit on the case and that this was clearly defined in law.

“JSC can bring in judges from anywhere, as long as they are of the same level. It is clearly defined in the Judges Act, or the Judicature Act, or some relevant law. These are all magistrates,” he said.

Zaheen denied that Nasheed was being discriminated against.

“Has another president of Maldives had a criminal case against him? No. Now, if a similar case has not occurred before, there is no room to claim there is discrimination. What are they comparing with?”

Violation of fundamental rights

Nasheed’s legal team expressed concern that the case was being handled outside of all norms.

They pointed out that the Prosecutor General, Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) and the Ministry of Gender, Family and Human Rights had so far stayed silent on the matter, although it was within their mandate to protect the rights of the people.

Media Official of the Prosecutor General’s Office Hussain Nashid declined from commenting to the media.

“I will not comment about a case which is in the courts currently. The PG office will make whatever necessary statements during court sessions only.”

HRCM and the Human Rights Ministry were unable to comment on the matter at the time of press.

In January, a group of lawyers had forwarded this same case, concerning the arrest and detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed to the International Criminal Court.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Three police officers attacked, Chief Justice’s car damaged

Three police officers were attacked on Tuesday night and Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hassan’s car was damaged, police have reported.

The three separate incidents took place within hours of each other around Nalahiya Hotel in Malé’s Maafannu ward. The three policemen sustained severe injuries which required hospital treatment, while the tail lights of Faiz’s car were smashed, according to police. Three men are also alleged to have entered a policeman’s house with knives on Wednesday.

Police spokesperson Hassan Haneef said 13 people have now been arrested over attacks on the police, but no arrests have been made so far regarding the vandalism of Faiz’s car.

The attack on Faiz’s car is the second attack on a Supreme Court judge’s car this week. Judicial Services Commission (JSC) chair and Justice Adam Mohamed Abdulla’s car was attacked on Friday.

The situation remains tense between opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) supporters and the security forces, as well as the judiciary. The February 7 transfer of power, which MDP alleges was a coup d’état, took place after security forces mutinied following former President Mohamed Nasheed’s military detention of Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January.

President Waheed alleged on Twitter that Nasheed’s supporters were behind the violence: “Violence by Nasheed’s supporters keeps increasing,” he wrote.

Violence Against Police

The attacks on the police and chief justice’s car follow Monday’s violent confrontations between security forces and protestors who sought to obstruct Waheed from delivering a constitutionally-mandated address at the Majlis’ opening session – a second attempt after the first failed on March 1. Protestors claimed Waheed’s presence in the Majlis violates the institution’s integrity.

Police arrested 99 and said eight law enforcement officers were injured in Monday’s clashes. Police subsequently cleared out MDP’s protest camp at Raalhugandu (Surf Point) on the same day.

Superintendent Ahmed Mohamed said Tuesday’s assault on police took place while police were patrolling the streets of Malé. Two police officers were stopped by a crowd near Nalahiya Hotel at 11:30 pm, he said. One sustained injuries to the head while the other policewoman was hit on her chest and sexually harassed, claimed Mohamed.

The third police officer was also attacked near Nalahiya Hotel at 12:40 am. Mohamed appealed to the public to stop inciting violence against police at a press conference on Wednesday.

Meanwhile, posts on social media Twitter reveal a more complex picture of violence at Nalahiya Hotel. One photo shows a man with head injuries allegedly cause by police, and the other shows a man with extensive bruising on his upper arm. The third photo shows a policeman wielding a baton holding a crouching young man. The young man’s shirt is pulled over his face.

Superintendent Ahmed Mohamed said youth were involved in violence, and appealed to them to “take up responsible jobs instead of taking part in atrocities.”

Intimidation

Faiz’s car was damaged on Tuesday night by protestors gathered at the Defense Minister Mohamed Nazim’s house at 11:45 pm. Faiz was not in the car at the time.

Adam Mohamed’s car was also attacked by protestors after Friday prayers. Adam Mohamed and his child were in the car, but were not injured, reported local media.

The Supreme Court released a statement on Monday condemning attacks on judges and court buildings. It highlighted three separate attacks on judges, including that on Adam Mohamed, since January.

The other two incidents include a physical assault on Fuvahmula magistrate Ahmed Latheef in Fuvahmulah Island on March 8 and an attack on an unnamed judge on January 20.

The statement also condemned the torching of court buildings during the February 8 unrest in the atolls following police attack on MDP protesters in Malé.

