Tag: criminal court

Government slams UK lord’s op-ed on Nasheed trial

The government has responded furiously to a Huffington Post opinion piece  by a member of Britain’s House of Lords about the trial of former president Mohamed Nasheed, calling it inaccurate, one-sided, and “an act of gross irresponsibility”.

Lord David Alton’s article called for targeted sanctions and a boycott of tourist resorts linked to the government following Nasheed’s conviction on terrorism charges.

In an open letter to Lord Alton from the Maldives High Commission to the UK, the government said that as a member of the All-Party British-Maldives Parliamentary Group the independent cross-bench life peer had been kept regularly informed about the opposition leader’s trial.

“Nevertheless, you have decided to comment on the trial in such an inaccurate and public manner, that it will further exacerbate the domestic ramifications of the case for our young democracy. This is incredibly disappointing,” reads the letter.

The government was “a firm defender of freedom of speech,” but “it is our opinion that your authorship of an op-ed piece of such inaccuracy and one-sidedness was an act of gross irresponsibility,” it continued.

The response forms part of a diplomatic offensive by the government aiming to counter criticism of Nasheed’s trial by the United Nations, Amnesty International and several governments.

Lord Alton described Nasheed’s terrorism trial as “an extraordinary farce” and a “gross miscarriage of justice” in a piece entitled “We must send the Maldivian regime a clear, unambiguous and robust message: Their behaviour is unacceptable”, published on March 22.

The op-ed contained a “litany of inaccuracies,” the government contended, whilst uninformed commentary in the international media “only serves to perpetuate the spread of misinformation and baseless rumour”.

The High Commission’s letter noted that Nasheed was charged under the 1990 Anti-Terrorism Act, for ordering the military to “unlawfully and unconstitutionally abduct Chief Judge Abdullah in January 2012.”

“The government of Maldives would like to make it clear that there is no conspiracy by the government to unwarrantedly convict Mr Nasheed,” it added, reiterating that the executive could “neither interfere nor influence any decision of the Prosecutor General or the judiciary.”

Information wars

The High Commission repeated demonstrably false claims in letters from the government sent both to stakeholders in India and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

The letter falsely claimed that Nasheed was presented before a judge a day after his arrest for “a procedural remand hearing” whilst his lawyers were not present as they had failed to register.

However, Nasheed was brought to court for the first hearing of his trial after his lawyers had been told they should have registered two days in advance, despite being unaware of the trial until the opposition leader’s arrest the previous day.

The letter suggested that Lord Alton confused “allegations that two of [the] judges were witnesses for the prosecution with the court’s refusal to hear Mr Nasheed’s defence witnesses.”

The prosecutor general and two of the three presiding judges were at Judge Abdullah’s home at the time of his arrest and had testified in a 2012 Human Rights Commission investigation.

Meanwhile, the presiding judges later refused to call any of Nasheed’s witnesses to the stand, claiming they did not appear to “negate” the prosecution’s case.

The letter also dismissed Lord Alton’s claim that police manhandled Nasheed – which was widely reported and shown on television – insisting that police followed standard procedure.

Lord Alton had meanwhile called for “targeted sanctions” against the Maldives, suspension from the Commonwealth, and Nasheed’s nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize.

“The European Union should freeze the assets of senior regime officials and their crony backers. A travel ban should be imposed on senior regime leaders,” he wrote.

“And a carefully targeted tourism boycott, aimed at resorts owned by regime associates, is needed. Sir Richard Branson has already called for such a boycott, and others should join that call.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

A new storm brewing over the Maldives

The following article is by Paulo Casaca, the Executive Director of the South Asia Democratic Forum (SADF).

