Tag: Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed

Father of main suspect in Afrasheem murder case accuses police of coercion

The father of Hussain Humam, the main suspect in the murder of MP and religious scholar Dr Afrasheem Ali, has alleged his son was psychologically traumatised and under coercion by the police when he confessed to the crime.

The suspect has since retracted the confession he gave at a hearing held June 1.

In two separate letters dated May 26 that were sent to Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed and the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM), Humam’s father Ahmed Khaleel asks for assistance from authorities to “ensure [my] son is granted a fair trial devoid of coercion and undue influence.”

Referring to the May 22 hearing of the case, the letter sent to the Criminal Court and obtained by Minivan News reads: “I observed that when my son, Hussain Humam, was brought to the hearing, he was under psychological fear. I observed that he was in a very bad condition, was physically weak and his eyes were reddened. And during the trial, my son, Hussain Humam Ahmed, displayed signs of mental instability, including staring upwards, placing his handcuffs against his mouth, and laughing. Owing to these circumstances, I believe it is of utmost importance to assess Humam’s mental status prior to scheduling another hearing.”

During the previous hearing Judge Abdulla Didi denied a request by Humam’s lawyer that his client be psychologically tested, stating the lawyer had not mentioned any psychological disorder during a prior hearing to extend Humam’s detention.

Alleged police intimidation during trial

Khaleel also alleged in the letter that during the May 22 hearing, police acted “outside of the norms of a court hearing: attempting to psychologically intimidate Humam, and acting in many ways to influence what Humam had to say.”

Khaleel alleges that police  forced Humam into initially rejecting his right to have a defence lawyer, stating, “When the Judge enquired if he wished to have a lawyer, Humam quietly said ‘I do want a lawyer too’, at which point the police officer on his right, and the two officers on his left – Ali Ismail and Shamin – gave angry looks towards Humam and gestured with their eyes in a way that seemed to indicate that Humam was not permitted to say so. I believe that this forced my son to give up and lose this constitutional right.”

“The police also continued to converse with each other while the hearing was ongoing, discussing different aspects of the case itself, and speaking in such a way that it seemed Humam was being threatened. They also exchanged written documents with the state prosecutor outside of court proceedings,” his father alleged.

“Despite the judge unfailingly working to carry out a trial based on fairness and equality where the rights of both concerned parties are protected, with reference to the actions of police in and out of the courtroom, I do not accept that the hearing in question was a fair and just hearing,” Khaleel wrote.

Khaleel called on the court to review video footage of the hearing to confirm his claims, and pleaded for his son to be granted a fair trial and the constitutional rights entitled him.

CP Riyaz and other senior police officials accused of coercion

Khaleel alleged in his letter that in every instance he had visited Humam, his son had repeatedly complained that the police were trying to force him to confess to the MP’s murder.

“I have also observed that the police have phrased their words in such a manner that forces [Humam] to confess. For instance, police brought Humam to Male’ as a hearing had been scheduled for May 16. However, your court cancelled the hearing in the end, and instead of taking Humam back to the Villingili Police Station (where he is being held in detention), he was kept in police headquarters in Male’,” Khaleel wrote.

“I have learnt that while he was being kept in Male’, several police officers of various senior ranks questioned him, outside the processes of investigation, including Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz. They all pushed him to confess, assuring him that he would be spared the death sentence if he did so, and threatening that if he did not, they would ensure that he was sentenced to death. Police further said that if he chose to confess, he would be spared from both the death sentences and charges previously raised against him, and tried to confuse and delude him,” he alleged.

“I have also learned that police, even in other instances, have tried to threaten and coerce Humam into a confession, and have asked him to make use of the opportunity presented.’”

“The confession was an exaggerated mix-up of disjointed statements”

“My wife – Humam’s mother – and I met Humam on May 23 and my wife asked him to tell the truth for her sake and the nine months and ten days she carried him inside her, and Humam cried out, ‘No, mother, I did not kill Afrasheem’. He said the same when I repeatedly questioned him about it,” Khaleel stated.

“Therefore, Humam having stated in front of both of us in the court hearing, in such a way that will be heard by the whole of the country, that he had killed Afrasheem, he then told us that he had, in fact, not committed the murder, and this gives rise to many questions in my mind about how this could have happened,” he continued.

“I am now certain that the police and various political leaders, in a bid to hide the truth behind this, and to conceal the real murderer, have made police question Humam and get details about his life and past. I am also certain that the statement that was submitted to the court as one provided by Humam, is in fact an exaggerated account mixing together responses Humam gave to police about unrelated matters, adding and taking out details, and changing and editing it to align with what the police want it to state,” Khaleel alleged.

“When police are exerting undue influence and interfering with a case under the jurisdiction of your court; forcing Hussain Humam to give up a constitutional right, concealing the actual culprits behind the murder for different political gains, telling Humam various things in a bid to pin this on innocent people, and senior police officers are pushing their long arms into this matter outside the boundaries of the trial, I would like to bring this matter to your attention,” he wrote in conclusion of his letter to the Criminal Court Chief Judge.