“These attacks are aimed to cause irretrievable loss to justice system and to intimidate all working within the justice system,” the statement read.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

RF46 million needed to cover damage to court buildings: DJA

A total of Rf46 million (US$3 million) will be needed to repair the damages caused to seven courts in different islands of the the southern most three atolls during the political unrest on February 8, the Department of Judicial Administration (DJA) has revealed.

During intense political tensions which erupted across Maldives on February 8  after the security forces brutally cracked down on a peaceful march of the former ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), police buildings and courts were torched and vandalised by protestors on several islands.

In a statement released on Tuesday the DJA said that four courts in Seenu atoll were damaged, including magistrate courts on Hithadhoo, Maradhoo, Feydhoo and Hulhudhoo-Meedhoo.

The magistrate court in Fuvahmulah and two courts on islands Rathafandhoo and Thinadhoo of Gaaf Dhaalu atoll were also damaged extensively in the attacks which has been blamed by the government on MDP supporters.

A total of Rf46 million is needed to replace furniture and machinery out of which repair costs account to almost Rf485,00, Rf1.8 million on furniture and the remaining Rf5.4 million will cover the cost for new equipment, according to the statement.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Q&A: Silent coup has cost Maldives a judiciary, says Aishath Velezinee

Aishath Velezinee was formerly the President’s Member on the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), the watchdog body assigned to appoint and investigate complaints against judges.

She has consistently maintained that the JSC is complicit in protecting judges appointed under the former government, colluding with parliament to ensure legal impunity for senior opposition supporters. During her tenure at the JSC she was never given a desk or so much as a chair to sit down on. In January 2011 she was stabbed twice in the back in broad daylight.

The JSC is now at the centre of a judicial crisis that has led to the military’s detention of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, Abdulla Mohamed.

JJ Robinson: To what extent does the current judicial crisis represent the failure of Article 285 in 2010, the constitutional provision guaranteeing an independent and qualified judiciary at the conclusion of the two year interim period?

Aishath Velezinee: 100 percent. This was what I was trying to bring out at the time – but I could only allege that Abdulla Mohamed was at the heart of the matter. But it was very obvious to me that this was not just the action of one man, but a hijacking of the judiciary [by the opposition] – the ‘silent coup’.

In the highly politicised environment at time it was very difficult to get people to look into this, because parliament was out to cover it up – nobody was willing to take it up, and everyone wanted distance because it was too sensitive and so highly politicised. So really no one wanted to try and see if there was any truth to what I was saying.

Time passed. I didn’t imagine all this would come up so soon – it has been an amazing experience to see all of this suddenly happening so quickly.

It was inevitable – with everything Abdulla Mohamed has done inside and outside the courts, it was very obvious that he was not a man to be a judge.

With all the highly political rulings coming from the Criminal Court, it was clearly not right. The JSC’s cover up of Abdulla Mohamed was also apparent.

He had spoken on TV [against the government] – and it was not just his voice. There was no need to spend two years investigating whether he had said what he said.

Finally they decided yes, he is highly politicised, and had lost the capacity to judge independently and impartially. His views and verdicts were expressing not just partiality towards the opposition, but apparently a very deep anger against the government. It is very obvious when you speak to him or see him on the media. We had to look at what was behind all this.

JJ: Abdulla Mohamed filed a case in the Civil Court which ordered the JSC investigation be halted. Does the JSC have any jurisdiction to rule against its own watchdog body?

AV: Absolutely not. If the judicial watchdog can be overruled by a judge sitting in some court somewhere, then it’s dysfunctional. But that’s what has been happening. And [Supreme Court Judge] Adam Mohamed, Chair of the JSC, has probably been encouraging Abdulla Mohamed to do this.

The whole approach of the JSC is to cover up the judge’s misconduct. When it comes to Abdulla Mohamed it’s not just issues of misconduct – it’s possible links with serious criminal activities. There is every reason to believe he is influenced by serious criminals in this country.

JJ: The international community has expressed concern over the government’s ongoing detention of the judge by the military. Is the government acting within the constitution?

AV: It is impossible to work within the constitution when you have lost one arm of the state: we are talking about the country not having a judiciary. When one man becomes a threat to national security – and the personal security of everyone – the head of state must act.

He can’t stand and watch while this man is releasing people accused of murder, who then go out and kill again the same day. We are seeing these reports in the media all along, and everyone is helpless.

