Tag: death penalty

Comment: Sharia and the death penalty

This article first appeared on Dhivehisitee. Republished with permission.

On July 1, a Maldivian lawyer was brutally murdered, his body stuffed into a dustbin.

On June 4,  militant Islamists tried to murder Hilath Rasheed, the country’s only openly gay rights activist and a rare voice advocating secularism in the Maldives.

On 30 May,  a 65-year-old man was killed on the island of Manafaru by robbers after his pension fund.

On the same day, in Male’ a 16-year-old school boy was stabbed multiple times and left to bleed to death in a public park.

On April 1, a 33-year-old man was stabbed to death in broad daylight by two men on a motorbike.  On February 19, a twenty-one-year-old life was taken in a case of ‘mistaken identity’.

Amidst the increasing violence and decreasing value of life, calls for restoration of the death penalty are growing. It is normal for a society experiencing unprecedented levels of crime to demand the death penalty as a solution. In the Maldives, however, the whole debate is framed within the precincts of religion, touted as a return to ‘Islamic justice.’

This is not to say other ways of looking at it are completely absent from the discourse. There’s Hawwa Lubna’s examination of the death penalty within a rule of law framework in Minivan News, and Mohamed Visham’s somewhat confused and confusing analysis of its pros and cons in Haveeru, for example. Such discussions are, however, pushed to the fringes as the theme of ‘Islamic justice’ takes precedence.

My question is, how Islamic is this call for ‘Marah Maru’ [death for death]? Is revenge what underpins provisions for the death penalty in Sharia?

The Qur’an mandates that everyone has a right to life, unless a court of law demands killing: “Nor take life — which Allah has made sacred — except for just cause.”1

What is not being said in the Maldivian debates on the death penalty is that although the Qur’an provides for situations in which the death penalty can be imposed, all such situations are carefully laid out with stringent evidentiary requirements that discourage carrying out a death sentence.

And, in all situations where capital punishment can be imposed, it offers alternative punishments that allow the death penalty to be avoided. 2

Among the three types of crimes for which the death penalty can be imposed in Sharia–hudud, qisas, and the ta’zir– murder belongs to the Qisas category. Qisas are offences proscribed by the Qur’an or Sunnah, but are subject of personal claims, rather than offences against Islam. Qisas deals with murder or bodily injury. The Qur’an allows retaliation against the individual who commits a Qisas crime, but also clearly demonstrates a strong preference for forgiveness.3

We have often heard in the current Maldivian debate the call for an ‘eye for an eye’, a ‘life for life’, citing the Qur’an; what we do not hear is the rest of the verse.

We ordained therein for them:

“Life for life, eye for eye,

Nose for nose, ear for ear,

Tooth for tooth, and wounds

Equal for equal.”

But if Anyone remits the retaliation

By way of charity, it is

An act of atonement for himself.

And if any fail to judge

By (the light of) what Allah

Hath revealed, they are

(No better than) wrongdoers. 4

The law of equality

Is prescribed to you

In cases of murder:

The free for the free,

The Slave for the Slave,

The woman for the woman.

But if any remission

Is made by the brother

Of the slain, then grant

Any reasonable demand,

And compensate him

With handsome gratitude 5

The right for the family of a murder victim to demand harm is balanced by the opportunity for family members to accept payment, or diya, for their loss instead of demanding that the perpetrator be punished. This is reflected in the fact that, generally, the Qur’an expresses a preference for diya over qisas 6 It says, for instance, that the Muslim who chooses diya will be rewarded in heaven:

It is part of the Mercy

Of Allah that thou dost deal

Gently with them.

Wert thou severe

Or harsh-hearted,

They would have broken away

From about thee: so pass over

(Their faults), and ask

For (Allah’s) forgiveness

For them; and consult

Them in affairs (of moment).

Then, when thou hast

Taken a decision

Put thy trust in Allah.

For Allah loves those

Who put their trust (in Him) 7

The question is, when Sharia so emphasises forgiveness over punishment, why is the emphasis of the Maldivian death penalty debate on punishment over forgiveness? In the murder of lawyer Ahmed Najeeb, for instance, the breathtakingly rapid investigation and court case revealed that two members of Najeeb’s eight inheritors chose diya over death, preferring not to take a life for a life.