Many Europeans flock to the beautiful Islands of the Maldives to spend their honeymoon, discover the amazing scuba diving possibilities, and walk in pure sandy beaches and to enjoy the warm hospitality of people of the island state. The Maldives is often referred to as Paradise on earth. Today, this statement could not be further from the truth. Many visitors are unaware of the political and constitutional turmoil, the increasing danger posed by fundamentalists, the inefficient and politicized judiciary, and the erosion of human rights and democratic principles. They are neatly tucked away on island resorts, while Malé is once again prone to turn into a battleground.

The 30 year long authoritarian era of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, who ruled the country from 1978 to 2008, formally came to an end seven years ago, but the reality on the ground is different. Gayoom has managed to keep a firm grip on power through old friends, family members and beneficiaries.
When Mohamed Nasheed, a long time democracy campaigner won the country’s first multi-party elections in 2008, there was hope the longest reigning autocracy in South Asia would come to an end. Nasheed was able to initiate first steps in democratizing the island state, but his efforts were blocked by a destructive opposition that continued to act ewithin the same obstructive and totalitarian logic of the past. The 2012 coup d’état that ousted Nasheed from power, half-way through his term, showed that the forces of oppression had not been silenced and were still alive and kicking.

The dysfunctional state of democracy, especially with regards to the judiciary, became blatantly evident in the recent terrorism charges and sentencing of Nasheed through what can only be described as a “show trial.” The fact that judges presiding over the trial had acted as prosecution’s witnesses says it all. Not only are judged politicised, biased, and negligent of the constitution, they also lack professional education and training. In May 2013, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judged and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul described the Maldivian Justice system as a “system in crisis” and expressed great concern over political bias and low qualifications. Nothing has changed in the past two years.

And nothing will change, if the international community shies away from robust measures. In 2004, the EU’s threatened sanctions on the Maldives in the wake of human rights abuses and totalitarian governance void of any democratic principles. Only then did the regime, under the auspices of supranational bodies, start changing its atrocious behaviour towards its own people. Only when the party cadre was affected personally, did they slowly and unwillingly soften their chocking grip on civil society and the hope of freedom.
Issuing statements is a good and necessary first step. It creates awareness, and generates and increases the interest of the public. But it is not enough.

If democracy wants to have a chance in the Maldives, the international community must help pro-democratic forces. Roughly a decade after the first wave of sanctions, the EU especially, has to consider imposing them again. Freezing foreign assets and all non-humanitarian aid as well as issuing travel bans are efficient tools in this regard.

There is a old Maldivian proverb, Furifá huri badiyale gudu gude naalhaane (roughly translated from Divehi: “The water pot that is full will not shake”). Under Nasheed, water was poured into the water pot, but it trickled away due to existing holes and new holes added by the then-opposition. Now the vessel is on the brink of being completely emptied. The EU and other supranational institutions should play their role in preventing the water from being absorbed by the authoritarian modus operandi.

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected].

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed to sue four Criminal Court judges for defamation

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has decided to sue Criminal Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed along with the three judges who presided over his terrorism trial for defamation.

In a press release today, the opposition leader’s legal team accused the Criminal Court of falsely claiming in the media on Thursday night (March 26) that it would release the full court report required for the High Court appeal as Nasheed had signed the transcripts.

However, the Criminal Court has yet to provide transcripts despite the legal team’s March 15 letter requesting the full case report. The court has made no move to get Nasheed to sign the transcripts, they added.

The Criminal Court found Nasheed guilty of terrorism on March 13 over the military detention of Judge Abdulla in January 2012. Many international and domestic observers have expressed concern over the rushed trial, claiming it was marred by major irregularities including the court’s refusal to call defence witnesses.

Nasheed’s lawyers and supporters last week urged the Criminal Court to release a report of case proceedings, but the court had previously blamed the delay in issuing the full report on Nasheed and his lawyers’ alleged refusal to sign statements made during court hearings.

In today’s press release, lawyers said the court had showed Nasheed a transcript of proceedings from the first hearing of the trial, but the former president refused to sign it as it did not accurately represent his statements at court.

