Tag: criminal court

Police dismiss reporters’ terror claim against Criminal Court

The Maldives Police Services has rejected a complaint filed by three journalists alleging the Criminal Court had abducted them inside the Justice Building on Friday night (March 13).

The journalists from CNM, state broadcaster Television Maldives (TVM) and Avas said court clerks refused repeated requests to let them out of the building to inform their readers of the outcome of a 9:15pm hearing in former President Mohamed Nasheed’s terrorism trial.

All trial observers and journalists were held for nearly two hours inside the building after the initial hearing, as judges deliberated on a verdict.  They were not allowed to use their phones or communicate with the reporters gathered outside.

Journalists and observers had not previously been informed a verdict would be delivered on the same night.

When Mohamed Afsal, Misbah Abbas and Muizz Ibrahim reiterated requests to be allowed to leave the courthouse, court officials refused to allow them outside or inside the courtroom for the verdict later. The three were held in the waiting area until the verdict was delivered.

The journalists accused the Criminal Court of kidnapping and terrorism.

However, police dismissed the case stating they do not have the jurisdiction to investigate the case, and recommended the complaint be filed at the Judicial Services Commission instead.

The Criminal Court had previously barred opposition aligned Rajje TV journalists from attending court proceedings, claiming a journalist from the private broadcaster had threatened Judge Abdul Bari Yoosuf, one of the three judges who presided over Nasheed’s trial.

The station has denied the court’s claims.

 

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Respect Criminal Court verdict, says President Yameen

President Abdulla Yameen has called on all parties to respect the Criminal Court’s verdict against former President Mohamed Nasheed.

In a statement released by the President’s Office last night, President Yameen noted that the opposition leader has “a constitutionally guaranteed right of appeal” to challenge his conviction on terrorism charges at the High Court.

“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,” reads the brief statement.

“The government remains steadfast in ensuring the separation of powers as stipulated under the Maldivian constitution and upholding the rule of law in the country.”

In the wake of the Criminal Court sentencing the opposition leader to 13 years in jail on Friday night (March 13), the United States, United Kingdom and the European Union expressed concern with the lack of due process, while Amnesty International said Nasheed’s conviction “after a deeply flawed and politically motivated trial is a travesty of justice.”

Domestically, the Human Rights Commission of Maldives said the former president was denied fundamental rights that guarantee a fair trial in line with the Maldives’ obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Moreover, human rights NGO Maldivian Democracy Network urged the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges to intervene in order to prevent a “slide back to autocracy,” whilst Transparency Maldives expressed “grave concern” and stressed that Nasheed was denied legal representation, the right to appeal, and sufficient time to mount a defence.

However, President’s Office Spokesperson Ibrahim Muaz Ali told Minivan News yesterday that he believed the Criminal Court “would have afforded due process in the conduct of Nasheed’s trial.”

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

President Yameen as head of state could not “interfere in judicial proceedings and is not to blame for court proceedings,” he said.

Intervention

Commonwealth Secretary-General Kamalesh Sharma released a statement yesterday noting that the intergovernmental organisation would continue to closely follow the judicial process after the verdict.

The Commonwealth urged restraint and advised peaceful resolution of “differences of view” through dialogue.

“The Foreign Minister of Maldives, Hon Dunya Maumoon, has made recent public comments welcoming constructive and close dialogue with international organisations,” the statement read.

The Commonwealth assured its commitment to working with the Maldives to address issues of concern.

“All societies should have the space and opportunity for dialogue in order to ensure that universally shared values are advanced, and to create a stable and harmonious future,” the statement continued.

“All societies should also have national institutions that enjoy the confidence, trust and respect of the people they serve. The Commonwealth is committed to offering practical support in a collaborative partnership to achieve these goals in an enduring way.”

The Asian Centre for Human Rights (ACHR) has meanwhile called on the UN to hold an emergency session on the situation in the Maldives.