Speaking to Minivan News today, Khaleel confirmed that officials of the Criminal Court had met with him and advised him on the best way to proceed.

“They told me that some of the matters I had pointed out can only be raised through a lawyer. They were helpful and listened to my concerns,” Khaleel said.

Criminal Court Media Official Ahmed Mohamed Manik was not responding to calls at the time of press.

Police deny coercion allegations

“It is an outright lie. The hearing proceeded in the presence of the judge. Media was also present in the room. Police did not at all intimidate or threaten Humam in any way, nor did police attempt to influence the courts in any form,” stated a police media official, requesting to remain unnamed.

“We can say with certainty that at no time, during or after the investigation stages, did senior officials talk to Humam to pressure him into a certain action or to influence the trial,” the police spokesperson said.

“Confused how HRCM defines human rights”

Khaleel also wrote to HRCM, expressing concern that his son was being subjected to psychological trauma, threats and intimidation while being held in police custody.

He further alleged that Humam was being coerced into confessing to a crime he did not commit, requesting the commission to look into the matter, and to grant an appointment in which he could provide further details of the allegations.

Khaleel further claimed that police had initially prevented Humam from seeking legal representation, thereby stripping him of the constitutional right stipulated in Article 16 of the Constitution of Maldives.

“I have not had any response from HRCM. I have been endlessly trying to get them to do something about this. I have called them lots of times, and they either say they’ll call back or that there’s no one relevant to talk to. Once, I was told there was no point in meeting the HRCM President just yet, that maybe I should meet someone else they recommend. My point is, how will I be able to meet anyone unless they grant me an appointment, at the least?” Khaleel told Minivan News.

“If they call themselves the Human Rights Commission, shouldn’t they be looking into matters like this where a citizen is being deprived of his rights? I am no longer sure how this commission defines human rights, or just how much they are able to protect such rights,” he said.

HRCM Media Official Sajidha Majdi confirmed that the commission had received the letter, but declined from commenting on the matter, stating it was against the commission’s policy to speak about an ongoing case.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Former MNDF Male’ Area Commander Brigadier General Didi contests charges of illegally arresting judge

Former Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) Male’ Area Commander, retired Brigadier General Ibrahim Didi, has denied the charge of arresting Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed, levied against him by the state.

Ibrahim Didi is charged for the controversial military detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012. Along with Didi, former President Mohamed Nasheed, his Defense Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu, former Chief of Defense Force retired Major General Moosa Ali Jaleel and Colonel Mohamed Ziyad are all facing the same charges.

During the hearing held at Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court on Sunday (February 24), Didi told the judge that he had not arrested the judge, and contended that he should not be facing charges as an individual for an act that was carried out by the then Defence Ministry.

He further claimed that the arrest was made by the Defence Minister under the direct orders of the president, and that he had no role to play in it.

The former Brigadier General claimed that the charges levied against him by the state were unfair and raised question over the credibility of the witnesses presented by the state against him.

He also stated that he was protecting the legitimate government in power up until February 7, and that the state presenting those officers who did not like him as witnesses could jeopardise the fairness of the trial.

Presenting her case in the court, State Attorney Aishath Fazna argued that following orders at the time from the Commander in Chief, President Mohamed Nasheed, the operation carried out by the MNDF in which Didi had been the commander, “arbitrarily arrested and detained an innocent man”.

As such, retired Brigadier General Ibrahim Didi was charged for the offence of arbitrarily detaining an innocent individual as stipulated in article 81 of the Penal Code, Fazna argued.

Article 81 of the Maldives Penal Code states: “It shall be an offense for any public servant by reason of the authority of office he is in to detain to arrest or detain in a manner contrary to Law innocent persons. Persons guilty of this offense shall be subjected to exile or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding MVR 2,000.00.”

Following the reading of the charges, Didi’s lawyer Ismail Wisham – who had in previous case contended the legitimacy of the magistrate court – raised two procedural points.

In the first point, Wisham questioned whether article 81 of the penal code could be used to press the charges citing that it had not been put to use.

In the second point, he raised question as to whether the state had proven to the court the innocence of Judge Abdulla Mohamed, to which article 81 of the penal code referred to.

In response, the state attorney contended that a similar charge was pressed by the state against a person and that the state had successfully prosecuted the accused at the time. She further said that the details of this case would be presented during the next hearing.

The state attorney in response to the second procedural point argued that the constitution clearly denotes that every person is innocent until proven guilty; therefore it should be no different for Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

The sitting judges dismissed the procedural points taken by the defendants stating that the points did not object to the continuance of the trial, but said the court would consider it while issuing the verdict.

The state attorney also presented a list of witnesses and evidences to support its case. The witnesses included current Chief of Defense Force Major General Ibrahim Shiyam and several other senior members of the military.

Evidence presented includes video footage of the arrest and several other documents.

Concluding, the judge stated that the next hearing would be held on March 20 in which the courts would be hearing the witnesses presented to the court.

Didi’s trial was also heard by all three judges of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court appointed to look into the case. The panel consists of Judge Shujaau Usmaan, Judge Hussain Mazeed and Judge Abdul Nasir Abdul Raheem.