When, according to the Qur’an and Sunna, diya is the more honourable choice, why was the choice of these two relatives Najeeb not highlighted in the national discourse as motivated by ‘Islamic values’ and, therefore, praiseworthy?

Why is ‘truly Islamic’ justice only portrayed as ‘an eye for eye, a life for a life’?

Not only is the reluctance to punish found in the Qur’an, it is also the case in the Sunnah. A’isha, the wife of the Prophet said, for instance, to:

avoid condemning the Muslim to Hudud whenever you can, and when you can find a way out for the Muslim then release him for it. If the Imam errs it is better that he errs in favour of innocence…than in favour of guilt.8

There is another narrative from the Prophet’s life that demonstrates he actively encouraged his followers to ward off punishment by looking for uncertainties that would create reasonable doubt, making the punishment impossible.

Maa’iz b. Malik was a person who presented himself to the Prophet, confessing Zina and requesting purification with the hadd. His story is scattered through the books of Hadith in numerous narrations. The Prophet repeatedly told him to go back and seek Allah’s forgiveness. After he kept returning, the Prophet made a number of attempts to make sure there was no doubt. He sent his Companions to Maa’iz’s people to inquire if he was known to be insane. He was informed there was no evidence of insanity nor was was he known to have any defect in his mind. He then asked them whether he was intoxicated, and the Companions smelled his mouth and informed him that they could not detect any signs of alcohol on his breath. Only then did the Prophet implement the hadd of stoning. In additional narrations of this same story, the prophet asked Maa’iz some specific questions to avert possible doubt:

“Perhaps you only kissed her or flirted with her or gazed at her.” Maiz replied, “No”. He then asked, “Did you have physical intercourse with her?” He replied, “Yes,” and only then was he ordered to be stoned.9

Quite clearly, Islamic justice is based on the ethos of forgiveness rather than punishment.

This understanding of the Sharia is being left out of the Maldivian debate – as it was left out of much of Western discourse on Sharia in the last decade – by those calling for an end to the moratorium on the death penalty. It is a suspension that has lasted from 1953 till now, and one that more closely reflects the Quranic understanding of Sharia.

Given that all parties pushing the death penalty are framing it as re-introduction of an ‘Islamic justice’ system, it is wrong that they are all ignoring the emphasis that the system places on finding alternatives to taking a life for a life.

It raises the question of whether the real motives behind the call for the death penalty are political rather than a desire for justice itself, Islamic or otherwise.

Leading the call are the usual suspects – prominent legal players such as Attorney General Azima Shukoor, Prosecutor General Ahmed Muizz and Home Minister Mohamed Jameel Ahmed – who have all expressed their desire for restoration of the ‘Islamic justice’ of the death penalty. And the Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz has – incredibly – described the beleaguered Maldivian justice system as capable of meting out capital punishment justly.

For politicians, imposing the death penalty at a time of unprecedented violence such as now provides the opportunity for appearing tough on crime – always a vote-attracter among a population battling with rising crime rates, especially when a crucial election is nigh. Their assumption is that if the State were only brave enough to take upon itself the power to kill, everyone else would cease to do so.

Furthermore, it provides a rare and valuable opportunity to flex political muscle at a time when the government is weak and its legitimacy is in question.

For the Islamists, it is the means with which to enforce a particularly harsh interpretation of Sharia on the Maldivian people in the name of Islam.

Given the situation, it is shocking that no member of the community of ‘Islamic scholars’ in the Maldives have come forward to emphasise understandings of Sharia and Islamic jurisprudence that highlight forgiveness and mercy as virtues much more deserving of Allah’s approval than revenge – even where justified by law.

Does the lack of an alternative view mean that in the last decade or so Islamists have established such a hegemony over Maldivian religious thought that it prevents any other views from being offered to the public?

Does it mean there are no ‘Islamic scholars’ in the country with an understanding of Islam that is not Islamist?

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)

Will the death penalty halt the Maldives’ crime surge?

The debate surrounding the implementation of capital punishment is quite pertinent and poignant at this time in the Maldives’ history.

The violent crimes, including gang violence, burglary, mugging, sexual abuse of children and murders are increasing to an alarming level in our society. For many, the reintroducing of state-endorsed death, otherwise known as capital punishment or the death penalty, seems to be best solution to address the surge in crime.