The ACHR “urged the members of the UN Security Council to take necessary measures to seize assets and freeze accounts of President of Maldives Mr Abdulla Yameen, Foreign Minister Dunya Maumoon, Prosecutor General Muhthaz Muhsin and the three judges overseeing Nasheed’s trial i.e. Abdulla Didi, Abdul Bari Yoousuf and Sujau Usman and other key officials of the regime, impose travel restrictions and trade embargo, and withhold financial assistance and technical cooperation to the Maldives until the release of Nasheed.”

“The trial is a travesty of justice – Judge [Abdulla Mohamed] who claims himself to have been illegally detained for which former President Nasheed was charged under terrorism charges still heads the Criminal Court trying Nasheed and effectively allowed his deputy, Judge Abdulla Didi, to convict Nasheed in a kangaroo trial. If the United Nations and international community fail to intervene now, democracy may never return to the Maldives,” said ACHR Director Suhas Chakma.

The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (Forum-Asia) also condemned the verdict and noted that Nasheed was “never investigated for the fresh charges of terrorism before trial.”

“The trial of Nasheed was riddled with numerous violations of basic human rights and fair trial standards, and his conviction must be condemned. This is a clear case of political persecution and therefore the verdict is not surprising, considering the manner in which the court has conducted the trial,” said Forum-Asia Executive Director Evelyn Balais-Serrano.

Related to this story

Democracy Network alerts UN Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges on Nasheed’s sham trial

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

“This is not a court of law. This is injustice,” Nasheed tells the Criminal Court

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

Nasheed trial “not free or fair,” says Maldivian Democracy Network

Former President Nasheed appears in court with arm in makeshift sling

 

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Democracy Network alerts Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges on Nasheed’s sham trial

Human Rights group Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN) has urged the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers to investigate the jailing of former President Mohamed Nasheed on terrorism charges.

The “independence of the judiciary has been lost,” MDN said in a letter to Gabriela Knaul, stating President Abdulla Yameen was using the judiciary as a tool to “oppress the opposition.”

“We fear that without timely intervention, the country will complete its slide back to autocracy. We strongly urge you to investigate the matter further and issue a public statement denouncing this flagrant abuse of rights being perpetuated through the Maldives’ judiciary,” the letter read.

MDN called upon the international community to take serious measures to prevent further human rights violations at the “helm of a corrupt judiciary.”

The former president was convicted of terrorism and sentenced to 13 years in prison last night (March 13) over the January 2012 military detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Nasheed’s administration detained Judge Abdulla after deeming him a national security threat. Then- Home Minister Hassan Afeef accused the judge 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 and corruption cases.

Delivering the guilty verdict last night, Judge Abdulla Didi said the prosecution’s evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that Nasheed ordered the chief judge’s arrest or “forceful abduction.”

The NGO described the trial as a “political tool designed to disqualify him from contesting future elections and silence his voice of political opposition,” noting that the trial took place at an “uncharacteristically extreme speed.”

“The systematic procedural irregularities in the current proceedings demonstrate that the current charges against Nasheed are a continuation of the same campaign to disqualify him from political office and effectively silence his political dissent in the Maldives, using a corrupt and biased judicial system to realise this goal,” said MDN.

All four of Nasheed’s lawyers quit on March 9 in protest of the Criminal Court’s refusal to grant sufficient time to examine the prosecution’s evidence and mount a defence.

The presiding judges had denied the lawyers’ request for adequate time, stating the legal team has had the case documents for three years.

Meanwhile, the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) said today Nasheed “was denied fundamental rights which guarantee a fair trial by the constitution, and some rights granted by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”

HRCM noted that the Criminal Court denied requests made by the commission to observe trials.

Advocacy group Transparency Maldives (TM) also expressed “grave concern” on the guilty verdict, stressing Nasheed was denied legal representation, right to appeal and adequate time to build a defence against new terror charges.

TM also noted that the “serious issues of conflict of interest were prevalent in the case” with two of the three judges presiding over the case having provided statements during the investigation.

“These procedural irregularities raise serious questions about the fairness, transparency and independence of the judicial process followed and the provision of the accused’s inalienable right to a fair trial,” read a TM statement today.

