Tag: criminal court

Police officer testifies to police brutality against former MDP Chairperson Mariya Didi

A police officer has testified against a fellow officer, Ibrahim Faisal, who is currently being charged for attacking former opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Chairperson and MP Mariya Ahmed Didi on February 8, 2012.

On February 7, 2012, the continuous anti-government protest led by then-opposition political parties and religious scholars following the controversial detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed gave way to a mutiny by a segment from both the police and military officers against Nasheed, resulting in his premature resignation from office.

The following day, Nasheed along with the MDP and thousands of people, took to the streets in protest claiming that Nasheed was ousted in a bloodless coup d’état. However the en masse demonstration met by a brutal crackdown from both police and military officers during which several MDP MPs and politicians backing the MDP suffered injuries.

Testifying against Faisal, Lance Corporal Mohamed Saarim told the court that he was with Faisal in the ranks of police during the time the protests were dismantled.

Saarim testified that Faisal was among the police officers who went inside a shop to arrest senior MDP figures, including current Party Chairperson ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik, Mariya Didi and former President Nasheed, who took refuge inside after the police led the heavy crackdown on protesters.

During this incident, Saarim claimed that he saw Faisal attacking Mariya Didi, punching her in the abdomen. According to Saarim, Faisal dragged Mariya Didi out of the shop, before handing her over to another officer.

The Lance Corporal also claimed that he had told Faisal not to act so aggressively, but he had disregarded his call. Saarim also recalled that Faisal was not in his uniform and was clothed as a civilian, and had used his bare hands to attack the MP.

During the hearings, Saarim also acknowledged the statement he gave to Police Integrity Commission (PIC) which was presented to the court. Saarim stated that the statement was a true statement given based on what he witnessed on the day.

When the sitting Judge Muhuthaaz Fahmy questioned Faisal about the statements by Saarim, he denied the claim saying that he did not harm anyone. He further told the court that he was not present with the group of police officers who entered into the shop, but was instead having a coffee.

Faisal made the same statement to the PIC, which was also heard in court.

Concluding the hearing, the judge stated that the only witness presented to the court by the prosecution was Saarim. He did not mention a date for the next hearing.

Along with Faisal, police officer Mohamed Waheed from the island of Thinadhoo in Gaafu Dhaalu Atoll is also facing criminal charges for assaulting MDP Chairperson ‘Reeko’ Moosa, hitting him on the head with a metal canister.

Mariya recalls the attack

Mariya Didi described the moment when the officers barged into the shop as an “attempt on our lives”.

“On February 8, after the police dispersed those who marched to protest their government being over thrown by police and military, President Nasheed and Ahmed ‘Dhonbilai’ Haleem saw me fall and gasp for breath, almost falling tinto the sea as the police and military used the yellow gas they used at such close range,” she said.

“They picked me up and as they knew I was suffering from the injuries of the previous day (February 7,2012), I looked in a state with all the bruises to my face and body, and also a black eye from a beating the previous day,” she said.

“They wanted to put me to safety in the shop as they knew these officers wanted us all dead,” she added.

“Moosa, Nasheed and myself entered the shop. As I was standing inside the shop, the police came and took Moosa first,” she recalled.

“In a moment, some other police came and pulled me up. They handcuffed me at the back with bands they had and kept pulling my hair. They kept beating me all over. They sprayed my whole body with pepper spray, especially in the black eye from the previous day, and into my nostrils. I recently had a sinus operation in Bangkok and just returned. These police officers were all over beating me, my whole body was black and blue,” she explained.

“It was rather shameful that people in uniform thought it fit that they beat up a woman who was already handcuffed tightly behind her back. The scars are still there on my wrists,” she said.

“I hope our men in uniform learn to behave with discipline and professionalism and not let their political views overtake their oath and duty to this country,” she said.

“Jazbaath (‘being emotional’) is no excuse,” she stressed.

Human Rights Commission inquiry

On August 22, 2012, the Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) released an investigative report (Dhivehi) which concluded that the police crackdown on the MDP march, which left dozens of demonstrators injured, was “brutal” and “without prior warning.”

Thirty-two people filed complaints with the HRCM concerning the varying degrees of injuries they sustained in the crackdown, while 20 people also submitted medical documents pertaining to the treatment of those wounds.

Among the injuries caused by the police baton charge, the HRCM report noted that several people were bruised and battered, one person had a fractured leg bone, another person’s arm was broken, and six people sustained head wounds.