The last person to be executed in the Maldives after receiving a death sentence was in 1953 during the first republic of President Mohamed Ameen. Hakim Didi was charged with attempting to assassinate President Ameen using black magic.

Since then, the Maldives has retained the practice of the death penalty, although Islamic Shari’ah tenets give the courts the power to pronounce capital punishment for offences such as murder, sodomy, fornication, apostasy and other crimes against community.

Statistics show that from January 2001 to December 2010, a total of 14 people were sentenced to death by the courts and none were below 18 years of age. These sentences were never enforced and were commuted to life imprisonment under the power vested to the President in Clemency Act.

However, MP Ahmed Mahloof and several other MPs are of the view that if death penalty or capital punishment is re-introduced in the Maldives, it would bring down crime in Maldives, and have decided to propose the amendment in consultation with several people including fellow parliamentarians.

Last April, Mahloof, parliamentary group member government-aligned Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM), forwarded a bill proposing that the enforcement of death penalty be mandatory in the event it was upheld by the Supreme Court. This would halt the current practice of the President commuting such sentences to life imprisonment.

Mahloof based his argument for the proposal of the bill on the fact that 29 people had been killed in the past three years in gang related crimes.

The young MP contended: “I believe nobody would want to die. So if the death penalty is enforced, a person who is to commit a murder would clearly know that if he carries out the act, his punishment would be his life. I believe this will deter him from committing such acts,” Mahloof said.

Mahloof’s remarks echo the classic argument used by politicians and pro-death penalty advocates around the globe: Capital punishment deters crimes.

But, does it actually? Let’s ask the experts from America.

A survey of the most leading criminologists in the country found that the overwhelming majority “did not believe” that the death penalty is a “proven deterrent to homicide”.

Eighty-eight percent of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to the study, Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates? The Views of Leading Criminologists published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology.

Similarly, 87 percent of the expert criminologists believe that abolition of the death penalty would not have any significant effect on murder rates.

The survey relied on questionnaires completed by the most pre-eminent criminologists in the country, including Fellows in the American Society of Criminology; winners of the American Society of Criminology’s prestigious Southerland Award; and recent presidents of the American Society of Criminology. Respondents were not asked for their personal opinion about the death penalty, but instead to answer on the basis of their understandings of the empirical research.

On a separate note, 75 percent of the experts agreed that “debates about the death penalty distract Congress and state legislatures from focusing on real solutions to crime problems”- a familiar trait observed in the Maldivian context, where members of the People’s Majlis spend hours arguing, often engrossed in prevarications.

Prior to Mahloof’s motion, two members had forwarded similar bills to enforce death penalty. But after lengthy debates in multiple parliament sessions, both withdrew it.

Meanwhile reading the aforementioned conclusion of the research, I was reminded of a recent conversation with a friend about the death penalty on Facebook.

“I don’t understand why everyone is so eager talking about punishment, before anything else,” said Hammad Hassan, 26. He continued, “Criminals are a product of our society I guess. Someone needs to go in deep and see what the hell is going wrong.”

“Capital punishment has its age-old arguments and jousting between liberals and conservatives. We like to get into debates about stuff. But I guess it’s the wrong debate that’s going on here,” the Tourism and Hospitality graduate pointed out.

He added: “We fixate on issues like this, without even thinking, and the media, and politicians do their job of sensationalising crime.”

“The current rise in crime is pure economics I would say. Too many are out of jobs, many youth are on drugs and everyone wants to have a good time (coffee, a bottle of alcohol or a joint, etc etc),” he typed into the chat window.

So much truth in what he said.

In the Initial Report of Maldives under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prepared by Human Rights Commission (HRCM) last month, the commission acknowledged there are a number of direct and indirect factors attributing to the increasing fatal criminal activity.

“High numbers of unemployed youth, and the persistent substance abuse and drug addiction among youth in the country are indirect factors catalysing the increase in crime,” HRCM emphasized.

According to the authorities, the Maldives has a staggering unemployment rate of 29 percent, of which half belong to youth age brackets. Meanwhile, the country faces a spiralling drug epidemic, with an estimated 40 percent of youth using hard drugs -a well known trigger of violent and high risk behavior.