TM called upon state actors to “uphold democratic principles and international conventions”, while urging the public and law enforcement agencies to “exercise restraint and calm in order to mitigate further deterioration of the security situation in the Maldives.”

Knaul had previously expressed concern over lack of due process in a 2012 trial in which Nasheed had been charged with “arbitrarily detaining” Judge Abdulla at the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court.

Knaul questioned the constitutionality of the magistrate court and the appointment of the three-judge panel, “which seems to have been set up in arbitrary manner, without following procedures set by law.”

“It is indeed difficult to understand why one former President is being tired for an act he took outside 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 report to the UN Human Rights council following her mission in Maldives in February 2013.

Prosecutor General Muhthaz Muhsin in February withdrew the lesser charges and re-prosecuted Nasheed on harsher terror charges.

The United States, United Kingdom and the European Union have expressed concern with the lack of due process, while Amnesty International said Nasheed’s sentencing “after a deeply flawed and politically motivated trial is a travesty of justice.”

Related to this story

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

“This is not a court of law. This is injustice,” Nasheed tells the Criminal Court

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

Nasheed trial “not free or fair,” says Maldivian Democracy Network

Former President Nasheed appears in court with arm in makeshift sling

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed wishes mercy for his jailers: “In this time of profound injustice, I harbour no hatred.”

Former President Mohamed Nasheed, sentenced to 13 years in jail in a trial many observers have called a travesty of justice, has issued a statement wishing mercy on his jailers.

“In this time of profound injustice, I harbour no hatred. And to those who seek to destroy me, I say: I wish upon you good grace and blessings,” the opposition leader said last night.

Nasheed was convicted of ordering the January 2012 military detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

The United States, United Kingdom and the European Union have expressed concern with the lack of due process, while Amnesty International said Nasheed’s sentencing “after a deeply flawed and politically motivated trial is a travesty of justice.”

The Criminal Court denied Nasheed bail on February 23 at a first hearing without legal representation. The three-judge panel at subsequent hearings dismissed Nasheed’s repeated requests for additional time to prepare a defence and refused to call the defence’s witnesses claiming they do not appear to negate the prosecution’s evidence.

The three-judge panel also included two judges who had acted as witnesses in an earlier investigation into Judge Abdulla’s arrest.

In his statement, Nasheed called for mass protests against President Abdulla Yameen’s regime and appealed to supporters to remain courageous and strong.

“The Maldivian judiciary is full of corruption and disgrace. Judges are routinely accepting the vile money of bribery. These judges have no fear of the day of judgment, and no shame in this world. The consequence of their actions is injustice to the public and the thwarting of this country’s development,” the former president said.

Nasheed was the Maldives’ first democratically elected president.

“Why am I calling for such a sacrifice? Know this for sure: it is not for my own well being . I am not staying in jail, a captive, because I have no way out. I could easily secure my freedom and happiness by agreeing to stop the work I am doing, and falling at President Yameen’s feet. I could choose to live in riches, in comfort, and in joy. But if I choose that path, Maldivians will reach a tragic end. Maldivians will be deprived of what they rightfully deserve: freedom, dignity and democracy. They will never be allowed to stand tall. Forever, they will be forced to cower before this dictatorial regime.

Judge Abdulla’s arrest sparked 22 consecutive nights of violent anti-government demonstrations that culminated in a police and military mutiny on the morning of February 7, 2012, forcing Nasheed to resign in what he subsequently called a “coup d’etat.”

Delivering the guilty verdict, Judge Abdulla Didi said the prosecution’s evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that Nasheed as commander-in-chief ordered the arrest or “forceful abduction” of Judge Abdulla.

When provided with the opportunity to present concluding statements at an initial hearing at 9:15pm, Nasheed once again asked for legal counsel and additional time.

“My incarceration in Dhoonidhoo Jail prevents me from communicating with my lawyers. They are unable to provide me with the legal counsel I require. They were not provided with the prosecution’s evidence for review, adequate means for communication, or internet services. There were no arrangements for us to sit together to prepare legal documents,” he told the court.