If the JSC was functioning properly – and if the Majlis was up to its oversight duties – we would not have got to this stage. But when all state institutions fail, then it is necessary to act rather than watch while the country falls down.

JJ: What next? The government surely can’t keep the judge detained indefinitely.

AV: We have to find a solution. It is not right to keep someone detained without any action – there must be an investigation and something must happen. I’m sure the government is looking into Abdulla Mohamed.

But releasing him is a threat to security. I have heard Vice President Mohamed Waheed Hassan calling for him to be released. Abdulla Mohamed is not under arrest – but his freedom of movement and communication would be a danger at this moment. We are at the point where we really and truly need to get to the bottom of this and act upon the constitution.

We talking about cleaning up the judiciary, and this is not talking outside the constitution – this is the foundation of the constitution. The constitution is build upon having three separate powers.

The judiciary is perhaps the most important power. The other powers come and go, politics change, but the judiciary is the balancing act. When that is out of balance, action is necessary.

With regards to attention from the international community – I tried really hard in 2010 to get the international community involved, to come and carry out a public inquiry, because we do not have any institution or eminent person with the authority to look into the matter. We needed outside help.

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) did come and their report highlighted some things, but they did not have access to all the material because it’s all in Dhivehi. We need a proper inquiry into this, and a solution.

JJ: The Foreign Minister has asked the UN Office of Human Rights to send a legal team able to look into the situation and advise. To what extent will this draw on the constitution’s provision to appoint foreign judges?

AV: That has been something we were interested in doing, but the former interim Supreme Court Judge Abdulla Saeed was absolutely against it – not only bringing in foreign judges, but even judicial expertise. He was also against putting experts in the JSC so it could be properly institutionalised. The ICJ tried very hard to place a judge in there but didn’t get a positive response.

The UN brought in a former Australian Supreme Court Judge, but he didn’t get any support either. There was a lady [from Harvard] but she left in tears as well. There was no support – the Commission voted not to even give her a living allowance. They are unwelcoming to knowledge – to everyone. It is a closed place.

JJ: Is there a risk the UN will send a token advisor and things will quickly return to business as usual?

AV: We need the ICJ to be involved – someone like [former] UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Leandro Despouy. He was here for a fact-finding mission and had a thorough understanding of it, and gives authoritative advice.

We need to look for people who understand not only the law in the constitution, but what we are transiting from. Because that is really important.

JJ: There was talk of foreign judges and the establishment of a mercantile court for cases involving more than Rf 100,000 (US$6500). Based on the current state of the judiciary are people now more open to idea of foreign judges, where once they may have opposed it on nationalistic grounds?

AV: It is not a new thing. We have always used foreign knowledge since the time of the Sultans. We used Arabs who came here as our judges, they were respected people. Ibn Battuta practiced here as a judge during his voyages.

So it is not a new concept. This is the way we are – we do not have the knowledge. Now we are transitioning to a modern, independent judiciary, so of course we need new knowledge, practices and skills. The only way to get our judges up to standard is [for foreign judges] to be working in there, hands on.

Of course before that we have to make sure that the people on the bench are people who qualify under the constitution. With the bench we have right now it wouldn’t do much good bringing in expertise, because many of the people sitting there do not even have the basics to understand or move forward, they are limited in not having even basic education.

JJ: What percentage of the judiciary has more than primary school education?

AV: As a foundation, at least 50 percent have less that Grade 7. But they all say they have a certificate in justice studies – a tailor-made program written by the most prominent protester at the moment, former Justice Minister Mohamed Jameel of the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP). There were no textbooks on the course – they were given handouts.

Now we do have access to resources through the internet. But do the judges and magistrates have the skills or language abilities necessary to research on the internet? No they don’t.

JJ: Based on your access to privileged JSC information, you have also previously expressed concern at the high number of judges with actual criminal records. What about Abdulla Mohamed?

AV: Abdulla Mohamed was already a criminal convict before he was appointed to the bench. This man was found guilty of creating public disorder, hate speech and had publicly shown himself to be a woman hater or fearer- I don’t know which. But he has this bias against women and has been quoted as such in the courtroom. He’s got issues.

There are unchecked complaints against him in the JSC. The JSC has this practice of taking every complaint and giving it to committee one at a time. But if you look at everything, there is a pattern suggesting links to criminals. The Criminal Court has been given power as the only court able to rule on police custody during police investigations – why does Abdulla Mohamed have a monopoly on this? He personally locks up the seal. Why does he control it?