A comment on Minivan News read: “In the Maldives we have enough people who turned to psychopaths due to drugs who are well capable of committing any heinous crime.”

Most death penalty advocates call for reinstating death penalty, saying “It shouldn’t be seen as retribution. It is to ensure the safety of society”.

But Amnesty International counters this argument. According to the group, “The threat of execution at some future date is unlikely to enter the minds of those acting under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, those who are in the grip of fear or rage, those who are panicking while committing another crime (such as a robbery), or those who suffer from mental illness or mental retardation and do not fully understand the gravity of their crime.”

The couple facing murder charges in the most recent homicide of Lawyer Ahmed Najeeb, confessed in court that they were under the influence of drug and intoxicated from heavy alcohol use while they committed the crime.

But, will the politicians and lawmakers give the necessary attention to these real issues, instead of divulging into the endless debate over the death penalty?

According to Aishath Velezinee, formerly the President’s appointee to the Judicial Services Commission (JSC),  Mahloof’s death penalty amendment is another attempt by the MPs to avoid “the real issue” and to “deceive the public”.

“The real issue for thriving crime is corruption. The constitution has recognised this and required the judiciary be checked and cleansed.  The JSC breached the constitution, and those MPs are proposing this to cover up the JSC,” Velezinee said in a previous interview.

“Islam upholds justice, and not only has death penalty; it has very clear qualifications for judges too. Neither MP Mahloof, nor any of the Sheikhs, has expressed alarm that the judges are far below standard and some of them are convicted criminals themselves. This is pure politics and abuse of Islam,” she added.

Although the pro-capital punishment sentiments are growing stronger with the symbolic support from country’s top officials including the Chief of Justice, Home Minister and the Attorney General, enforcing the capital punishment is far from happening any time soon while several pertinent legislations are stalled in the parliament, with no indication of when they will be passed.

These legislations, which Human Rights Commission says “could make an impact on the death penalty” include, the Revised Penal Code, Criminal Procedures Code, Evidence Bill and Witness Act.

It also adds: “Maldives is yet to establish an independent forensic institution to provide accurate information to support the judiciary to make an impartial decision on matters concerning the administration of the death penalty.”

The existing Penal Code which was enforced in 1981 and its last amendment made in 200 has many parts which are not relevant to the present context and does not reflect the spirit of the present Constitution.

Moreover, the commission identifies the inadequate legislation pertaining to evidence and witnesses, dismissal of forensic evidence by courts, absence of a witness protection program and inadequate correctional and rehabilitation system for convicted offenders as key factors for rising crimes.

Several members of the public and commentators meanwhile have a another pressing concern. What will happen when an “incapacitated” judiciary is given the power to take some one’s life?

“If there is death penalty without a good system, it will be subjected to political abuse to settle scores,” a person predicted in a comment to Minivan News. “Besides, such crimes results from bad system and bad policies,” he added.

As the debate over the reintroduction of death penalty continues, it would be foolish to assume it will only remain a domestic matter.

The Maldives has affirmed the UN Resolution of Moratorium on death penalty on 18 December 2007, which emphasises all states that still provision capital punishment “progressively restrict the use of the death penalty and reduce the number of offences for which it may be imposed.”

This resolution still needs to be passed by the parliament.

But, abolition of capital punishment in all states is a call publicly endorsed by UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon himself. Therefore, in the face of international pressures to the states to abolish death penalty, the Maldives will likely be scrutinised to its core, and sooner or later, if it intends to reintroduce the practice of capital punishment.

One of the serious concerns would of course be the fact that child offenders may be sentenced to death in the Maldives if the mandatory death penalty motion passes.

According to the Human Rights Commission, however, minors are liable to bear criminal responsibility for some offences such as the unlawful intentional killing of human beings, and other offences relating to homicide and participation in such offences.

Several minors are currently facing such charges in court.

But, without a Penal Code which encompasses provisions on penalties for offences committed by minors and a Juvenile Justice Bill explicitly proscribing the death penalty, these minors will be executed once the law makes it mandatory.

Such a move will spark unprecedented international criticism towards the island nation, already facing scrutiny over its human rights violations, growing fundamentalism and troubled democracy.