“My lawyers quit, because they were unable to afford me the legal counsel necessary for a free and fair trial. They quit stating that the three of you judges are unjust in how you conduct this trial. In this situation, I am unable to prepare concluding statements. I can only prepare such a statement only when I am freed from this situation, if I am transferred to Malé and given sufficient time for preparation.”

However, reading out the guilty verdict at 11:15pm, presiding Judge Abdulla Didi insisted Nasheed had been afforded adequate to prepare defence, arguing case documents had been provided three years ago when the former president was initially charged.

Nasheed was first charged in 2012 with arbitrary detention under article 81 of the penal code, which carries either banishment or a jail term of up to three years.

On February 15, Prosecutor General Muhthaz Muhsin withdrew the charges filed at the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court. Nasheed was arrested on February 22 shortly after the PG filed terrorism charges at the Criminal Court.

Judge Didi also said Nasheed had refused to make use of a phone call to appoint new lawyers when all four of his lawyers quit.

President’s Office Spokesperson Ibrahim Muaz Ali today said the government will ensure former President Mohamed Nasheed’s right to appeal his conviction on terrorism charges if he believes the Criminal Court did not follow due process.

Related to this story

Government will ensure Nasheed’s right to appeal conviction, says spokesperson

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

Nasheed trial “not free or fair,” says Maldivian Democracy Network

Foreigners cannot meddle in domestic affairs, declares President Yameen

PPM accuses international community of “double standards and hypocrisy” in Nasheed’s trial

“This is not a court of law. This is injustice,” Nasheed tells the Criminal Court

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Government will ensure Nasheed’s right to appeal conviction, says spokesperson

The government will ensure former President Mohamed Nasheed’s right to appeal his conviction on terrorism charges if he believes the Criminal Court did not follow due process, President’s Office Spokesperson Ibrahim Muaz Ali has said.

The opposition leader was sentenced to 13 years in jail last night for ordering the arrest of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in 2012.

“I believe the Criminal Court would have afforded due process in the conduct of Nasheed’s trial. If you study this case, from the beginning to the end, it is clear the charges are not politically motivated,” Muaz said.

“Nasheed can still appeal at High Court.”

The government has no power over the courts, he added.

“We have a system of separation of powers. In a democracy, the head of state does not interfere in judicial proceedings and is not to blame for court proceedings,” Muaz said.

“Political leaders in other countries, such as Bangladesh, India and Sri Lanka, have been summoned and tried in court as well.”

Delivering the guilty verdict last night, Judge Abdulla Didi said the prosecution’s evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that Nasheed as commander-in-chief ordered the arrest or “forceful abduction” of Judge Abdulla.

Reacting to Nasheed’s conviction, the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP “Ibu” Mohamed Solih said today the party would not be disheartened by President Abdulla Yameen’s alleged attempts to imprison his opponents.

“President Yameen is trying to jail his opponents before the next election. But even though Nasheed is convicted he still is the leader of MDP and he will contest in the 2018 presidential elections,” Ibu said on opposition-aligned Raajje TV.

However, Muaz denied that the president wished to prevent political rivals from contesting the 2018 election.

“President Yameen does not want to jail opposition politicians or plunge the country into civil unrest. He has an economic agenda. We respect the court’s verdict.”

Addressing the party’s supporters alongside the parliamentary group leader on Raajje TV, MDP Chairperson Ali Waheed meanwhile said the party would do everything in its power to free Nasheed.

“Our main work from now on will be to free President Nasheed. He will come back. So meanwhile stay united, don’t lose hope and pray for him,” Waheed said.

Following Nasheed’s arrest on February 22, MDP supporters have protested every night calling for his release.

Muaz said the government would allow the public to peacefully express their views, but stressed that protests should take place within bounds of the law.

“But we will not allow unrest in the country. Our aim is to establish peace and order in the country. We welcome freedom of expression and assembly, but they must be practiced within the bounds of the constitution. Our appeal to the public is not to disrupt public order,” he said.