Two fingers on the left hand of one demonstrator were crushed, the report also noted, and the victim had to undergo a corrective operation.

Meanwhile, the former ruling party informed the HRCM that their march across Male’ was spontaneous and that the party had not planned to stage any protests on February 8.

The crackdown

While riot police baton-charged the front line of protesters on February 8, Minivan News observed riot police also charging the crowd from a narrow alley leading to the Maldives Monetary Authority (MMA) area.

The SO police officers used obscene language, pointed to and chased after individual MDP activists and severely beat unarmed civilians.

Al Jazeera news filmed parts of the attack from the rear and reported that on February 8 “police and military charged, beating demonstrators as they ran – women, the elderly, [with] dozens left nursing their wounds,”

Amid the clashes, a group of opposition demonstrators infiltrated the crowds, attacking MDP supporters, according to witnesses.

Former President Nasheed was reported among the injured, having received head injuries during the clashes.

Minivan News also observed several youth with head injuries queuing up for x-rays in the waiting area outside the reception area of Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital (IGMH).

One young woman who went into IGMH with her sister was being treated for a head wound. The gauze wrapped around her head was spotted with blood, and she claimed the wound was still bleeding as she went in for an X-ray.

“The police were just standing there and suddenly we were being beaten with batons and pepper spray was thrown in our face. They threw us to the ground and kept beating us,” she said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Chief suspect in Afrasheem murder case retracts confession, claims to have been coerced

The chief suspect alleged to have murder parliament member and prominent religious scholar Dr Afrasheem Ali, Hussain Humam, has retracted his previous confession to the crime, claiming it was obtained by police through coercive means.

Humam – who has been linked with smuggling drugs, gang violence and several other high profile crimes – confessed to the killing on May 22, answering “yes” in court when state prosecutors produced a statement detailing the murder and asked him if it was his.

According to that statement, Humam claimed the idea of killing Dr Afrasheem was given to him by Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) officer Azleef Rauf, whom he met at a baibalaa tournament held in 2012.

The pair later met in person again at a coffee, according to the statement, along with two other individuals Humam identified as Abdulla ‘Jaa’ Javid (son-in-law of opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Chairperson ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik) and his brother ‘Jana’.

According to the prosecutor’s statement, Humam was promised a sum of MVR 4 million (US$260,000) for murdering the religious scholar. The statement said Humam later asked Azleef Rauf why Afrasheem was to be murdered, and was told that one of the reasons were Afrasheem’s remarks during the day former President Mohamed Nasheed controversially resigned.

State prosecutors accused Humam, along with Ali Shan – who is also facing the same charges – and a minor identified as ‘Nangi’, of going to the residence of Dr Afrasheem and murdering him with a machete and a bayonet knife.

Humam’s retraction of his statement during yesterday’s court hearing is the second time he has denied committing the murder.

Court denies request for psychological testing

During the hearings, Humam’s defence lawyer requested the judge allow Humam’s sanity and mental stability be tested, claiming that Humam’s father had told him that the suspect had a mental disorder. He stressed that Humam himself had told Haseen that he wanted to consult a psychologist.

Haseen also took an oath swearing that he had never asked Humam to deny the charges levied against him, in response to ongoing public rumour that Haseen was behind Humam’s new denial.

Responding to the request made by Haseen, Judge Abdulla Didi denied the request for psychological testing, stating that Humam’s lawyer had not mentioned such a psychological disorder during the hearings held to extend Humam’s detention.

The judge further claimed Humam had pleaded with him to continue the trial behind closed doors.

Humam’s defence lawyer was allowed to enter the court only after Humam stood up without the permission of the judge and requested that his lawyer be present , and that he wished to proceed with his lawyer.

Speaking in the defence of the accused, Haseen contended that Humam had told him that the confession that he had given during the previous hearing was a result of threats by police.

His lawyer said Humam was warned that should he fail to comply with the deal offered by the police, they would charge him with other crimes of which he was accused.

The police also assured Humam that he would not be sentenced to death should he confess to the crime, Haseen alleged.

Witness’s narrative of the incident

During Saturday’s hearing the state presented two witnesses, included a minor alleged to have gone with Humam to Afrasheem’s residence, and the doctor who inspected the body.

The minor, who gave evidence over a distorted audio link and responded to questions from Humam’s defense lawyer Abdulla Haseen, said he knew Humam even before the events that led to the murder of the MP.