Earlier, former Defense Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu also denied the charge of arbitrary detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdullah Mohamed, during the first hearing of his criminal trial held in the controversial Hulhumale Magistrate Court.

Detention of the judge

Judge Abdulla Mohamed was taken into military custody after the former Home Minister Hassan Afeef wrote to Defense Minister Tholhath asking him arrest the judge as he posed a threat to both the national security of the country and a threat to the country’s criminal justice system.

Minister Afeef at the time of the judge’s arrest accused him of “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist”, listing 14 cases of obstruction of police duty, including withholding warrants for up to four days, ordering police to conduct unlawful investigations and disregarding decisions by higher courts.

Afeef accused the judge of “deliberately” holding up cases involving opposition figures, and barring media from corruption trials, ordering the release of suspects detained for serious crimes “without a single hearing”, maintaining “suspicious ties” with family members of convicts sentenced for dangerous crimes, and releasing a murder suspect “in the name of holding ministers accountable”, who went on to kill another victim.

Afeef also alleged that the judge actively undermined cases against drug trafficking suspects and had allowed them opportunity to “fabricate false evidence after hearings had concluded”.

Judge Abdulla “hijacked the whole court” by deciding that he alone could issue search warrants, Afeef alleged, and had arbitrarily suspended court officers. He also accused the judge of “twisting and interpreting laws so they could not be enforced against certain politicians” and “accepting bribes to release convicts.”

The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) itself had investigated Abdulla Mohamed but stopped short of releasing a report into his ethical misconduct, after the Civil Court awarded the judge an injunction against his further investigation by the judicial watchdog.

JSC whistleblower Aishath Velezinee has also contended that the JSC’s blanket reappointment of all interim judges and magistrates in 2010 violated article 285 of the constitution guaranteeing an ethical and qualified judiciary, and that as such, the case “is based on a false premise, the assumption that Abdulla Mohamed is a constitutionally appointed judge, which is a political creation and ignores all evidence refuting this.”

Prosecution

An investigation led by Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) found the former President as the “highest authority liable” for the military-led detention of the Judge. The HRCM also identified Tholhath Ibrahim as a “second key figure” involved in the matter. Others included Brigadier General Ibrahim Didi and Chief of Defense Force Moosa Ali Jaleel.

In July 2012, Prosecutor General Ahmed Muizz pressed charges against the parties who had been identified in the HRCM investigation as responsible for the arrest.

Following the charges, former President Nasheed’s legal team challenged the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court in High Court, but the Supreme Court intervened and dismissed the claims by declaring the magistrate court was legitimate and could operate as a court of law.

Contentious court

The Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, which is also trying former President Nasheed for his detention of the Chief Criminal Court Judge during his final days in office, was created by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC).

The JSC, which includes several of Nasheed’s direct political opponents including rival presidential candidate Gasim Ibrahim, also appointed the three-member panel of judges overhearing the trial.

Parliament’s Independent Institutions Oversight Committee has previously declared that the JSC’s creation of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was unconstitutional.

However, the Supreme Court declared parliament overruled, issuing a statement that “no institution should meddle with the business of the courts”, and claiming that as it held authority over “constitutional and legal affairs” it would “not allow such interference to take place.”

“The judiciary established under the constitution is an independent and impartial institution and that all public institutions shall protect and uphold this independence and impartiality and therefore no institution shall interfere or influence the functioning of the courts,” the Supreme Court stated.

A subsequent request by the JSC that the Supreme Court bench rule on the court’s legitimacy resulted in a four to three vote in favour. The casting vote was made by Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed, also president of the JSC.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

UK-based lawyers to aid Nasheed defence in “unprecedented” legal move

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has confirmed two senior UK-based legal experts – one a specialist in Shariah Law – will be joining the defence team of former President Mohamed Nasheed ahead of his trial over the detention of a senior judicial figure whilst in power.

Party Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor confirmed that Sir Ivan Lawrence QC and Barrister Ali Mohammed Azhar will be working with local lawyers Hisaan Hussain and Hassan Latheef in some capacity to represent Nasheed.

One practising lawyer in the country contacted by Minivan News today said the appointment of two foreign legal experts in a domestic trial was an “unprecedented” development within the country’s legal history, but could not clarify further at the time of press.

The former president, who will next month begin defending himself in court against charges that he illegally detained Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed back in January 2012, has rejoined the MDP in a campaign around the country’s southern atolls in a bid to regain the presidency following February’s controversial transfer of power.

However, while free to campaign in the country, judicial authorities have said that Nasheed remains barred from leaving the country without court approval ahead of the next hearing of his trial in November.

Nasheed was himself presented to court on Tuesday (October 9) after being arrested a day earlier by police.

Speaking in court, he maintained that the detention of Judge Abdulla was justified on grounds of national security following the reported failure of other institutions to hold the judge accountable.

The former president also alleged that the charges are a politically-motivated attempt to prevent him from contesting presidential elections in 2013.