“Injustice”

Nasheed was charged with “enforced disappearance” under the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1990, which carries a jail term of between 10 to 15 years.

Prior to a hearing on March 9, all four of Nasheed’s lawyers quit in protest of the Criminal Court’s refusal to grant sufficient time to examine the prosecution’s evidence and mount a defence.

The presiding judges had denied the lawyers’ request for adequate time, stating the legal team has had the case documents for three years.

Nasheed was first charged in 2012 with arbitrary detention under article 81 of the penal code, which carries either banishment or a jail term of up to three years.

On February 15, Prosecutor General Muhthaz Muhsin withdrew the charges filed at the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court. Nasheed was arrested on February 22 shortly after the PG filed terrorism charges at the Criminal Court.

Meanwhile prominent figures from both the international community and within the country have condemned the Criminal Courts verdict.

Husnu Suood, former judge and Attorney General – who was also a senior member of the team which drafted the anti-terrorism law in 1990 – tweeted: “Mohamed Nasheed is not a terrorist. Whatever act he did was certainly not terrorism. The charge not suitable, the trial was flawed.”

Deputy Attorney General Ahmed Usham also questioned Criminal Courts decision to jail Nasheed.

“Infringing the rights of one person in the name of giving justice to another person is in itself an injustice,” Usham wrote on his Facebook page.

MP Ahmed Mahloof, who was expelled from the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) recently after he criticized President Yameen, tweeted: “21 days for Judge Abdulla, 4745 days for President Nasheed. Is this what they call justice? Why not jail all opposition leaders and rule the country.”

Adhaalath Party President Sheikh Imran Abdulla – who played a pivotal role in the 2012 protests against Nasheed’s administration – tweeted: “Nasheed’s trial was not conducted justly.”

 

Related to this story

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

Nasheed trial “not free or fair,” says Maldivian Democracy Network

Foreigners cannot meddle in domestic affairs, declares President Yameen

PPM accuses international community of “double standards and hypocrisy” in Nasheed’s trial

“This is not a court of law. This is injustice,” Nasheed tells the Criminal Court

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

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

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has been found guilty of terrorism and sentenced to 13 years in prison for the military’s detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

Delivering the verdict at the final hearing of the trial tonight, Judge Abdulla Didi said the prosecution’s evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that Nasheed ordered the chief judge’s arrest or “forceful abduction.”

Nasheed was the “architect” of the “atrocity,” Judge Didi said.

The chief judge’s detention on Girifushi Island was unlawful and unconstitutional, he continued, noting that the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) defied orders from the Criminal Court, High Court and Supreme Court to release the judge.

Judge Didi also said the former president has a criminal record for theft, terrorism, false testimony and disobedience to orders.

While state prosecutors presented closing arguments tonights, Nasheed asked for 20 days to prepare his closing statement, stating he was unable to communicate with lawyers and examine evidence while incarcerated at Dhoonidhoo detention centre.

The former president asked to be transferred to Malé for better access to his lawyers.

He also objected to the hearing taking place on a Friday, noting that it was a public holiday where Muslims were enjoined to worship and spend time with family.

Tonight’s hearing was scheduled to begin at 8:30pm, but started around 9:15pm. After closing arguments, the judges adjourned proceedings and reconvened around 11:00pm.

Nasheed was smiling when the verdict was read out and shook hands with three of his family members while he was escorted out.

The opposition leader’s lawyers have said they intend to appeal the verdict at the High Court. If the lower court ruling is upheld by both the High Court and Supreme Court, Nasheed would not be able to contest the 2018 presidential election.

Home Minister Umar Naseer meanwhile tweeted saying he has “asked police to hold [President] Nasheed in Dhoonidhoo Detention Centre until a special unit is constructed in Maafushi Prison.”

Nasheed was charged with “enforced disappearance” under the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1990, which carries a jail term of between 10 to 15 years.

Prior to a hearing on March 9, all four of Nasheed’s lawyers quit in protest of the Criminal Court’s refusal to grant sufficient time to examine the prosecution’s evidence and mount a defence.