According to the minor, Humam had called him and told him that there was a ‘mission’. On the day the murder was carried out, Humam called him and requested him to meet up at Usfasgandu, while informing him that he had received briefings of what they needed to do to complete the said mission.

The witness told the court that he had gone to Usfasgandu, where he met with Humam and Ali Shan. After meeting up, the three then headed to ‘pad-park’ near Usfasgandu, where he claimed he saw Shan wielding a knife.

The witness told the court that they left the park and headed to ‘Kuda Kudhinge Bageecha’ – a children’s park located in front of Dr Afrasheem’s house. He claimed that Humam entered the residence and seconds later, a man carrying a stack of books entered into the same house, followed by Ali Shaan.

After a short while, Shaan called him. When he had entered the premises, he told the court he saw the man with the books brutally injured, lying on the floor.

The witness claimed that Humam was wielding a bloody knife and holding the hand of the injured man, which was also covered in blood. He also claimed that Ali Shan too had a knife.

Responding to the questions posed by Humam’s defence lawyer, the witness claimed  he had given evidence to the court on different occasions during November 2012.

When Haseen questioned whether the witness had been involved with previous criminal activities carried out by Humam, he answered stating that he had not, but said he had knowledge of what Humam had been doing.

As soon as Haseen began questioning the witness about his own criminal records, Judge Abdulla Didi stopped him stating that the questions did not have any relevance to the case at hand.

The doctor who had inspected the body of the deceased Afrasheem told the court through the assistance of a translator that there was no sign of life in Afrasheem’s body when he was brought to the hospital.

Explaining his observations, the doctor said that Afrasheem’s body had suffered severe injuries of the kind which could lead to death.

Next hearing

State prosecutors argued that Humam had confessed to the crime during the last hearing, as well as during a hearing held to determine the extension of his custody.

Therefore, the prosecution contested that it was a legitimate confession according to the constitution, that that therefore they felt that the court could issue a verdict based on the confession.

The judge concluded the hearing without announcing the date for a next hearing.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Court extends detention of MNDF officer accused of planning Dr Afrasheem’s murder

The Criminal Court has extended the detention period of Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) officer Azleef Rauf who was accused of planning the murder of Dr Afasheem Ali by Hussein Humam, the main suspect charged in the murder case.

Criminal Court Media Official Ahmed Mohamed Manik confirmed that Azleef’s pretrial detention period was extended yesterday (May 28).

‘‘He was brought before the judges last night,’’ he added.

Manik said police had charged Azleef with terrorism, intimidation, involvement in gang activities, participation in gang activities and conspiring to conduct criminal gang activities.

On May 22 Humam, the chief suspect arrested and charged in connection with the murder of Dr Afrasheem, said the idea of killing Dr Afrasheem was given to him by Azleef Rauf, who he met at a baibalaa tournament held in 2012.

Baibalaa is a sport played by young men in the Maldives in a sandy ring, requiring speed and agility.

Humam said during the tournament Azleef and that night sent him to pick up a kilogram of drugs from the airport that were smuggled in to the country by a Pakistani man. He said he dropped the drugs off to the house where a person he identified as ‘Mukkar’ lived.

According to a  statement read out in court on Humam’s behalf, he was invited to coffee with Azleef, Javid and his brother ‘Jana’, during which Azleef allegedly said “I promise you will get MVR4 million if you murder Dr Afrasheem,” to which Javid’s brother ‘Jana’ replied “yes you will.”

Rauf and Javid were also previously detained by police over their alleged involvement in the case. Both were later released by the court.

Javid spent 45 days in detention in connection to the Afrasheem murder, after which time his lawyer argued his continued detention was unconstitutional given there was no evidence to support keeping him in custody.

On the day of Javid’s release (January 17), his brother Shahin Mohamed was arrested by police while he was waiting with the rest of Javid’s family outside the court. Mohamed was released from police custody three hours after he was detained.

An MDP activist Mariyam Naifa was also arrested several days following the murder, and was subsequently released. Her lawyer at the time said she was arrested in connection to intelligence received by police in the Afrasheem case.

Immigration Controller Dr Mohamed Ali has since confirmed to the media that the passports of Abdulla ‘Jaa’ Javid, Adam ‘Spy’ Solah and Shahin Mohamed had been held in compliance with a request from police.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Couple charged with aborting child deny murder charges in court

The Criminal Court has  conducted its first hearing into charges of murder against a couple who allegedly aborted their 20-week old foetus.