These factors must not stand in way if the judicially-sanctioned killings are the only answer to Maldives high crime rate. But before we draw to the conclusion with purely basing the religious argument, authorities need to provide clear evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent to serious crime. That it will, in fact rekindle public safety and security.

The Human Rights Commission observes: “Murders were committed in public places during the daytime. Victims of gang violence either end up with permanent injuries or death. It is to be noted that most of the people who are involved in cases of extreme violence, and murders are repeat offenders (sometimes juveniles).”

“This shows failure on the part of law enforcement authorities and criminal justice system in the country.” the commission contends. Members have further added that the lack of a “comprehensive integrated crime prevention mechanism remains the greatest weakness in addressing the issue of increase in crime.

Therefore, for now, the greatest deterrent to crime is the likelihood that offenders will be apprehended, convicted and punished. It is that which is presently lacking in our criminal justice system; and it is at this level and through adressing the causes of crime that the state must seek to combat lawlessness.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Death penalty can be executed, says Chief Justice Faiz

The death penalty can be executed within the existing justice system of the Maldives, Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz has said.

Following the moment of silence observed outside the High Court on Wednesday afternoon in honor of the lawyer Ahmed Najeeb, who was found brutally stabbed to death this week, the Chief Justice told reporters that Maldives legal system is based on  Islamic Sharia which allows the death penalty to be implemented.

Due to increasing criminal related deaths in the country, mainly due to the gang violence that expanded into an alarming level in the country, the public sentiment for implementing capital punishment is growing stronger.

Following Najeeb’s murder – the sixth  homicide recorded this year alone – Home Minister Mohamed Jameel Ahmed and Attorney General Aishath Azima Shakoor, as well as and other prominent lawyers and lawmakers, have publicly endorsed their support for implementing capital punishment to deter increasing crime rates.

According to Chief Justice Faiz, each and every ruling of the court must be enforced for the country to see the effectiveness of the judiciary.

More than 10 people have been sentenced to death in the past decade, out of which none have been executed by the authorities tasked with the role, he observed.

For the past 60 years, the state has been commuting these death sentences to life imprisonment (25 years).

“The Maldives judicial system is constructed in a manner whereby another body is responsible to enforce the punishment once it is decided by the court,” Faiz explained.

“Not only in murder cases, but if all court verdicts on all crimes are properly enforced,  we will see the [positive] outcomes of these verdicts,” the Supreme court judge noted.

A motion related to death penalty  is currently being reviewed by the parliament which, if passed, will make the enforcement of the death penalty mandatory in the event it is upheld by the Supreme Court, halting the current practice of the President commuting such sentences to life imprisonment.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Death for death” say six of murdered lawyer’s heirs

Six out of the eight heirs of murdered lawyer Ahmed Najeeb yesterday refused to accept blood money and have asked the Judge for qisas (equal retaliation) – the death penalty – during trial held at the Criminal Court.

During the trial, the court summoned the six heirs following the confession of both the suspects implicated in the crime, while the two others were not present for the session.

The court stated that out of the two heirs, who were not present at the hearing, one was living abroad and the court would be making arrangements through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to collect his statement, while the other worked in a resort out of Male’.

Concluding the trial, the judge said that all eight heirs, were those whom the court had confirmed as rightful heirs, and made a statement that if there was any other person who was a rightful heir to Ahmed Najeeb, they must inform the court before July 10.

He also said that after the taking the statements of all rightful heirs of the deceased, the court will issue a verdict.

If none of deceased victim’s heirs agree to accept blood money, under Islamic Sharia Murrath and his girlfriend will be subjected to the death penalty.

Traditionally, death penalties in the Maldives are commuted to life imprisonment of 25 years under the Clemency Act 2010 (Act no 2/2010), where it states:

“Even if stated otherwise in this act, if the Supreme Court issues a death sentence, or a lower court or High Court issues a death sentence and if the Supreme Court upholds that sentence, the President has the authority to relieve the sentence into a life imprisonment, after consideration of either the state of the guilty, the legal principles behind the issue, consensus of the state or the values of humanity. But once such a sentence is being relieved to a life imprisonment, the guilty shall not be eligible for pardon, under any clause of this act.”