The presiding judges had denied the lawyers’ request for adequate time, stating the legal team has had the case documents for three years.

Judges also insisted in tonight’s verdict that Nasheed was offered both enough time to prepare his defence and access to lawyers, claiming he refused the opportunity to appoint new lawyers.

Nasheed was first charged in 2012 with arbitrary detention under article 81 of the penal code, which carries either banishment or a jail term of up to three years.

On February 15, Prosecutor General Muhthaz Muhsin withdrew the charges filed at the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court. Nasheed was arrested on February 22 shortly after the PG filed terrorism charges at the Criminal Court.

At the previous hearing, Judges Didi, Abdul Bari Yousuf, and Shujau Usman dismissed the opposition leader’s repeated requests for legal representation. The judges also refused to hear defence witnesses, claiming they could not negate the prosecution’s evidence or witness testimony.

“I want a lawyer. This is not a court of law. This is injustice. This is the biggest circus this country has seen in its constitutional history,” Nasheed said.

Sit-in

Continuing its daily protests since Nasheed’s arrest, the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) began a march at the ‘Usfasgandu’ area of Malé around 4:30pm today with thousands of supporters.

After walking down Majeedhee Magu, protesters split into two groups and staged a sit-down behind police barricades at Orchid Magu and Fareedhee Magu. Both roads lead to the Criminal Court building.

bacc78bf7f793f202624dbed3f21de0f63e68a718bd4d0db8798067f3bf13b4f

Police escorted Nasheed to court around 8:00pm for the last hearing of his trial. The opposition leader attempted to talk to journalists assembled outside the building, but was blocked by police.

Nasheed told the journalists to “stay strong.”

Around 8:40pm, according to a live blog on the police website, police said the Criminal Court complained to police of loud noise from loudspeakers on a pickup used by the protesters.

Police said protesters were repeatedly advised to turn down the volume, but refused to comply.

Specialist Operations (SO) officers confiscated the loudspeakers after “giving a last warning.”

Moreover, police said protesters threw objects at riot police and “some people who obstructed police duty were taken into police custody.”

A Minivan News journalist near the Salsa restaurant on Orchid Magu observed police using pepper spray indiscriminately and arresting at least six protesters.

When SO officers pushed back protesters with their shields and attempted to take over the pickups, protesters threw bottles at the riot police.

Violent clashes erupted between SO officers and protesters.

One protester was seen bleeding from the head after the clashes. However, SO officers took the pickups away, pushed back protesters and withdrew behind barricades.

Meanwhile, a group of about five young men hurled crude oil at a protest pickup at Fareedhee Magu and vandalised equipment. Police have also confirmed the incident.

The five men were reportedly arrested at the scene.

Police also said a protester was taken to hospital after being pepper sprayed and released after treatment. Police did not specify the nature of the injury.

According to an update on the police blog at 11:40pm, two police officers were attacked near Salsa restaurant and their vehicle was damaged during the assault. A cameramen was also injured and protesters threw bottles at journalists, police said.

The sit-in protest was continuing at the time of publication.

Related to this story

Nasheed trial “not free or fair,” says Maldivian Democracy Network

“This is not a court of law. This is injustice,” Nasheed tells the Criminal Court

Nasheed’s lawyers quit

Nasheed’s lawyers stage no-show citing insufficient time for preparation

State prosecutors influencing witnesses, claim Nasheed’s lawyers

Chief of Defense Forces testifies in Nasheed, Tholhath terrorism trials

Nasheed contests credibility of police and military witnesses in terrorism trial

Judges Didi and Yoosuf refuse to step down from Nasheed’s terrorism trial

Nasheed denies ordering Judge Abdulla arrest, granted three days to answer charges

Former President Nasheed arrives in court with arm in makeshift sling

Nasheed denied right to appoint lawyer and appeal “arbitrary” arrest warrant, contend lawyers

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Foreign minister slams alleged attempts to place Maldives on CMAG agenda

Foreign Minister Dunya Maumoon has slammed alleged attempts to place Maldives on the formal agenda of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) over former President Mohamed Nasheed’s trial on terrorism charges.