Nasheed, who is now restricted from travelling abroad without judicial approval , is required to return to court on November 4, giving his legal team 25 days to study evidence against him and prepare a defence. A period of 30 days had been originally been requested by lawyers, but was rejected by a three-member judging panel.

The state presented more than 30 pieces of evidence it claimed proved that Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed was detained unlawfully, including the account of the judge himself.  It will also use audio and video of the judge’s detention, as well as speeches given by Nasheed.

Assisting with the former president’s defence will be veteran criminal lawyer Sir Ivan Lawrence QC, whose biography notes experience working within UK and international institutions like the Divisional Court, the Court of Appeal, the House of Lords and a mass murder war crimes trial at The Hague.

Nasheed will also be assisted by Barrister Ali Mohammed Azhar, who is also said to have worked extensively at high level UK institutions like the Court of Appeal and House of Lords, specialising in areas such as international and human rights law.

Azhar, who visited the Maldives back in 2005 along with Ivan Lawrence as part of a fact finding mission dealing with alleged human rights abuses, is also an expert in Sharia Law, according to his own biography.

Minivan News was awaiting a statement from the MDP about the appointments international legal assistance at the time of press.

Nasheed has meanwhile returned to campaigning with the MDP as part of a ‘journey of pledges’ that has seen the party touring a number of islands in the south of the country.

Despite having obtained permission to return to campaigning in the southern atolls following his arrest this week, the Department of Judicial Administration confirmed today that Nasheed was restricted from travelling abroad without court approval.

Department of Judicial Administration Spokesperson Latheefa Qasim that Nasheed’s passport had been withheld by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court following the issue of a warrant.

When asked about possible restrictions on the role foreign legal experts could have in domestic court hearings, Qasim said she would be unable to comment at present, having not been aware of the reported appointment of UK-based lawyers to Nasheed’s defence team.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Government “would consider” clemency for ex-president Nasheed following trial outcome

The government has said it will have no involvement in the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed, adding it would consider the possibility of offering clemency should he eventually be found guilty.

Nasheed, who yesterday announced he had started his campaign for re-election, has called for the trial over his role in the controversial detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed earlier this year to be expedited. The former president has alleged that the trial against him is politically motivated to prevent him from contesting in presidential elections scheduled for 2013.

President’s Office Media Secretary Masood Imad claimed that the government was committed to its pledge of not interfering in the Maldives judicial system and played down fears of the trial being politicised.

“We would regret any parties or international organisations trying to politicise this trial,” he said. “However, after a judgement on the case has been given, if there is an opportunity to do so, I’m sure President Waheed would consider the possibility of clemency [for former President Nasheed].”

The comments were made today as Department of Judicial Administration Spokesperson Latheefa Qasim confirmed to Minivan News that the decision had been taken to appoint three judges to hear the former president’s trial. Qasim added that a date for the hearing or the identities of the three judges presiding over the trial had yet to be decided.

Last week, the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was cleared to hold the trial that will see Nasheed along with several senior military figures under his command face charges for the detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

During Nasheed’s administration Judge Abdulla was accused by the government of demonstrating political bias, obstructing police, stalling cases, having links with organised crime and “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist” to protect key figures of the former dictatorship from human rights and corruption cases.

Nasheed himself gave a speech to supporters in Male’ yesterday playing down the likelihood of his prosecution for the detention of the judge, while additionally launching his campaign for re-election despite no date for elections having been set.

Speaking from the Usfasgandu area in Male’, which is presently being used as a protest area by the now opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), Nasheed alleged that he was not concerned of being prosecuted,  according to local media reports.

During a speech outlining his plans to continue to pursue early elections through the MDP’s ‘direct action’ protests and political pressure, the former president claimed that he was confident of securing re-election.

MDP Spokesperson and MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor claimed that Nasheed’s comments were focused on the party’s continued efforts to secure “early elections” ahead of the proposed date of July 2013.  President Waheed has said July 2013 is the earliest date for fresh polls as allowed in the country’s constitution

The MDP back in July approved a resolution that the party would choose to boycott elections should Nasheed not be able to stand as its presidential candidate after winning.

Ghafoor claimed that despite preparing for early elections, both Nasheed and the MDP had agreed to respect the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) report that last week concluded the government of President Waheed had come to power constitutionally and not through a “coup d’etat” on February 7.

“We have been respecting the report, but we also have very strong reservations about the concerns raised by [Nasheed’s appointee on the commission] Ahmed ‘Gahaa’ Saeed and we would like these shortcomings to be looked into,” he said. “There are obviously issues that we have with the findings and I do not believe that the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) will just choose to ignore Mr Saeed’s own reservations about the report.”

Saeed last week resigned from the five-member CNI panel approved by the government, MDP and Commonwealth, a day before the release of its findings over what he alleged was a failure by the commission to consider certain evidence and witness statements presented to the Commission.

Nasheed was also reported to have used his speech to claim that no country had so far accepted the CNI’s findings, according to local news service Sun Online.

Following the release of the CNI report last week, Commonwealth Secretary-General Kamalesh Sharma welcomed the completed publication, urging “all concerned to respect the findings of the commission so that, moving forward, all actions and reactions reflect the sense of responsibility and restraint necessary in the best national interest.”