The local media present at the court identified the couple as Aiminath Shaahy Aalam, 21 and Ibrahim Visam, 26, both from Addu City.

The mother Aiminath Shaahy Aalam was given the opportunity to respond to the charges and told the court she had previously stated how the incident occurred in the statement she gave to police.

The statement was read out in court, in which she confessed she had not sought medical care when she knew she was pregnant, and that she and her husband had discussed the matter and decided to abort the child. According to the statement, she confessed to taking abortion pills.

However, today in court she denied taking the pills with the intention of aborting the child and said she did not know what the pills she used were. She told the court she got the pills from a doctor working in the Dhilshaadh Clinic on Hithadhoo in Addu City.

In the statement she gave to the police investigators, she stated that her stomach had started aching at night while her husband was sleeping. She said said she woke up her husband and told him about it.

She said her husband then took off his shirt and she dropped the fetus on his shirt.

When the judge queried this, she said that she felt that something dropped on the shirt, but she didn’t see what it was, and neither did her husband showed her. Instead, he wrapped the shirt around it and put it into a plastic bag and took it away.

In  the court today, Aalam denied she was involved in killing the baby and told the judge that she wanted the state appoint a lawyer for her.

The father’s trial was also conducted today. He also denied the charges and requested the court give him time to appoint a lawyer, which the judge granted.

Police discovered the foetus buried on the beach of Maradhoo-Feydhoo in December 2012, after local witnesses reported a motorist acting suspiciously in the area, according to local media reports.

Abortion in the Maldives is illegal unless it is proved the conception is the result of rape, or that the pregnancy is a threat to the mother’s health.

The Prosecutor General’s Office forwarded the couple’s case to the Criminal Court on May 2.

Police have claimed that the buried foetus was found with its heart beating, but later died after being taken to the hospital.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

A justice system in crisis: UN Special Rapporteur’s report

UN Special Rapporteur for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, has expressed “deep concern” over the failure of the judicial system to address “serious violations of human rights” during the Maldives’ 30 year dictatorship, warning of “more instability and unrest” should this continue to be neglected.

“It is indeed difficult to understand why one former President is being tried for an act he took outside of his prerogative, while another has not had to answer for any of the alleged human rights violations documented over the years,” wrote Knaul, in her final report to the UN Human Rights Council following her Maldives mission in February 2013.

The report is a comprehensive overview of the state of the Maldivian judiciary and its watchdog body, the Judicial Services Commission (JSC). Knaul examines the judiciary’s handling of the trial of former President Nasheed, the controversial reappointment of unqualified judges in 2010, and the politicisation of the JSC.

Knaul also examines parliament’s failure to pass critical pieces of legislation needed for the proper functioning of the judiciary and “legal certainty”, as well as raises serious concerns about an impending budget catastrophe facing the judicial system.

“The immediate implications of the budget cuts on the judiciary are appalling. For instance, the Department of Judicial Administration only has funds to pay staff salaries until November 2013 and it had to cancel training this year,” Knaul notes.

“The Civil Court reported that it would not have sufficient funds to pay its staff salaries after October 2013; furthermore, existing budgetary resources would not be sufficient to pay for utilities and facilities after June 2013,” she adds.

The Nasheed trial

Former President Mohamed Nasheed is currently facing criminal charges in the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court for his detention of the Criminal Court’s Chief Judge, Abdulla Mohamed, days prior to the controversial transfer of power in February 2012.

“Judge Abdulla had allegedly shielded a number of powerful politicians in corruption cases by refusing to issue orders to investigate, and many complaints had been made regarding his conduct and supposed lack of ethics,” Knaul outlined.

“The Judicial Service Commission had completed an investigation on him in November 2011, holding him guilty of misconduct. This decision was appealed to the Civil Court, which ordered that the Judicial Service Commission’s complaint procedure be suspended.

“Although the Commission appealed the Civil Court’s ruling, Judge Abdulla was allowed to continue in his functions,” she added.

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) maintain the case against Nasheed is a politically-motivated attempt to convict and bar him from the September 7 presidential elections, while the new government has emphasised the judiciary’s independence and insisted on its policy of non-interference.

Following Knaul’s visit and her departure statement, several members of the JSC have also challenged the commission’s creation of the Hulhumale’ Court, and its appointment of the bench. The commission includes several of Nasheed’s direct political rivals, including a rival presidential candidate, resort tycoon, Jumhoree Party (JP) Leader and MP Gasim Ibrahim.