“President Mohamed Nasheed requested amending the document by including what he said at court. But the Criminal Court has not done so to date,” lawyers explained.

The court attempted to get Nasheed to sign the transcripts on March 13, the press release continued, but Nasheed told the court officer he would sign it in the presence of his lawyers.

“The Criminal Court has been repeatedly saying that the report has been provided to us because President Nasheed has not signed it. However, the court has not made any attempt to get President Nasheed’s signature on the statements that should be included in the report,” the press release added.

The court’s subsequent claim last Thursday night that Nasheed has signed the report was therefore “a blatant lie.”

“Therefore, President Nasheed has decided to file a defamation suit at the Civil Court against Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed and the three judges who presided over the case,” the press release stated.

The three judges are Judges Abdul Bari Yoosuf, Abdulla Didi and Sujau Usman.

Nasheed’s lawyers on March 26 announced the opposition leader would not seek an appeal at the High Court, stating he believed there was no opportunity for justice due to executive control of the judiciary.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Calls grow for President Yameen to intervene, resolve political crisis

Following imprisoned former President Mohamed Nasheed’s decision not to seek an appeal, the Maldivian Democracy Network has called on President Abdulla Yameen to intervene and resolve Maldives’ deepening political crisis.

Nasheed, convicted of terrorism and sentenced to 13 years in jail, said he desired a political solution, claiming the judiciary is under executive control and could not assure a fair appeal process.

Hence, “the only state power with the capacity to act equitably on the matter is the President,” MDN said in a statement today.

“We believe President Yameen must take immediate action in light of the manner in which the criminal proceedings were held, with a view to bring an end to the continued civil unrest in the country,” the human rights advocacy group said.

Hundreds have been arrested in opposition protests and police have threatened a crackdown claiming protesters were disrupting local businesses and inciting violence against the police.

Meanwhile, the Elections Commission has fined Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and its ally Adhaalath Party (AP) with MVR 47,000 and MVR 33,000, respectively.

The MDP and former ruling coalition partner Jumhooree Party (JP) first began daily protests on February 10, against President Yameen’s alleged constitutional breaches. Former Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim and Nasheed were subsequently arrested and brought swiftly to trial over weapons smuggling and terrorism, respectively.

Over 10,000 protesters took to the streets on February 27 calling for President Yameen’s resignation.

The government meanwhile ordered JP Leader Gasim Ibrahim’s Villa Group to pay US$100 million in unpaid rents and fines by March 30 on properties leased for resort development.

On March 17, AP withdrew support for Yameen’s administration and joined the MDP in an alliance against brutality. Opposition protests are now entering a seventh consecutive week.

Nasheed was sentenced on March 13 and Nazim was sentenced to 11 years in jail on March 26.

Explaining Nasheed’s decision not to seek an appeal, lawyer Hisaan Hussein on March 26 said: “As a former President, he is certain the judiciary is not independent, that President Yameen has full control over the judiciary. He is certain he will not gain a fair appeal.”

The Criminal Court’s decision to deny Nasheed legal representation, refusal to call defence witnesses, and refusal to provide adequate time to prepare defence demonstrates the former president would not be assured a fair appeal at the High Court, lawyers said.

High Court judges are “under pressure,” Hisaan said, noting the judiciary had not yet decided which judges were to be relocated to the regional courts in the north and south.

According to a December 2014 amendment to the Judicature Act, pushed through by the ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM), the nine-judge High Court bench is to be divided into three branches. Only the central branch in Malé could hear matters relating to the interpretation of laws or elections. The regional branches are to only hear appeals.

Hisaan said Nasheed believed the allocation of judges depended on the outcome of his appeal.

“There will be no justice in any of the appeal processes,” she said.

MDP Chairperson Ali Waheed on Thursday called on Yameen to show leadership as head of state and pardon Nasheed.

“I call on you, President Abdulla Yameen to use your presidential powers and pardon the opposition leader, pardon him and end this political turmoil,” he said.