The US, India and the UN also called for the outcome of the CNI’s report to be respected in light of its publication.

However, Ghafoor said that Nasheed had in fact questioned the responses of various international players claiming they had been “unclear” on their views of the report.

Ghafoor added that the party would continue to lobby to have the reservations raised by Saeed concerning the CNI report addressed.

Beyond reservations with the CNI, the MDP claimed that it had been willing to work with the government of President Waheed in what it called the “common interests” of the public by offering to join his coalition government.

“We do not want to be working with this government, we ourselves want to see early elections as soon as possible,” he said.

However, President Waheed yesterday announced he had opted against including the MDP in his national unity government.

While the MDP – in light of the CNI’s findings – had called for clarification on whether it was presently the ruling or opposition party, the President’s Office responded that the matter was irrelevant under the country’s presidential system of governance.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Detention extended for suspects charged with threatening Judge Abdulla Mohamed

The Criminal Court has extended the detention of two men arrested on suspicion of harassing and threatening Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed for a further 15 days.

Police Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef said Wednesday (August 22) that the court has extended the detention of both men by 15 days in order to further investigate the charges against them.

The two men were arrested on charges of having harassed Judge Abdulla Mohamed on his personal trip to Raa Atoll Maakurathu on August 17.  They have been in police custody since then.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed “highest authority liable” for Judge Abdulla detention: HRCM

The Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) has concluded former President Mohamed Nasheed was the “highest authority liable” for the military-led detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Along with Nasheed, the report concluded that the former president’s Defence Minister, Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu, was a second key figure responsible for the decision to detain Judge Abdulla on January 16.

The commission stated that the judge was not physically harmed during the 22-day detention at the military training island of Girifushi.  However, the HRCM did claim that the government had “violated his human dignity” and made attempts to manipulate the judge through a psychologist who visited him at the facility where he was detained.

These alleged attempts at manipulation were said to include efforts to remove the judge from his senior position, as well as forcing him to leave the country, the commission’s findings stated.

“The investigation reveals the highest authority liable for the arrest and detention of Judge Abdulla at Girifushi, as well as depriving him of fundamental constitutional rights, is former President Mohamed Nasheed.  Under him was the former Minister of Defence and National Security Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu who gave orders to the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF),” the HRCM added.

“Furthermore, as this operation was carried out by the MNDF, the [commission] believes that the Chief of Defence Force, Moosa Ali Jaleel should take responsibility.  Those who issued unconstitutional orders and those who obeyed the orders must also share responsibility on various levels,” the commission added.

The commission’s findings released on Tuesday (August 21), concluded that Judge Abdulla’s arrest was a clear violation of both the country’s laws and its constitution.  The report also stated that judge’s human rights and fundamental freedoms, guaranteed under international law, were also denied.

HRCM explained that its investigation had found that the pair were both behind the “unlawful orders” to approve the judge’s arrest, which was a violation of article 46 of the Constitution, particularly violation of Article 12 clause (a) of the Judges Act.

Article 44 of the Maldives Constitution states: “No person shall be arrested or detained for an offence unless the arresting officer observes the offence being committed, or has reasonable and probable grounds or evidence to believe the person has committed an offence or is about to commit an offence, or under the authority of an arrest warrant issued by the court.”

Article 12 clause (a) of the Judges Act states that a judge can be arrested without a court warrant, but only if he is found committing a criminal act. The same article also states that if a judge comes under suspicion of committing a criminal act or being about to commit a criminal act, they can only be taken into custody with a court warrant obtained from a higher court than that of which the judge presently sits on.  This warrant has to be sought by the prosecutor general.

However, the commission observed that the warrant was not obtained.  Additionally, orders to release the judge by the Supreme Court, High Court, the country’s lower courts and the prosecutor general were ignored.

Both Nasheed and Tholhath, alongside former Chief of Defence Force Major General Moosa Ali Jaleel, Brigadier Ibrahim Mohamed Didi and Colonel Mohamed Ziyad are already facing charges for their alleged role in detaining Judge Abdulla in January.

The charges include a breach of article 81 of the Penal Code: “Arresting an innocent person intentionally and unlawfully by a state employee with the legal authority or power vested to him by his position is an offence. Punishment for a person guilty of this offence is imprisonment or banishment for 3 years or a fine of MVR 2000 (US$129.70).”

These charges were filed by the Prosecutor General’s Office in July, based on the findings of HRCM investigation, which were not publicly released at the time.

The judge was arrested by the military on request of police after he blocked a summons to present himself to the police headquarters for questioning and later opened the court outside normal hours to order the immediate release of current Home Minister and Deputy Leader of the Dhivehi Quamee Party Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed.  Jameel was arrested after the President’s Office requested an investigation into so-called “slanderous” allegations he made that the government was working under the influence of “Jews and Christian priests” to weaken Islam in the Maldives.

The government contended that the judge was a “threat to national security” after he lodged an appeal at High Court to cancel police summons, which granted an injunction until it reached a verdict on the appeal.