“The trial of the former President raises serious concerns regarding the fairness of proceedings,” Knaul notes, questioning the constitutionality of the Hulhumale’ Court and the appointment of the three-member panel of judges, “which seems to have been set up in an arbitrary manner, without following procedures set by law.”

“According to the law, the Prosecutor General’s office should have filed the case of Mr Nasheed with the Criminal Court. While the concerns of the Prosecutor General’s office regarding the evident conflict of interests in this case are understandable, since Judge Abdulla sits in this court, it is not for the Prosecutor to decide if a judge is impartial or not,” stated Knaul.

“The Prosecutor should act according to the law when filing a case, as it is the duty of judges to recuse themselves if they cannot be impartial in a particular case,” she explained.

“All allegations of unfair trial and lack of due process in Mr Nasheed’s case need to be promptly investigated, including the claims that the trial is being sped up to prevent Mr Nasheed’s participation in the 2013 elections,” she added.

Knaul noted a decision by the Supreme Court to declare the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court as legitimate after the Commission filed a case with it in 2012.

“The Special Rapporteur was informed that the judge of the Supreme Court who cast the deciding vote in this case also sits as a member of the Judicial Services Commission, whose decision to establish the Hulhumalé court as a magistrates court was under review,” the report noted.

Politicisation of the JSC

Knaul observed that the JSC had a “complicated” relationship with the judiciary, given that the commission “considers that it has exclusive jurisdiction over all complaints against judges, including over criminal allegations, while the Prosecutor General understands that the criminal investigation agencies have the competence to investigate criminal conducts by anyone.”

Knaul underlined that “judges and magistrates, as well as other actors of the justice system, are criminally accountable for their actions. Criminal actions entail consequences and penalties that are different from those resulting from disciplinary or administrative investigations.”

The special rapporteur stated that there was near unanimous consensus during her visit that the composition of the JSC – which draws members from sources outside the judiciary, such as parliament, the civil service commission and others – was “inadequate and politicised”. This complaint was first highlighted in a report by the International Committee of Jurists (ICJ) in 2010.

“Because of this politicisation, the commission has allegedly been subjected to all sorts of external influence and has consequently been unable to function properly,” said Knaul.

State of the courts

Conflicts of interest and the resulting impact on judges’ impartiality was also a concern, noted Knaul.

“It seems that judges, and other actors of the State, do not want to fully acknowledge and understand this concept, leading to the dangerous perception from the public that the justice system is politicised and even corrupted,” she said.

Knaul also expressed “shock to hear that many members of the judiciary, including in the Supreme Court, hold memberships in political parties.”

The Supreme Court, she noted, has meanwhile been “deciding on the constitutionality of laws ex-officio, without following appropriate examination procedures, under the understanding that they are the supreme authority for the interpretation of the Constitution.”

The relationship between prosecutors and the judiciary was also difficult, Knaul noted, expressing “serious concern” that some courts “use the threat of contempt of court and disbarment to impose their decisions and superiority over prosecutors.”

“The lack of a centralised case-management system does not facilitate their tasks either. In some places, such as Addu City, one prosecutor covers four courts and is often called to different hearings at the same time,” she observed.

“Symbolic” reappointment of judges

Two months prior to the end of the constitution’s transitional period and the deadline for the appointment of new judges according to moral and professional criteria – article 285 – the interim Supreme Court informed President Nasheed “that all its members would permanently remain on the bench.”

This action, Knaul noted, had “no legal or constitutional basis.”

“The five judges who had been sitting on the transitional bench were appointed to the seven-member permanent bench, leaving many with the perception that the Supreme Court was appointed in a politicised manner,” she noted.

The rest of the courts followed suit several months later at the conclusion of the interim period, with the Commission “opting for interpreting article 285 of the Constitution in a rather symbolic way and [not scrutinising] judges’ qualifications thoroughly.”

“For instance,” Knaul noted, “not all criminal allegations pending against judges were investigated. This resulted in a seemingly rushed reappointment of all sitting judges but six, which in the opinion of many interlocutors corrupted the spirit of the constitutional transitional provision.”

While the 2008 Constitution had “completely overturned the structure of the judiciary”, at the conclusion of the JSC’s work on article 285, “the same people who were in place and in charge, conditioned under a system of patronage, remained in their positions.”