JJ: What do you mean when you claim he has links to organised crime?

AV: It’s a pattern. He tries to prevent investigation of all the heavy drug cases, and when the case does make it before the court his decisions are questionable. In one instance newspaper Haveeru sent a complaint saying the Criminal Court had tried a case and changed the verdict behind closed doors.

Haveeru later called for the complaint to be withdrawn. But my approach is to say, once we have a complaint we must check it. The complainant can’t withdraw a complaint, because there must have been a reason to come forward in the first place. That verdict referred to something decided two years before – Abdulla Mohamed changed the name of the convict. A mistake in the name, he said. How can you change a name? A name is an identity. The JSC never investigated it.

JJ: Prior to the JSC’s decision to dissolve the complaints committee, it was receiving hundreds of complaints a year. How many were heard?

AV: Five were tabled, four were investigated. Their approach was that if nobody was talking about the judge, then the judge was above question. So they would cover up and hide all the complaints.

Approach of this constitution is transparency – and the investigation is itself proof of the judge’s independence. An accusation doesn’t mean he is not up to being a judge. But if it is not investigated, those accusations stand. Instead, the JSC says: “We don’t have any complaints, so nobody is under investigation.”

We are struggling between the former approach and the new approach of the constitution. We have seen judges with serious criminal issues kept on bench and their records kept secret. They have a problem adapting themselves to the new constitution and democratic principles that require them to gain trust.

The JSC has many other issues- taking money they are not entitled to, perjury; none of this was looked into. All sorts of things happened in there.

JJ: Is it possible to revive Article 285, or did that expire at the conclusion of the interim period?

AV: Article 285 is the foundation of our judiciary, the institutionalisation of the one power that is going to protect our democracy. How can we measure it against a time period set by us? Two years? We did everything we could to try and enact it. It was a failure of the state that the people did not get the judiciary.

We cannot excuse ourselves by saying that the two years have passed. Parliament elections were delayed – much in the constitution was delayed. 80 percent of the laws required to be passed under this constitution have yet to be adopted. Are we going to say ‘no’ to them because time has passed?

We can’t do that, so we have to act.

JJ: Parliament has oversight of the JSC – what ability does parliament have to reform it?

AV: Parliament has shown itself to be incapable of doing it. We are seeing parliamentarians out trying to free Judge Abdulla Mohamed – including Jumhoree Party (JP) MP Gasim Ibrahim, a member of the JSC.

So I don’t think we even need to enter into this. it is apparent they are playing politics and do not have the interest of the people or the state at heart. They never believed in this constitution, they were pushed into adopting a democratic constitution, they failed in the elections, and now they are out to kill the constitution.

I am wondering even what they are protesting about. Last night it was Judge Abdulla, and the religious card. It is fear driven.

What we are seeing is [former President Maumoon Abdul] Gayoom and [his half brother, Abdulla] Yameen trying to turn their own personal fears into mass hysteria. Nobody else is under threat – but they are if we have an independent judiciary. If their cases are heard they know they are in for life.

JJ: So this is a struggle for survival?

AV: Exactly. The final battle – this is the last pillar of democracy. If we manage to do this properly, as stated in the constitution, we can be a model democracy. But not without a judiciary.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP calls for nationwide protest against judiciary

The ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has held an emergency meeting and called for a nationwide protest against the country’s judiciary, starting at 3:30pm.

The party contends that the courts have been  prioritising cases filed against MDP members and delaying cases involving opposition figures. The protest coincides with the Supreme Court’s scheduled delivery of a verdict in a case filed against MDP MP Mohamed Musthafa, requesting his candidacy as an MP be invalidated.

The case against him was filed in July 2009 by then leader of the Islamic Democratic Party (IDP) Umar Naseer, shortly after Musthafa won the election for Thimarafushi constituency against former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s son, Gassan Maumoon. Umar Naseer contended that Musthafa had a decreed debt dating back to 1997 that was not paid in accordance with a court ruling.

Today’s protest was proposed to the party’s National Council by MDP MP Mariya Ahmed, the party’s former chairperson.

MP and spokesperson for the party’s Parliamentary Group, Mohamed Shifaz, told Minivan News that the protest would start at the MDP’s Head Office and assemble near properties belonging to the judicial system.

Shifaz said there had been cases filed against opposition figures “held up in the courts for years.”