The Nasheed administration accused the judge of political bias, obstructing police, stalling cases, having links with organised crime and “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist” to protect key figures of the former dictatorship from human rights and corruption cases.

In August 2010, the judge was publicly accused by the police of “obstructing high-profile corruption cases.”

However, the commission’s report concluded that its investigation proved that Judge Abdulla was not a threat to national security, on the grounds that no meeting of the National Security Council was held at the time.

The Commission also observed that its requests and attempts to visit Judge Abdullah were unfulfilled by the MNDF and government.  Conversely, it  deemed the arrest as an attempt to “influence” his role as Criminal Court chief judge.

The HRCM report also identified what it called breaches of multiple rights and freedoms of Judge Abdullah during the detention process.  These were said to include; the right to be treated equal before law and right to the equal protection and benefit [article 20];  right to life, liberty and security [article 21]; freedom to travel or move within and outside the country [article 41]; Procedurally Fair and and lawful administrative action [article 43];  the right to be to be informed immediately of the reasons for detention and to be brought within24 hours before a Judge [article 48(a) and  (d) ]; right to the assistance of legal counsel [article 53] and no subjection to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, or to torture under [article 54].

Furthermore, it noted that the arrest of the Judge contravened section 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states: “Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.”

Furthermore, violations were said to include, the right he “not be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile” [section 9] and similarly not being subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to suffer attacks upon a person’s honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks [section 12].

HRCM has also observed that “anyone who is deprived of their liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful” under section 9(d) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the same declaration, section 10(a) states that: “All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.”

It also states that the “Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance” prohibits the arrest, detention or abduction of a person against their will or otherwise deprived of their liberty by officials of different branches or levels of Government, or by organized groups or private individuals acting on behalf of, or with the support, direct or indirect, consent or acquiescence of the Government, followed by a refusal to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the persons concerned or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of their liberty, which places such persons outside the protection of the law.

“Therefore, the [arrest of Judge Abdullah] was carried out in contravention of the aforementioned rights and freedoms guaranteed under the international declarations.” the HRCM concluded.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil Court dismisses ruling of own watchdog body against Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed

The Civil Court today dismissed a decision by its own watchdog body, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), to take action against Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdullah Mohamed for violating the Judge’s Code of Conduct.

An investigation into a complaint of ethical misconduct against Judge Abdulla was completed by a JSC special committee which recommended in the final report to the commission that action be taken against the Judge for violating the Judge’s Code of Conduct – specifically, by making a politically biased statement in an interview with DhiTV.

However, during the period given to Judge Abdulla to respond to the report, he instead obtained a Civil Court injunction against his further investigation by the judicial watchdog.

The JSC appealed the injunction on January 24 of this year, claiming that the Civil Court had disregarded the commission’s constitutional mandate which allowed it to take action against judges, and argued that the court did not have the jurisdiction to overrule a decision of its own watchdog body.

But the appeal was rejected, concluding that the commission had not provided the court “any substantial reason to terminate the injunction and that the High court cannot make a decision on the case while the case is pending at a lower court.

As the final verdict on the case came out today, the Civil Court overruled the the decision stating that Judge Abdulla was not given an opportunity to respond to the allegations during the investigation.

According to the decision, providing a chance to submit any complaints after the investigation is completed cannot be deemed as an opportunity for the Judge to present his defence.

Like all other state institutions the JSC must also be held accountable in front of the law, the court noted, addding that party who believes to have suffered damages due to a decision by the commission have the right to litigate  matter to protect his rights.

Furthermore the Civil Court concluded that action cannot be taken against the Abdullah under the Judge’s Code of Conduct, because the said violation predates the regulation.

Charges against the Judge

Apart from the ethical misconduct complaint, the JSC revealed that a total of 11 complaints have been submitted to the commission against Judge Abdulla Mohamed, among which are serious allegations of corruption and abuse of authority.

The first complaints against Abdulla Mohamed were filed in July 2005 by then Attorney General Dr Hassan Saeed – now Dr Waheed’s political advisor – and included allegations of misogyny, sexual deviancy, and throwing out an assault case despite the confession of the accused.

Among the allegations in Dr Saeed’s letter was one that Judge Abdulla had requested an underage victim of sexual abuse reenact her abuse for the court, in the presence of the perpetrator.

In 2009, those documents were sent to the JSC, which was requested to launch an investigation into the outstanding complaints as well as alleged obstruction of “high-profile corruption investigations”.

The JSC decided not to proceed with the investigation on July 30, 2009.

Former President’s member on the JSC and whistleblower Aishath Velezinee for several years contended that Abdulla Mohamed was a central, controlling “father figure” in the lower courts, answerable to former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and a key figure responsible for scuttling the independence of the judiciary under the new constitution.

Central figure in Nasheed’s downfall

Abdulla Mohamed was also a central figure in the downfall of former President Mohamed Nasheed, following the military’s detention of the judge after the government accused him of political bias, obstructing police, stalling cases, links with organised crime and “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist” to protect key figures of the former dictatorship from human rights violations and corruption cases.