Speaking to the press at the President’s Office today, Dunya accused unnamed “foreigners” working alongside local opposition politicians of pushing for CMAG action against the Maldives on the grounds that the opposition leader’s trial was unlawful and unfair.

Nasheed’s trial was proceeding in accordance with laws and regulations, Dunya insisted, arguing that the “issue does not necessarily have to be taken to CMAG.”

Dunya also claimed there was “no international pressure” regarding Nasheed’s trial, stating that other countries would not be allowed to meddle with Maldives’ domestic affairs.

“CMAG placed us on their agenda in 2012. We believe it was not the best action and CMAG also has the same views,” said Dunya.

“Commonwealth does not want to go through the same experience. It was a bitter experience.”

Nasheed is  presently on trial at the Criminal Court over the military detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Mohamed Abdulla in 2012.

If convicted, the opposition leader faces ten to 15 years of imprisonment or banishment.

Meanwhile, a ruling Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP has proposed amendments to the Prisons and Parole Act that if passed would effectively strip Nasheed of his party membership.

Also speaking at the press conference today, Attorney General Mohamed Anil – who recently flew to Sri Lanka to brief diplomatic missions about Nasheed’s prosecution – said the international community raised a number concerns.

Anil revealed that foreign diplomats inquired as to why the charges against Nasheed were abruptly changed from arbitrary detention to terrorism, while sharing concerns over the swift speed of trial proceedings.

The attorney general said the Maldives delegation responded by explaining that the Judge Abdulla’s detention was not arbitrary detention as he was neither presented at court within 24 hours nor released despite several court orders.

Anil also dismissed Nasheed’s legal team’s claim of insufficient time for preparation, arguing that his lawyers have had access to the prosecution evidence and witness testimony since 2012. The only difference was the charge of terrorism, he said.

Dunya meanwhile said that she recently briefed numerous diplomats regarding the trial during trips to Geneva and the United Kingdom, including Minister of State for the UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office Hugo Swire.

Swire had previously released a statement stressing the importance of following due process and respecting Nasheed’s rights “for international confidence in the Maldives.”

“It is also incumbent upon the Government of Maldives to ensure his safety. We urge calm right across Maldives and we encourage all parties to act with moderation and restraint,” he said.

“The UK will continue to monitor the situation closely.”

Maldives was previously placed on the formal agenda of CMAG after Nasheed controversially resigned in February 2012 in the wake of a police mutiny.

Pro-government MPs at the time alleged that the Commonwealth was being bribed by opposition supporters, with MP Riyaz Rasheed claiming that the United Kingdom was “not a democracy” and that the queen was “physically challenged.”

After the Commonwealth Secretary-General released a statement last month expressing concern with denial of legal representation to Nasheed, Dunya issued a counter-statement expressing regret with “the strategic misrepresentation of basic facts in the Secretary General’s statement.”

“I wish to recall that the Commonwealth Secretariat had misread the situation in the Maldives once before, in 2012 and presented it to the CMAG, which took punitive measures against the country,” Dunya said.

“The Maldives, however, emerged from the situation vindicated by the CoNI Report. The government is hopeful that the Commonwealth will not repeat the same mistakes again.”

Related to this story

“This is not a court of law. This is injustice,” Nasheed tells the Criminal Court

Nasheed’s lawyers stage no-show citing insufficient time for preparation

Former President Nasheed arrives in court with arm in makeshift sling

Nasheed denied right to appoint lawyer and appeal “arbitrary” arrest warrant, contend lawyers

EU, UN join international chorus of concern over Nasheed’s arrest, terrorism trial

Australia concerned over civil unrest following Nasheed’s arrest, trial

Commonwealth envoy criticises conduct in parliament, MPs raise bribe allegations

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Third suspect in Jailam murder remanded

The Criminal Court has extended the remand detention of a third suspect in the murder of 24-year-old Jailam Ahmed Shakir, reports local media.

The 20-year-old suspect was reportedly arrested on Tuesday (March 10) whilst two other suspects, aged 19 and 24, were taken into policy custody with arrest warrants on March 3.