Article 29(c) of the Clemency Act states that the President has the discretion, on his own initiative, to commute a sentence of a person convicted on a criminal offence, with regards to their age, health, their status or circumstances or based on a humanitarian perspective.

The President’s Office spokesperson, the Attorney General and the PPM parliamentary group leader were not responding to calls.

President Yameen has previously said the government could neither interfere nor influence the decisions of the judiciary.

The UN Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul said the trial made a “mockery” of the Maldives Constitution and said: “The speed of proceedings combined with the lack of fairness in the procedures lead me to believe the outcome of the trial may have been pre-determined.”

Meanwhile, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein said the trial was “hasty and apparently unfair” and urged Nasheed be given adequate time to prepare and present his defence during the appeal process.

Foreign Minister Dunya Maumoon has since invited the United Nations Secretary General, the Commonwealth, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the EU to send experts to observe Nasheed’s appeal process.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nazim unfairly sentenced after an investigation and trial “rigged with irregularities,” says MDP

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has condemned in the “strongest terms” the sentencing of former Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim to 11 years in jail.

The Criminal Court on March 26 found Nazim guilty of smuggling weapons. Denying the accusation, Nazim had said the weapons were planted at his home by rogue officers on the orders of Tourism Minister Ahmed Adeeb.

Both the police and the Tourism Minister have dismissed Nazim’s claims as baseless and untrue.

The MDP said Nazim was sentenced in an investigation and a trial “rigged with irregularities.”

“Despite the state not being able to disprove the contradictions in testimony given by state witnesses and the irregularities in the Police investigation raised by the defence, the court sentenced Col. (Rtd) Nazim to 11 years in jail,” the party said in a statement today.

The MDP noted the Criminal Court did allow Nazim’s legal team to call the majority of defence witnesses on the claim they would “not negate” the prosecution’s evidence.

The opposition party also said the court had refused to address the “blatant irregularities” evident in the Maldives Police Service’s investigation of the case, ranging from the initial warrant to search the former Defence Minister’s residence, to the chain of custody process in relation to the weapons that were supposedly found in his apartment.

The statement also noted the “unlawful” trial was presided over by the same three judges who sentenced former President Mohamed Nasheed to 13 years in jail on terrorism charges on March 13.

“The sentences against President Mohamed Nasheed and Col. (Rtd) Nazim, arrests of over 120 people, including MPs and media, and the sending of 90 cases for prosecution against people detained from peaceful protests highlight the politicisation of the entire criminal justice system,” the MDP said.

‘There is no separation between the Government and the Judiciary in the pursuit of their political objectives. Their attempts to eliminate their political opponents through politically motivated charges and sham trials do not contain even a veneer of due process,” said MDP Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed conviction “grossly unfair,” highlights “judicial politicisation,” says ICJ

The conviction of former President Mohamed Nasheed on terrorism charges was “grossly unfair” and highlighted “judicial politicisation,” the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) have said in a press release today.

The opposition leader was sentenced to 13 years in prison on March 13 over the “kidnapping or abduction” by the military of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

“The Maldivian judiciary’s independence has been compromised for years by serious pressure from the government, and this grossly unfair conviction highlights the numerous problems with the politicization of the judiciary in the country,” said Sam Zarifi, the ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.

“It is crucial for Maldivian authorities to allow Mr. Nasheed to appeal his case effectively, with transparency and monitoring by Maldivian and international observers.”

ICJ contended that trial was marred by “gross violations of international standards of fair trial, including Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the Maldives acceded in 2006.”

Among the violations listed by the ICJ included two of the three judges presiding over the trial having testified in the 2012 investigation, denial of legal representation for Nasheed during the first hearing on February 23, and the denial to the defence team of both full access to evidence and state witnesses and the opportunity to consult with Nasheed.

Moreover, ICJ noted that the court denied Nasheed the opportunity to seek new representation after his lawyers quit in protest of the court’s refusal to grant sufficient time to mount a defence.