”Hearings in the corruption case against People’s Alliance MP and Deputy Speaker of parliament Ahmed Nazim were closed to journalists and the public, and the court has delaying the trial,” he claimed. ”But if this was a case against an MDP member they would hasten their work to conclude the case and sentence him.”

Shifaz said one of the most important thing MDP members “have always wanted was justice.”

”The judges are still trapped under the influence of [former President] Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, his half-brother Abdulla Yameen and the like,” Shifaz said, adding that there were cases against Gayoom and Yameen filed in the court by the Presidential Commission that had never come to trial.

The Judicial Services Commission (JSC), the watchdog body charged with overseeing the judiciary, in May this year abolished its Complaints Committee citing “efficiency”, with complaints against judges subsequently forwarded for review by the legal section and Commission head Adam Mohamed, a Supreme Court Judge.

Last year the JSC received 143 complaints concerning the conduct of judges. By its own statistics none were tabled in the commission, and only five were ever replied to. Chair of the former complaints commission, Aishath Velezinee, was meanwhile stabbed in the street in January this year.

The JSC also failed to table or even acknowledge receipt of a report on the judiciary produced by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), which questioned whether the JSC’s possessed the technical ability and knowledge to investigate complaints and hold the judiciary accountable, as well as its independence.

Shifaz today alleged that judges had been “blackmailed by the opposition”, and said that all the MDP MPs and senior officials, along with many supporters and citizens, would join the protest today.

”We have not really decided when to stop the protest. Members of the council have suggested continuing it until we achieve justice,” he said.

Former member of the Special Majlis Drafting Committee for the new Constitution, Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail, recently filed a defamation case against the Supreme Court after it reprimanded him for calling on the public to “rise up and sort out the judges”.

In response to Ibra’s calls, the Supreme Court and the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) demanded authorities investigate the former MP, claiming that “making such statements in a free, democratic society under lawful governance goes against the principles of civilisation”.

The Supreme Court subsequently issued a writ of prohibition and took over the case against it over from the Civil Court, and as a result, Ibra said, “I now have to go before the Supreme Court and say to them ‘You have defamed me, now please decide in my favour.’”

Speaking to Minivan News today, Ibra speculated that one possible reason for the Supreme Court’s decision to suddenly pursue the case against MP Mustafa “is because Gayoom’s new Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) wants to win the seat in a by-election.”

“Mustafa contested the seat against Gassan Maumoon, Gayoom’s son, and won by just a few votes,” Ibra noted. “They have high hopes for the seat.”

He also speculated that the Supreme Court’s actions could be an effort to divert attention from the public forum on judicial issues being held at the Social Centre in Male’ tonight at 8:30pm, “a red herring to divert public focus. [The forum] is where things will really happen.”

Regardless of its motivation, Ibra said, the Supreme Court’s behaviour “is all but an admission that they are operating on a political platform.”

Asked whether he was participating in the protest planned by the MDP against the judiciary, Ibra said he had “no idea what they’re up to. I surmise they are showing support for MP Mustafa. I am deliberately staying away from the political players on this issue. I want the civil community to come out on this, but I suspect senior political figures will now want to start making an appearance on the judicial issue.”

DRP Deputy Leader Ahmed Mohamed today told Minivan News that protesting against the courts and the judicial system was “unacceptable”.

”It should not be done. In the past MDP has done similiar things – once they locked the Supreme Court and Judicial Service Commission (JSC), and established a court of their own,” Mohamed contended. ”These kind of actions are clearly against the constitution.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

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)

Desire for democracy fundamentally a need for justice: President Nasheed

Germany will provide Rf 6 million (US$390,000) over the next two years for the expansion of the UNDP’s Access to Justice project in the Maldives.

Speaking at a signing ceremony held in the President’s Office today, attended by most cabinet members, German Ambassador to Sri Lanka and the Maldives Jens Plötner said it was Germany’s “firm conviction that without a functioning justice system there can be no democracy.”

“In the recent history of the Maldives a few brave women and men fought for democracy, citizens of the country then conquered democracy through the ballot box, but to keep democracy it takes justice – without that people will very quickly lose faith in democracy and the system,” Plötner said.

“We ourselves as a country with a tragic history, after two world wars, lost faith in ourselves. We didn’t know what to be proud of any more given what had been committed in German name.

“What finally emerged was that we were proud of the justice system we have today in Germany. We followed constitutional patriotism, because we are proud of the way law and right is delivered in Germany. This is the essence of the hard lessons we have learned through two world wars started in our name.”