Judge Abdulla’s arrest sparked three weeks of anti-government protests starting in January, while the government appealed for assistance from the Commonwealth and UN to reform the judiciary.

As protests escalated, elements of the police and military mutinied on February 7, alleging Nasheed’s orders to arrest the judge were unlawful. A Commonwealth legal delegation had landed in the capital only days earlier.

Nasheed publicly resigned the same day, but later said he was forced to do so “under duress” in a coup d’état. Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has taken to the streets in recent months calling for an early election.

Judge Abdulla was released on the evening of February 7, and the Criminal Court swiftly issued a warrant for Nasheed’s arrest. Police did not act on the warrant, after international concern quickly mounted.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Hulhumale’ court has jurisdiction to hear Nasheed case: Deputy Prosecutor General

Deputy Prosecutor General (PG) Hussein Shameem has said that Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court does have the jurisdiction to hear the case of former President Mohamed Nasheed over his role in the detention of a Criminal Court Chief Judge.

Shameem contended that should the court maintain its decision against hearing the case, there were few other judicial alternatives in trying to ensure a “fair trial”.

The comments were made as the PG’s office called on the Hulhumale’-based court to review its decision to send back the case to authorities on the grounds that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear the former president’s trial as written under the Judicature Act.

Nasheed, along with three Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) officers, face charges over the controversial detention of Criminal Court Chef Judge Abdullah Mohamed – a decision the former president claimed was taken over national security concerns.

Chief Judge abdulla was detained by the military, after he had opened the court outside normal hours to order the immediate release of former Justice Minister and current Home Minister and Deputy Leader of the Dhivehi Quamee Party (DQP), Dr Mohamed Jameel.

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), of which Nasheed is the presidential candidate, has claimed it expects the trial – whether in Hulhumale’ or another court – to go ahead regardless of legality.  The party has alleged the case serves solely as a means to convict the former president and potentially prevent him from contesting in the next general election.

However, Shameem claimed today the PG’s office had opted to hold the case against the former president in Hulhumale’ as it believed a fair trial could not be held at the country’s Criminal Court, an institution Judge Abdulla continues to oversee.

“We believe the Hulhumale’-based court does have the jurisdiction to hear this case under provisions outlined in the Judicature Act. We do not believe a fair trial could be held at the Criminal Court in this particular case,” he said.

Alternatives

Shameem claimed that there was a seemingly limited number of alternatives for hearing the case should Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court maintain it does not have the mandate to host such a trial.

“We would not be sending the case [to the Criminal Court],” he said. “So if the Hulhumale’ magistrate feels uncomfortable with the case or maintains it does not have the jurisdiction, we would have to appeal at the High Court about this.”

A statement sent to local media yesterday by the PG’s office claimed that despite Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court’s initial reservations, it could hold the case as the island was under the same judicial constituent as nearby Male’ and Villimale.

The statement also contended that judicial regulations did not prevent a magistrate court from investigating allegations of the “deliberate arrest of an innocent individual”.

Addressing the issue of court jurisdiction, President’s Office Media Secretary Masood Imad said that the government remained committed to not interfering with the country’s judiciary. Masood said he would not therefore comment on the case against the former president, who has alleged his successor Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan came to power in a “coup d’etat” on February 7.

“We would not want to touch the issue with a ten-foot pole,” Masood added, referring any questions on the case to Attorney General (AG) Azima Shakoor.

AG Shakoor was not responding to calls at time of press.

Former President to justify judge’s detention

Former President Nasheed has previously that he is “prepared” to justify the reasons for the arrest of Judge Abdulla, and said he was ready to appear in court and prove his actions were valid.

MDP MP and Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor claimed that that despite the present uncertainty over the exact legal body that would be hearing the trial, he believed authorities would be going ahead with the trial.

“Nobody, can stop them from doing it,” he claimed. “They have no choice to go ahead with such a thing. It is the only way to avoid talk of an early election by arresting Nasheed and trying to dismantle the MDP. The dictatorship is back.”

Ghafoor alleged that the MDP did not presently take the potential trial of the former President Nasheed “seriously”, owing to what he claimed was institutionalised bias and political influence in the country’s judiciary.

“Today for example, a lower court was able to overrule the JSC [the country’s judicial watchdog] to take action against Chief Judge Abdullah over concerns of his conduct,” he said.

Ghafoor claimed that the judiciary’s reputation and conduct reflected a wider societal attitude that the Maldives did “not have a culture of law” for citizens to rely on.

“The courts and judiciary are not up too much here. During the thirty years of dictatorship we had, the media published propganda about these institutions and people thought they were quite capable,” he said. “Yet in the democracy we have had, you have to prove yourselves”

Ghafoor claimed that as the issue of Nasheed’s trial continued to wear on, more members of the public were becoming are “that the trials are a sham”.

In late 2011, Judge Abdulla was himself under investigation by the JSC, the country’s judicial watchdog, for allegedly politically biased comments made to private broadcaster DhiTV. The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) was due to release a report into Judge Abdulla’s alleged ethical misconduct, however the judge approached the Civil Court and successfully filed an injunction against his further investigation by the judicial watchdog.