Shocking murder

Veteran lawyer Najeeb was brutally murdered on July 1 and his body discovered in a dustbin bag in a second floor apartment in Maafanu Masroora house in the capital Male’, at about 6:45pm in the evening.

The 65 year-old man’s body was found supposedly gagged, badly beaten up and stabbed at the throat.

The police earlier revealed that 29 year old ex-convict Ahmed Murrath had been charged with Najeeb ’s murder and had confessed to killing him, claiming the lawyer attempted to sexually assault his 18 year-old girlfriend Fathmath Hana.

Hana of Rihab house in Shaviyani Goidhoo island was identified as a second suspect and also faces murder charges in the case, after she confessed to “helping” her boyfriend kill Najeeb.

During the first hearing of the trial held separately for both suspects, Hanaa first testified in court, followed by Murrath.

Hanaa noted that Najeeb arrived to the Maafanu Masroora on Saturday night around 10:00pm, on a request to discuss a family legal case.

She said that her boyfriend killed him after he became “sure” that Najeeb attempted to sexually assault her, and added that she helped tie Najeeb’s hand, legs and taped his mouth while Murrath threatened him with a knife.

“We thought he must have a lot of money as he is a lawyer,” she told the court, after declining representation from a lawyer.

Najeeb’s cash card was taken from him and the pair had withdrawn money from it.

According to Hanaa, she did not know that the victim was killed until her boyfriend woke her up and told her about it around 4:00am. At the time Hanaa said she was sleeping, intoxicated from drinking alcohol.

Her boyfriend corroborated the confession in his statement, saying that she was asleep when he killed the lawyer.

Murrath said he was present when Najeeb came over to the house to discuss the legal case and he became suspicious so asked Hanaa if something was wrong. Hanaa told him that Najeeb had grabbed her hands and hurt her, Murrath added.

Murrath said that he killed Najeeb out of anger and apologised to the family members present at the hearing for committing the crime.

The police had earlier noted that Murrath tested positive for drugs when he was brought under custody. He is a former inmate conditionally released under the Second Chance program for inmates with drug offences.

Police said he had an 18 year jail sentence of which he had completed only three years. His offences included theft, assault, drug use, and breaking out of prison.

Following some criticism that the police had prioritised the case as the victim was a lawyer, police media official Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef responded that Najeeb’s case was investigated and forwarded to court faster than other murder cases because the suspects had confessed to the crime during the trial to extend their detention, and that all forensic evidence necessary to prosecute the case had been found.

“We do not discriminate in cases,” Haneef added.

Public outcry for capital punishment

Home Minister Mohamed Jameel Ahmed, speaking at a press conference following the murder, repeated his call for a decision on the implementation of the death penalty in relation to such crimes.

“We want death for death,” a crowd gathered near IGMH last night shouted, as Najeeb’s body was brought to the ambulance.

In recent times gang violence, burglary, mugging, sexual abuse of children and murders are increasing to levels of alarming concern in society, and the rise in criminal-related death tolls have provoked public pressure to implement the death penalty or capital punishment in the Maldives.

From January 2001 to December 2010, a total of 14 people were sentenced to death by the courts, and none from them have been executed. The last person to be executed in the Maldives after receiving a death sentence was in 1953 during the first republican President Mohamed Ameen. Hakim Didi was charged with attempting to assassinate President Ameen using black magic.

The latest death sentence came on last November, where Criminal Court  sentenced Mohamed Nabeel to death for the murder of Abdulla Faruhad. The judge issued the verdict after reviewing the statements of witnesses and finding him guilty of the crime.

However, the case has been appealed to the High Court.

Following reports of the murder, the government-aligned Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM)’s parliament group member Ahmed Mahloof proposed an amendment to the Clemency Act (Act no 2/2010) which would make performing the death penalty mandatory in the event it was upheld by the Supreme Court.

His amendment would require the President to enforce any death penalty if the Supreme Court issued the verdict of death, or if the Supreme Court supported the ruling of the death penalty made by either the Criminal court or the High Court. This move would halt the current practice of the President commuting such sentences to life imprisonment.

Previously, Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ahmed Rasheed and later MP Ibrahim Muthalib also submitted similar amendments to the clemency act although both subsequently withdrew the motions.