Himself a former student of law, Plötner observed that the concept itself was “something very abstract and philosophical.”

“But it is also about men and women sitting there in impressive robes in big buildings, and breaking high principles down to day-to day-sentences for somebody smashing up a car – or something more awful.

“To do that you need good training, but that’s not enough. The judge and all those who work with him or her are such an essential element of democracy that they have to eat drink and breathe democracy every minute of the day. If they do that, democracy is stable.”

President Mohamed Nasheed said German support for judicial reform in the Maldives had its beginnings in a conversation with German Chancellor Angela Merkel last year.

“She was wondering what were our main challenges as we embarked on a new era of democratic governance,” Nasheed said.

“People’s desire for democracy in the Maldives was fundamentally because of a need for justice – things were often done unfairly and very harshly. That was a situation a fair number of us wanted to overcome. To that end we felt the first building block should be peaceful political activity. It took us a fair amount of time to do that, but we achieved it.”

Looking at the assembled ministers and political appointees, Nasheed said “a number of people in this room did not believe that political pluralism was appropriate for this society. We all had an idea of a singular form of government through which we might dispense justice as well as governance. But a few of us felt it was difficult to reinvent the wheel. We kept asking for political pluralism and parties, and finally we were successful.”

During the drafting of the new constitution, Nasheed acknowledged that “very little thought” was given to how the new judiciary was arranged, despite the urging of many lawyers in the system.

“When the powers were separated and the Maldivan 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.”

The constitution did not ask for an overhaul of the justice system, Nasheed noted, but it did ask for the formulation of a new Supreme Court bench.

“We ran into a number of difficulties. Firstly, the interim bench decided they were a permanent bench. That created all sorts of issues, finally to the extent that the executive had to step in and say ‘No, we have to have a new bench, and we are not going to open the Supreme Court without it.’”

It was, Nasheed admitted, “all very risky, challenging and difficult. But finally we came up with a bench – and with the support of every MP.”

However the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), tasked with regulated the judiciary, was a difficult task to reform “as the JSC as a whole was very imbalanced politically.”

“Again we are having to step in and we will reform the JSC, although not outside the framework of the constitution.”

Nasheed observed that the government’s new financial changes – such as the introduction of a new system of taxation, were “perhaps far more radical that introduction of political pluralism in the semi-liberal society that we had. Again there is the anger, antagonism, frustrations and uncertainties.”

The President said he felt the country was moving in the right direction, but expressed concern that the Maldives had slipped in the anti-corruption index.

“I like to think this is not because were more corrupt than we used to be, but rather that we have come to understand how corrupt we are through our new found freedom of expression – we are able to point fingers more readily, and the information available on corruption is far higher than it has ever been before.”

He noted that the government had 27 Auditor General reports detailing embezzlement and misuse of state funds “that we have done nothing with – partly because we need to strengthen our judiciary before we can embark on this.”

“We don’t want to go into a witch-hunt, or use the strong arm of the law, we want to use rationale and reason. We want to be able to prosecute, and dispense justice.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Courageous and exemplary work”: President dismisses JSC Velezinee

President Mohamed Nasheed has removed the President’s member of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), Aishath Velezinee, from her post.

“There was no reason given. All I can say is that the President is extremely grateful for the courageous and exemplary work Velezinee has done,” said Nasheed’s Press Secretary Mohamed Zuhair, adding that a new member would soon be appointed.

Minivan News understands that Velezinee’s departure from the JSC may be part of a back room deal not unrelated to impending judicial reform, opposition MPs crossing the floor and the arrest of former government officials on allegations of torture.

Velezinee herself was not commenting on the decision.

One woman army

Velezinee became an outspoken whistle-blower on the JSC last year after claiming that her many letters of concern to parliament – which provides oversight on the independent commissions – were being ignored.

In early 2010, she set about publicly exposing the independent institution she claimed was operating “like a secret society” and serving as a “shield” for a judiciary that was “independent in name only”, and had tabled only several of the hundreds of complaints submitted against judges.

Using her access to court documents, Velezinee revealed that almost a quarter of the sitting judges had criminal records – ranging from theft to terrorism – and that an even greater number had not even completed grade 7 education. The only qualification of many was a ‘Diploma in Judging’ presenting to them by the former Ministry of Justice, Velezinee contested.