As a result, “many believe that some judges who are currently sitting lack the proper education and training […] A simple judicial certificate, obtained through part-time studies, is the only educational requirement to become a judge.”

Way forward

Knaul’s report contains four pages of recommendations for judicial reform, starting with a “constitutional review” of the composition of the Judicial Services Commission – the same conclusion reached by the ICJ in 2010.

“The Maldives finds itself at a difficult crossroad, where the democratic transition is being tested, while remnants of its authoritarian past are still hovering,” Knaul observed, stating that the power struggle she witnessed during her visit had “serious implications on the effective realisation of the rule of law in the Maldives.”

Among many other recommendations, Knaul called on the government to show “strong and nonpartisan leadership”, by pushing for “constructive dialogue aimed at establishing clear priorities for the country, the adoption of necessary core legislation, and policy measures to consolidate the democracy. Such leadership should be guided by the Maldives’ obligations under international human rights law, which provide for a sound and sustainable foundation for democracy.”

She also noted that “the delicate issue of accountability for past human rights violations also needs to be addressed.”

Read the full report

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Media Council asks Criminal Court to stop obstructing press freedom

The Maldives Media Council (MMC) has requested the Criminal Court halt unconstitutional efforts to obstruct press freedom, reports local media.

The MMC sent a letter to the Criminal Court yesterday (May 26), addressed to Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed, in response to the court’s request that local media outlet Sun Online reveal a source related to a recently published article.

“The council believes that this impedes the protection guaranteed to journalists in article 28 of the Constitution, and also obstructs journalists’ freedom in carrying out their duties. We urge all groups to refrain from repeating such acts,” the letter stated.

Investigations by the MMC in regard to the article in question – for which the Criminal Court requested the source of information – revealed that the Ali Shifan murder case report was delayed due to an administrative error of the court.

The MMC also highlighted that Sun Online was the only media outlet requested to reveal their source(s), despite other local media groups reporting the incident in the same manner.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Two men charged with attack on Raajje TV reporter

Police have pressed charges against two suspects allegedly involved in the attack on Raajje TV Reporter Ibrahim ‘Aswad’ Waheed.

Ahmed Vishaan, 22, of Kerin Light in Male’s Maafanu neighborhood and Hassan Raihaan, 19, of Fehimaa in Male’s Galolhu neighborhood have been “accused of assault in a manner that can cause serious injuries,” Criminal Court Media Official Mohamed Manik told local media yesterday (May 22).

Vishaan was  been accused of hitting Aswad with a three foot iron rod in the face and head, while the journalist was on his motorcycle the night February 23, 2013 at around 1:18 am, said Manik.

Raihaan has been accused of “helping Vishaan flee the scene” via motorcycle after the attack on Aswad, he added.

Aswad, a senior reporter for the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)-aligned television station, was attacked with an iron bar while riding on a motorcycle near the  artificial beach area.

He was attacked while he was on his way to see two Maldives Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) journalists, who were admitted to hospital after being attacked during opposition-led protests.

Following the attack, Aswad was airlifted to Sri Lanka for emergency surgery. He later recovered and returned to the Maldives, telling local media he was very happy to return to the Maldives and would remain undeterred in his role as a journalist.

The attack on Aswad is one of the most serious assaults on a Maldivian journalist since blogger Hilath Rasheed had his throat slashed in an alleyway in mid-2012.

Rasheed was initially given a five percent chance of survival, but later recovered. He has since fled the country.

Press freedom

The Maldives plummeted to 103rd in the most recent Reporters Without Borders (RSF) Press Freedom Index, a fall of 30 places and a return to pre-2008 levels.

“The events that led to the resignation of President Mohamed Nasheed in February led to violence and threats against journalists in state television and private media outlets regarded as pro-Nasheed by the coup leaders,” RSF observed, in its annual ranking of 179 countries.

“Attacks on press freedom have increased since then. Many journalists have been arrested, assaulted and threatened during anti-government protests. On June 5, the freelance journalist and blogger Ismail “Hilath” Rasheed narrowly survived the first attempted murder of a journalist in the archipelago,” RSF noted in its report.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Chief suspect in Afrasheem case changes testimony, confesses to MP’s murder

The chief suspect in the MP Dr Afrasheem Ali murder case has confessed to the crime in Criminal Court today, after previously denying his involvement in the attack earlier this month.

Hussain Humam, of Male’s Henveiru Lobby, told the court today (May 22) that he carried out the fatal attack on Afrasheem with the help of Ali Shan of Male’s Henveiru Hikost, and that the juvenile suspect in the case was also present.