Judge Abdulla’s arrest sparked international criticism of the Nasheed administration as well three weeks of anti-government protests in January, leading the former government to appeal for international assistance from the Commonwealth and UN to reform the judiciary.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Judge Abdulla’s human rights violated, no physical abuse: HRCM

The Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) has told local media that while Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed had “not been subject to any form of physical abuse“ during his controversial 22 day detention, attempts had been made to violate his fundamental human rights.

Haveeru today reported that HRCM President Mariyam Azra had said that its investigation had uncovered evidence that the judge, who was detained during the administration of former President Mohamed Nasheed over allegations that he posed a threat to national security, had faced attempts to remove him from his post and send him abroad.

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), who had been in government during the time of Judge Abdulla’s detention, today raised concerns over what it claimed was the “complicit irresponsibility” of the HRCM – a body it alleged was biased towards the political interests of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

Local media reports today claimed that HRCM President Azra had opted against giving the names of those involved in the alleged abuse of the judge’s human rights.  HRCM also declined to give any other details at present that could influence any potential trials after charges were filed against Nasheed and several senior figures in the Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) this week.

Azra was not responding to calls when contacted by Minivan News at time of press.

The HRCM used today’s press briefing to publicise its concerns that “efforts” had been made to “coerce” the judge to commit unspecified actions that would have contravened his human rights.

“Serious concerns”

Responding to the press briefing, the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) – of which Nasheed is the current presidential candidate – said it held “serious concerns” in the selective nature of the HRCM’s investigations.

MDP MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor today alleged that the HRCM’s investigation had now formed the basis of criminal charges filed against Nasheed.  The case was today returned to the Prosecutor General’s (PG’s) Office after the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court said it did not presently have jurisdiction to hear such a case.

In March, the Prosecutor General Ahmed Muizz told Minivan News that the completion of the Nasheed cases was being delayed whilst police reviewed certain aspects of the investigation.

Ghafoor claimed that the decision to move ahead with the charges this week raised questions about allegations of political influence on the HRCM and the information it made available to the PG’s Office.

“I believe there is a very strong link between the HRCM holding this media briefing today and Islamist factions linked to [former President] Gayoom,” he added. “This week this faction has been very active in lobbying the HRCM, the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) and even the president himself.”

Just last month, Deputy leader of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Umar Naseer has expressed his confidence that the Prosecutor General’s (PG) investigation into charges against former President Mohamed Nasheed will see his imprisonment before the scheduled elections in July 2013.

“We will make sure that the Maldivian state does this. We will not let him go; the leader who unlawfully ordered the police and military to kidnap a judge and detain him for 22 days will be brought to justice,” local paper Haveeru reported Naseer as having said.

The PPM was formed by former President Gayoom, who also serves as head of the party.

HRCM investigation

Former President Nasheed became the first Maldivian president to be summoned before the HRCM in March this year in connection to his alleged role in the controversial detention of Judge Abdulla.

Nasheed had been requested to attend a HRCM hearing filed to try and understand who was responsible for taking the decision to arrest the judge. The former president attributed the initial arrest call to his Defence Ministry, on the grounds of “protecting” national security relating to alleged ethical concerns about the judge.

The summons of the former president was the first of three cases filed at the HRCM involving Nasheed. These cases all relate to potential human rights abuses allegedly carried out both by and against Nasheed during the lead up and aftermath of a controversial transfer of power that saw President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan installed as his successor.

Representatives of Nasheed’s legal counsel at the time claimed Nasheed has used his testimony to claim that he had been informed by the Home Ministry that the judge had allegedly posed a “national threat” – prompting his eventual detention.

The MDP MP added that Nasheed then claimed that the Home Ministry had communicated with the Defence Ministry on the situation, which in turn led to the decision to arrest the judge after bodies like the Judicial Service Commission has raised alleged concerns over his ethical conduct.

“I was told Abdulla Mohamed would not comply with the police’s summons to investigate allegations [against him],” Nasheed later stated at a press conference following the meeting with the HRCM.

“The Home Minister wrote to the Defense Minister that Abdulla Mohamed’s presence in the courts was a threat to national security. And to take necessary steps. And that step, the isolation of Abdulla Mohamed, was what the [Defense] Ministry deemed necessary.”

Nasheed claimed additionally that he had sent representatives to Girifushi to check on Judge Abdulla Mohamed’s well-being during his detention, alongside allowing the HRCM to visit the judge.

The MDP has also alleged that the decision to arrest the judge was related to a number of possible misdemeanour’s that had been attributed to him dating back several years.

In November, the national court watchdog, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), was ordered to cease an investigation into Judge Abdulla Mohamed by the Civil Court under an action the judge himself instigated.

MDP spokesperson and MP  Imthiyaz Fahmy contended following Nasheed’s first HRCM summons on March 21 that it was ironic that a leader he claimed who had openly discouraged the use of torture and actively campaigned against human rights abuses, had become the country’s first former leader to have been called in front of the HRCM.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)