“The defence was also denied the opportunity to call its own witnesses,” the press release added.

Following Nasheed’s conviction, President’s Office Spokesperson Ibrahim Muaz Ali told Minivan News that the president could not “interfere in judicial proceedings and is not to blame for court proceedings,”

“If you study this case, from the beginning to the end, it is clear the charges are not politically motivated,” Muaz insisted.

President Abdulla Yameen meanwhile called on all parties to respect the verdict and noted that the opposition leader has “a constitutionally guaranteed right of appeal.”

“The government calls on its international partners to engage constructively, based on mutual respect and dialogue in consolidating and strengthening democratic values and institutions in the country,” read a statement issued by the President’s Office.

Appeal

ICJ contended that Nasheed’s “right to appeal has been infringed by the unprecedented amendment of the statutory period for appeal from 90 days to 10 days, via Supreme Court circular six weeks prior to the trial.”

“In addition, the court has still not released to Mr. Nasheed’s defense team the full court record required to prepare and present an effective appeal within this accelerated timeframe,” the press release added.

It noted that the organisation has previously documented both the “politicisation of the judiciary” and the “polarised political climate in the Maldives, calling attention to a justice system characterised by vested interests and political allegiances rooted in the country’s authoritarian past.”

“Recent events reflect a justice system that still remains deeply politicised along the same lines of entrenched political loyalties that pre-date the transition period,” said Zarifi.

“The Maldivian judiciary must allow a proper appeal in this case if it is to establish itself as a separate and equal branch of the government dedicated to supporting the rule of law.”

The ICJ called on the government to ensure full acess and adequate opportunity for Nasheed’s lawyers to prepare an appeal, “and to ensure that the appeal proceeding is conducted fairly and transparently, with full access to media and domestic and international observers, in compliance with fair trial and due process standards under both Maldivian and international law.”

“The Maldives must also take effective measures to ensure that such violations do not reoccur in this or future cases,” the ICJ said.

Related to this story:

Nasheed to wait on appeal until Criminal Court provides full case report

Nasheed’s terrorism trial “a mockery” of Constitution, verdict “may have been pre-determined,” says Knaul

UN human rights chief expresses strong concern over “hasty and apparently unfair” Nasheed trial

US, EU, and UK concerned over lack of due process in Nasheed trial

Respect Criminal Court verdict, says President Yameen

Former President Nasheed found guilty of terrorism, sentenced to 13 years in prison

ICJ says Majlis has “decapitated the country’s judiciary”

Runaway judiciary leaves the Maldives “at a dangerous junction,” says Velezinee

 

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Former MDP President Dr Didi arrested

Former Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) President Dr Ibrahim Didi was arrested on Wednesday for attending opposition protests in violation of a Criminal Court order, reports online news outlet CNM.

Didi was arrested during a protest on February 27 and accused of obstructing police duty. After being held in remand detention for 10 days, the former fisheries minister was released on March 10 on the condition that he not attend protests for 30 days.

Police said Didi was arrested today in connection to an ongoing investigation.

Most people arrested during the ongoing opposition protests are released on the condition that they do not participate in protests for a period determined by the court. Human Rights NGO Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN) has described the move as unconstitutional, arguing the condition violated the right to freedom of assembly and expression.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed to wait on appeal until Criminal Court provides full case report

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has decided to wait on appealing a 13-year jail term until the Criminal Court provides both a full transcript of court proceedings and sufficient time to prepare, despite a looming appeal deadline of Thursday (March 26).

The Criminal Court has so far only provided a judgment summary, and not a full case report as requested by lawyers.

The court today blamed the delay in issuing the full report on Nasheed and his lawyers’ alleged refusal to sign statements they had made during court hearings.

Another unnamed individual had also failed to sign off their statements, the Criminal Court said, adding that it could not release full proceedings without the required signatures.