“I believe nobody would want to die. So if the death penalty is enforced, a person who is to commit a murder would clearly know that if he carries out the act, his punishment would be his life. I believe this will deter him from committing such acts,” Mahloof said following the submission of the amendment.

In the initial report of the Maldives under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prepared by Human Rights Commission (HRCM) in 2011, the commission noted that growing public sentiment to impose death penalty.

“Death penalty: not as easy as it is thought”- HRCM

According to the commission, the Maldives has affirmed the UN Resolution of Moratorium on death penalty on 18 December 2007, which emphasises all states that still provision capital punishment “progressively restrict the use of the death penalty and reduce the number of offences for which it may be imposed.”

“This resolution still needs to be passed by the parliament,” it reads.

Furthermore, there are several laws pending which are related to the enforcement of the death penalty including, the passage of the revised Penal Code, Criminal Procedures Code, Evidence Bill and Witness Act, the commission adds.

The Maldives is yet to establish an independent forensic institution to provide accurate information to support the judiciary to make an impartial decision on matters concerning the administration of the death penalty.

Meanwhile the commission acknowledged that the ”life threatening acts of crime in the country have been aggravated” due to a number of direct and indirect factors, of which the direct problems include “inadequate legislation pertaining the criminal justice system”.

The existing Penal Code which was enforced in 1981 and its last amendment made in 200 has many parts which are not relevant to the present context and does not reflect the spirit of the present Constitution.

Moreover, the commission identifies the inadequate legislations pertaining to evidence and witnesses, dismissal of forensic evidence by courts, absence of a witness protection program and inadequate correctional and rehabilitation system for convicted offenders as key factors.

“The lack of a comprehensive integrated crime prevention mechanism remains the greatest weakness in addressing the issue of increase in crime. High numbers of unemployed youth, and the persistent substance abuse and drug addiction among youth in the country are indirect factors catalysing the increase in crime,” the HRCM report adds.

Therefore, to address the above, says the HRCM, the “state should revise the existing Penal Code, and bring into force the Criminal Procedure Code – the other legislation pertaining to evidence and witnesses.”

“The State should further establish effective rehabilitation mechanisms for offenders, better prisons and correctional facilities to house and to rehabilitate criminals, and to strengthen effective coordination between drug rehabilitation system and criminal justice system,” it concludes.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

PG receive cases against six suspects in Shifan murder case

The police on Wednesday requested the Prosecutor General’s Office (PG) charge six people in connection to the murder of 33 year-old Ali Shifan ‘Tholhi Palay’, third victim to be killed in the spree of gang-related stabbings across capital Male’.

A statement released by the police says that cases have been forwarded against: Ali Nabeeh,22, of M.Nalahiyaa Manzil, Mohamed Shaifan,18, of Male’ Dhaftharu no 3912,  Razzan Abdu Rahman,19, of Kaanimaage house in Thulhaadhoo island of Baa atoll,  Abdul Thilmeez,20, of M.Thilmeez,  Mohamed Asif,19, of Maafahi house inKurendhoo island of Lhaviyani atoll and Mohamed Mishaan Abdul Haadhy,20, of M.Silver Nest.

The attack widowed Shifan’s wife of three years.

Shifan was attacked at about 4:15pm on April 1 outside the Westpark restaurant on Boduthakurufaanu Magu, the outer ring road of Male’.

He was stabbed multiple times in the back and arms by two men on a GN motor bike as he stepped out of a restaurant to meet a friend, the police said. He had no previous records of any gang involvement, police confirmed. But it was unclear as to why he was targeted in a gang related attack.

“Shifan was a very peace loving man and he always said he did not want war,’’ a friend of Shifan previously told Minivan News, claiming the assailants attacked Shifan because of his friends, who were themselves  allegedly involved in a previous gang attack.

The source also alleged the attack was politically motivated and that gangs were being set against each other.

Prior to the brutal stabbing of 33 year-old Shifan on April 1, a pair of 21 year-olds – Abdul Muheeth and Ahusan Basheer -were stabbed to death on February 19 and March 17 respectively. Both cases are now in court with charges against a total of nine people, including four minors.

In addition to these murders, a 16 year-old boy named Mohamed Arham was also found dead with multiple stab wounds on May 30, while controversial blogger and journalist Hilath Rasheed made a miraculous recovery from a fatal attack in which his throat was slit by the assailants. Both cases are currently under investigation. No arrests have been made.