Earlier this month, Humam confessed in court to multiple stabbings, robberies and at least one murder, but denied murdering the MP.

State prosecutors told the court that Dr Afrasheem’s DNA was found on the jeans Humam was wearing that night, local media reported.

During the court hearing today, Humam was given the opportunity to respond to the evidence produced against him.

Humam told the judge that “now that this is very clear I have nothing to say.” When the judge queried as to whether he was confessing, Humam replied “yes”.

The prosecution lawyers produced the statement Humam gave on December 7, 2012, when he was brought before the court to extend his pre-trial detention period, the statement given by the minor arrested in connection with the case, evidence supporting that Humam went to Dr Afrasheem’s house that night, evidences of Humam’s attack and evidence that Dr Afrasheem died of injuries caused to his body from the attack.

The prosecution told the court that the statement given by the minor and the statement given by Humam on December 7 matched the evidence, and told the court that Dr Afrasheem’s DNA samples were obtained from the jeans worn by Humam the night of Dr Afrasheem’s death.

The prosecution also said that there were witnesses who wanted to testify in court that they had learned Humam and a group of people had planned to murder Dr Afrasheem. The lawyers requested the judge keep the witnesses statements closed to the public.

When the judge asked Humam for his response was, he replied that he had already spoken of how Dr Afrasheem’s murder was carried out, and requested the judge to read out his statement given on December 7.

Humam then said that the idea of killing Dr Afrasheem was given to him by Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) officer Azleef Rauf, who he met at the a baibalaa tournament held in 2012.

He said that at the baibalaa tournament Azleef had asked him not to get arrested, and that night sent him to pick up a kilogram of drugs from the airport that were smuggled in to the country by a Pakistani man. He said he dropped the drugs off to the house where a person he identified as ‘Mukkar’ lived.

Humam said he did it because Azleef had told him he would get half of the profit from selling it.

He said he was later sent by Azleef to Velidhoo island in Noonu Atoll to sell drugs, but the drugs they took did not sell and so he took it himself with a group of friends on the island.

Humam said he stayed on Velidhoo for three weeks and came back to Male’ on September 25, after Azleef called and asked him to come back.

According to Humam, after he came to Male’ he was invited to a coffee with Azleef, Javid and his brother ‘Jana’, where Azleef said that “I promise you will get MVR4 million if you murder Dr Afrasheem,” to which Javid’s brother ‘Jana’ replied “yes you will.”

Humam told the court that later he had met with a person called ‘Spy’ and Azleef where he asked them why he had to attack Afrasheem.

He said that they replied that one of the reasons they had to get rid of Dr Afrasheem was the remarks he made the day former President Mohamed Nasheed resigned.

Humam said Azleef had provided him with an identity card and money to buy SIM cards and mobile phones.

According to Humam, during that meeting ‘Spy’ and Azleef told him that they would meet again after Afrasheem had been murdered.

He said that on the evening of October 1, the night Afrasheem was killed, he went near the MP’s house to take a look after Azleef had asked him to do so.

The weapons and tools used in the attack were hidden in the house of a person called ‘Nangi’, Humam said.

He said he called ‘Nangi’ that night and asked him and Ali Shan [the second suspect charged with the murder] to come to his house.

When Shan and Humam went to Nangi’s house he came out with a big black dustbin bag which had jeans, tshirts, gloves, a machete and a bayonet knife.

The three of them went to the Henveiru park, got changed inside the park, and walked to Dr Afrasheem’s house. Humam said he waited inside the house for Shan to signal, who was waiting outside.

He said after a while Shan came inside and told him that Afrasheem was on the way, and 10 seconds later Afrasheem entered the house.

He said he then attacked Afrasheem with the machete and he felt to the ground, and then Shan came and attacked him with the bayonet knife.

Humam said he left the scene with Shan on a motorbike and stopped at the Shaheed Ali Mosque to wash his hands because he had blood on his jeans and tshirt.

He said he then went back to Henveiru Park and got changed again, and went to the Blue Bay Café where he again washed his hands.

Then he went inside the Henveiru Football ground to lie down, where he fell asleep and woke up the next morning when Azleef called him.

He said he walked out of the football ground to the near the State Bank of India, where he was arrested.

Humam said he had not received any amount of money from the murder, but said Azleef told him that he had received MVR1 million in advance.