“We hereby publicly announce that if there is a delay in releasing the detailed case report, it is not because this court has failed in its duty, but because Mohamed Nasheed and his lawyers have not cooperated with the court,” the court said in a statement.

But Nasheed’s lawyers said the former president had refused to sign the statements only because they contained serious errors, which they say the Criminal Court has so far refused to correct.

“For example, the statement of witness testimony from the Chief of Defence Force contains statements he did not make in court. Further, the Criminal Court omitted President Nasheed’s request for medical attention at the first hearing on February 23,” lawyer Hisaan Hussein told Minivan News.

She also noted the statements were not a transcript of all that was said at court, but a summary, which had resulted in omissions and paraphrasing of the actual comments.

In a statement issued today, Nasheed’s lawyers said the Criminal Court has been “repeatedly obstructing President Nasheed’s constitutional right to appeal and imposing administrative restrictions by failing to provide the court report to date.”

“The full case report would include the testimonies of prosecutor’s witness which was recounted by the Judge wrongly, submissions made regarding documentary evidence, closing statement submitted by the prosecution, detailed findings of the judges with reference to the evidences and conflicting rulings made on many aspects of procedural law which was contended during the trial.

“Additionally, since the first and last three hearings were conducted in the absence of legal representation, the arguments and submissions made by the prosecution regarding witness testimonies, documentary evidence and closing statement will be known only after we receive the full case report,” lawyers said.

A High Court appeal could be filed solely based on the judgment summary, but Nasheed’s lawyers said they would then only have the opportunity to argue within the parameters raised in the initial submission.

As issues contended in subsequent hearings would only be considered at the discretion of judges, it is imperative that Nasheed receives the case report to prepare his appeal, lawyers said.

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor claimed the Criminal Court is “using every procedural trick in the book to deny President Nasheed’s right to appeal.”

“The Criminal Court conducted a disgraceful and blatantly politicized trial, and now they are busy trying to hamper the appeal,” he added.

Nasheed was convicted of terrorism on March 13 over the January 2012 military detention of Judge Abdulla in a trial many international and domestic observers called a “travesty of justice.”

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein and the UN Special Rapporteur on Independence of Lawyers and Judges Gabriela Knaul last week urged the Maldives to guarantee that Nasheed’s appeal would respect the most stringent fair trial standards and observe due process, including adequate time for preparation.

The surprise trial began one day after Nasheed was arrested on February 22, and was completed after 11 hearings in 19 days.

“It is hard to see how such hasty proceedings, which are far from the norm in the Maldives, can be compatible with the authorities’ obligations under international law to conduct a fair trial,” Zeid said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Witness testimony concludes in trials of former Defence Minister Tholhath, ex-Colonel Ziyad

The Criminal Court today concluded hearing witness testimony in the terrorism trials of former Defence Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfan and ex-Colonel Mohamed Ziyad.

The pair are accused of involvement in the military’s detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012. Former President Mohamed Nasheed has already been found guilty of ordering the arrest and sentenced to 13 years in prison.

According to local media, the last state witness testified at today’s hearings, and the lawyers for both defendants said they would address the state’s evidence during closing statements at the final hearing.

Testifying in both hearings today, Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) Colonel Ibrahim Rasheed said Tholhath had claimed that he would take responsibility for the chief judge’s 22-day detention in Girifushi island.

In Ziyad’s case, the colonel said a special operation was conducted on January 16, 2012, to take the judge into military custody, but said he was unaware of details of the operation.

Both Tholhath and Ziyad declined to present defence witnesses. However, Ziyad’s lawyer requested the opportunity to address the testimony of state’s witnesses as well as documentary evidence during closing arguments.

Closing statements in the trial of former Chief of Defence Forces Major General Moosa Ali Jaleel – currently President Abdulla Yameen’s defence minister – are due to be heard at a hearing scheduled for tonight, after which judges could deliver a verdict at their discretion.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)