The Criminal Court extended the remand detention of the latter to 15 days.

Meanwhile, Sun Online has claimed a fourth suspect in the murder, 18-year-old Mohamed Humaid has fled the Maldives and is currently in Sri Lanka.

Jailam was stabbed to death on the night of February 21 in the Henveiru ward of the capital Malé.

Eyewitnesses told Minivan News that Jailam was stabbed numerous times by two men armed with machetes while he was sitting outside his house.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MNDF dismisses claims of missing weapons

The Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) has dismissed former Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim’s claims of missing weapons from the state armoury.

Nazim, currently standing trial for smuggling illegal weapons, claimed an MNDF Special Protection Group (SPG) officer lost a 9mm Browning pistol at Shangri-La resort in 2014.

The police had discovered a pistol of the same make and three bullets in a bedside drawer in the then-defence minister’s apartment during a midnight raid on January 18.

Nazim has since claimed rogue police officers planted the weapons at his home on Tourism Minister Ahmed Adeeb’s orders.

He has requested the Criminal Court to summon MNDF Corporal Ahmed Amir to prove a pistol was lost, and Head of Military Police Abdulla Zuhuree to prove an investigation was carried out over the incident.

However, in a statement today, the MNDF said the former defence minister’s claims were false: “We would like to assure the people of Maldives that the MNDF’s weapons inventory is up to date and no weapon is missing.”

If found guilty of smuggling weapons, Nazim faces a jail term of ten years.

Tourism Minister Ahmed Adeeb meanwhile said he was “shocked” by the defence team’s “lies.”

Adeeb said he regretted that the trial was becoming “politicised” and suggested that the ex-colonel’s lawyer, Maumoon Hameed, and not Nazim himself was responsible for the allegations.

Hameed did not have any experience in criminal defence, Adeeb said, suggesting that he might bear a grudge for not being appointed Prosecutor General last year.

In July 2014, parliament approved Muhthaz Muhsin as PG after PPM MPs decided to endorse the former Criminal Court judge despite the party’s leader, former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, urging ruling party MPs to vote for his nephew Maumoon Hameed.

The police have also dismissed allegations of framing Nazim.

Speaking in court on March 7, Hameed said the basis of the defence was that the evidence against Nazim was “fabricated” in order to “frame” him, alleging that Adeeb – also deputy leader of the ruling Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) – had planned and orchestrated the setup.

Adeeb had threatened to “destroy” Nazim in a conference call with both the defence minister and home minister, Hameed said.

The threat came after Nazim lodged a complaint with President Abdulla Yameen alleging Adeeb had ordered police’s SWAT team to chop down all of Malé City’s Areca palms in October.

Home Minister Naseer has declined to comment on the threat.

Hameed told the press last week that a police forensic report shared with defence lawyers stated that fingerprints lifted from the weapon did not match either Nazim or any of his family members.

State prosecutors have also submitted documents on a pen drive allegedly confiscated along with the weapons to prove Nazim had the “motive and character” to use the weapons.

The plans indicated the former defence minister was planning to attack President Abdulla Yameen, Adeeb and Police Commissioner Hussein Waheed, prosecutors said.

Defence lawyers yesterday named President Yameen, Commissioner Waheed, Chief of Defence Forces Major General Ahmed Shiyam, Home Minister Naseer and several senior ranking police and military officers as witnesses to prove charges were fabricated in a conspiracy engineered by Adeeb.

The Criminal Court adjourned the hearing stating the court would decide whether to summon defence witnesses only if they appear to negate the prosecution’s evidence.

Related to this story

Ex-defence minister “plotted to attack” president, police chief, tourism minister

Adeeb framed Nazim after fallout over Malé City’s Areca palms, lawyers claim

Nazim accused of conspiring with Villa group to harm state officials

Nazim remains in custody as High Court rejects appeal

Former Defence Minister Nazim remanded for 15 days

Police deny framing Nazim as former Commissioner alleges politicisation

Police raid Defence Minister Nazim’s home in early hours

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)