He said he had seen himself hanged in his dreams and had talked about this to police officers. He also confessed that he had sent notes to Azleef through people released from pre-trial detention, and had tried to produce evidence in his defence.

Humam stated that on Ocotber 1, he spent the whole day drinking alcohol and smoking hash oil and did not go home after 3:00pm. He said that he finished four bottles of alcohol and smoked lots of hash.

He said he initially denied to the charges before thinking about what might happen to his family. But he said now wished to apologise to Dr Afrasheem’s family and repent.

When the Judge asked if there was anything else he would like to say, he said he would like to request the judge not sentence him to death.

MP Afrasheem was stabbed to death on the night of October 1 2012. His body was discovered by his wife at the bottom of the stairs of their apartment building shortly after midnight.

Humam’s next court hearing date has not yet been decided, Criminal Court Spokesperson Ahmed Mohamed Manik told Minivan News today.

“A lot of procedures need to be completed prior to Humam’s next hearing,” said Manik. “Afrasheem’s family will be brought in to see what they want [in regard to whether they call for Humam to receive the death penalty].”

Shan’s Criminal Court case has yet to start.

It is unclear whether police intend to make additional arrests in light of Humam’s allegations.

Given that the investigation process is ongoing, the police will “reveal information as it progresses,” a police spokesperson told Minivan News today.

Earlier this May, the Juvenile Court sentenced a minor arrested in connection with Dr Afrasheem Ali’s murder to eight months imprisonment after the court found him guilty of misleading the police investigation.

Police Commissioner Abdullah Riyaz has previously claimed the child “deliberately misled” police by providing false information during their investigation into Afrasheem’s murder. The minor was the “lookout” during the stabbing and subsequent murder of the moderate Islamic scholar, Riyaz had alleged on December 4.

Rauf and Javid were also previously detained by police over their alleged involvement in the case. Both were later released by the court.

Javid spent 45 days in detention in connection to the Afrasheem murder, after which time at the time his lawyer argued his continued detention was unconstitutional given there was no evidence to support keeping him in custody.

On the day of Javid’s release (January 17), his brother Shahin Mohamed was taken away “without any warning” by police whilst waiting with Javid’s family outside of the court. Mohamed was released from police custody three hours after he was taken away by police.

In December last year the MDP accused the police of attempting to pin Afrasheem’s murder on its members, instead of going after those guilty of the crime.

Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz has previously alleged that the murder of the MP was “well planned” and worth MVR 4 million (US$260,000), the same amount stated by Humam in court.

Humam’s confession closely follows a statement from the UN team in the Maldives calling for the abolition of the death penalty.

At the same time, a US State Department report into religious freedom released earlier this week noted that one of the “more prominent theories” about the murder of moderate Islamic scholar and parliamentarian Afrasheem Ali was “that violent extremists viewed Afrasheem’s very public moderate approach to Islam as apostasy and killed him to send a message to moderate Muslims that a strict interpretation of Islam is the only acceptable approach.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Maleesha Hajj Group owner denies fraud charges in court

Maleesha Hajj Group owner Islmail Abdul Latheef ,who is being accused of fraudulently collecting funds from Maldivians who wanted to perform Hajj in Mecca last year, has denied charges against him in the Criminal Court.

Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed today asked Ismail Abdul Latheef to state the reasons as to why he had denied the charges. Latheef requested he be given time to respond.

Judge Abdulla Mohamd asked Ismail Abdul Latheef to state his reasons during the next hearing held.

At today’s hearing the state was given the opportunity to produce evidence against him, however the state attorney refused to produce the evidence before Ismail Abdul Latheef stated his reasons as to why he was denying the charges.

The PG has alleged that Latheef had fraudulently obtained MVR 8 million (US$519,000 ) from many people after they made payments to the Maleesha Hajj Group to travel to Mecca to perform Hajj.

Latheef was arrested in Colombo, Sri Lanka in November 2012, a month after police issued an Interpol red notice to locate and apprehend him. Authorities were reported to have arrested Latheef while he was in the Mount Lavinia Hotel in Colombo.

Hajj groups are authorised by the government to provide transport and accommodation for pilgrims in Mecca, as well as offering guidance in helping them complete the religious rituals.

At the time, Sri Lankan police told local newspaper Haveeru that Abdul Latheef was suspected of being involved in a Sri Lankan money laundering ring as well, and that he was also suspected of collecting money from Sri Lankans.

Latheef’s father is the head of the Athama Hajj Group.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)