For the past 30 years judges effectively worked as the employees of those “hand-picked” by the former government, Velezinee explained – to the extent that failures to extend a particular ruling as required by the Ministry of Justice resulted in a black mark on the judge’s file.

“The only qualification it appears was a willingness to submit to the will of the government at the time – to follow orders,” Velezinee told Minivan News is a previous interview.

“Not everyone has the mindset to follow orders and serve in that kind of capacity. I believe it has excluded people with independent thinking, or the necessary legal knowledge – such people would take it as an insult for someone to order them how to decide a case.”

Velezinee’s concerns – met with noticeable silence from both the JSC and the then-opposition majority parliament – sparked her ‘Article 285’ campaign.

Article 285 was the Constitutional stipulation that the JSC determine before the conclusion of the interim period – August 7, 2010 – whether or not the judges on the bench possessed the characteristics specified by article 149: “the educational qualifications, experience and recognized competence necessary to discharge the duties and responsibilities of a judge, [and] high moral character”.

At the eleventh hour prior to the conclusion of the interim period, the JSC reappointed the vast majority of sitting judges for life in a surrepticious ceremony conducted behind doors that would have remained closed had Velezinee not rushed the podium.

“The JSC decided – I believe with the support of parliament – that the same bench will remain for the next 40 years, retitled as an ‘independent judiciary’,” Velezinee said following the reappointments.

She further alleged that senior members of the parliamentary opposition were present in the JSC office over the weekend prior to the interim period deadline, personally assisting the JSC secretariat with photocopying the letters of appointment.

“I’m telling you: this is big. What we are seeing is all interconnected – it is one big plot to try – in any way possible – to return power to the corrupt,” she told Minivan News in July 2010, noting that her concerns had led to her being labelled “the Article 285 madwoman” by not only the opposition.

Less than a year later, many of her allegations were independently corroborated by a report produced by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), which attended JSC sessions and criticised its independence.

The JSC, the report stated, “was unable to carry out its functions in a sufficiently transparent, timely, and impartial manner. To date, JSC decision-making has been perceived as being inappropriately influenced by a polarised political environment. Also troubling is that members of the judiciary have been subject to threats and intimidation as well as improper inducements by both governing and opposition party members.”

The JSC refused to table the ICJ’s report, and disputed having ever received it.

Towards the end of 2010 Velezinee upped her campaign to incorporate parliament, naming both opposition and independent MPs as being involved in what she described as “a silent coup” to deprive the country of an independent judiciary for the sake of providing continued judicial impunity to senior power brokers of the former administration.

The reason for that failure, she suggested, was a fear among leaders of the former administration “who are continuing with criminal activities they have allegedly been carrying out for a long, long time.”

“There is widespread public perception that certain members of parliament are behind all the serious organised crime going on in this country. This includes serious drug issues, gang violence, stabbings,” she alleged, in a previous interview with Minivan News.

“These are allegations only because they have never come up before a court of law in all this time.”

“It is a much discussed issue, but it has never come up in the courts. I can see now that perhaps it may be true – otherwise why prevent the formation of an independent judiciary? I don’t think they would have confidence that they would get away free,” Velezinee said, observing that former political figures such as attorney generals were now representing these MPs in court as their lawyers, “and, by and large, they win every case.”

“This is not such a far-fetched radical thought coming from me any more because of the things we have seen over the last year to do with politicians and judicial action. The courts are a playground for politicians and are not trusted by the general public. Parliament has failed, and there is no other institutional mechanism in this constitution for the JSC to be held to account.”

In January this year Velezinee was stabbed three times in broad daylight while walking down Male’s main tourist street, on the same day that the High Court judges were due to be appointed.

“My first fear was that I would easily I bleed to death,” she told Minivan News, after she was discharged from hospital. “But I took a deep breath and realised I was alive. As soon as I realised this, the only thing I wanted to do was go and get the blood stopped and get to the Commission because this was the day of the High Court appointments, and I know they wanted me out of the way. I didn’t realise how serious the wounds were, I didn’t see them until two days later when I went for a dressing change.”

Many international organisations, including Transparency International and the ICJ, expressed “grave concern that the attack may be politically motivated.”

“There are honourable men in this country who are owned by others, and they may be put in a position where they believe they have to take my life. I knew there was a chance that I was risking murder, and I wasn’t wrong,” Velezinee told Minivan News, following her recovery. “It was only because of God’s grace that I survived.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)