Several more victims, including expatriates, have been brutally injured or killed in gang related attacks.

The spate of stabbings and murders have provoked pressures from the public to impose stricter punishments to the perpetrators. Families of the victims have both in court and in public platforms are calling for justice and the death penalty to be implemented to curb the increasing gang violence.

Though the Islamic Sharia and the penal code states death penalty as a punishment, it has not been executed for decades. Death penalty sentences are traditionally changed to life imprisonment.

The government has meanwhile said it will not hesitate to implement death sentences if the parliament approves it.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Family of murder victim demand death penalty

The heirs of Mariyam Sheereen, who was found dead at a construction site in Male’ on January 2, 2010, have asked for the death penalty against the accused.

Under Islamic sharia, the victim’s family or heirs are given a choice to either insist on the death penalty, or to pardon the perpetrator and accept monetary compensation for their loss (Quran 2:178).

According to newspaper Haveeru, Sheereen’s heirs appeared in court yesterday and demanded the death penalty be enforced against Mohamed Najah, Sheereen’s former boyfriend.

Following the investigation, police revealed at the time that her body was put into a small suitcase and transported to a construction site by taxi cab.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Death penalty for infanticide is infantile

Among the many paths in life that lead a woman to kill her newborn baby, it is never this: one day she wakes up with an overwhelming urge to kill.

In order to satisfy that urge, she goes out and seduces/forces a hapless, innocent man to have sexual intercourse with her and to impregnate her. Still with the ultimate end-goal of killing in mind, she covertly carries the baby inside her. After nine-months of ingenious methods of hiding her ballooning figure from all eyes, she gives birth in perilous conditions without any medical attention.

Finally, she experiences the pleasure of killing which she had anticipated and meticulously planned for nine long months. And with immense gratification, she reaches out and makes sure her baby’s first breath is also its last.

Infanticide is not a new phenomenon – cases of it have been recorded from the time human records began, and research has shown a myriad of socially-generated causes behind the offence. Rates escalate in patriarchal societies where women are regarded as second-class citizens, and where crimes against women are on the rise. A recent report published by TrustLaw Women, an online organisation that offers free legal assistance to women, shows that infanticide is a common marker among countries that offer the worst environments for women to live in.

What is driving our women to such desperation? We do not know for sure, because we have invested neither time nor effort to find out. Crime statistics, however, give more than just a hint.

The thin line between perpetrator and victim

Police statistics for 2010 show over 500 sexual offence cases and 299 arrests for the same. By April this year, 58 cases of sexual offences had already been reported to the police.

In the last few months, Minivan News has reported on a whole range of random violent sexual offences against women from gang rape to rape of a 74 year-old. Added to these are less random rapes and sexual assaults occurring closer to home that run the whole gamut from decades-long sexual abuse of daughters by fathers to the attempted to rape of a mother by her son.

In the latest case, reported last month, five men are alleged to have raped an 18-year-old girl in Laamu Atoll Maabaidhoo. Her mother found her after two hours of searching, slumped under a coconut palm, her clothes in tatters and unable to walk from all the injuries the men had inflicted on her.

In March this year, a gang of 15 men abducted, drugged and raped a 20-year-old woman on the island of Hithadhu in Seenu Atoll. They recorded their vile acts on a mobile phone, for post-rape pleasure. Yet, as a coalition of NGOs highlighted recently, ‘not a single case of ‘rape’ [was] in the statistics maintained by either the PG [Prosecutor General] or the Criminal Court’.

Why? Rape is not a crime under our current Penal Code.

We live in a society where years of ‘religious’ preaching and traditions that have refused to bow to the winds of progress have taught women to accept it as their due to be beaten up by husbands for perceived marital transgressions.

Seventy percent of our women believe this to be the case. One in every seven secondary school students are sexually abused, according to an unpublished 2009 report by UNICEF, a vast majority of them girls. A Gender Ministry report in 2007 found that over 12 percent of Maldivian women between the age of 15 and 49 are sexually abused as a child.

The situation is worse for girls in Male’ than elsewhere, where more than 16 percent of girls under the age of fifteen are sexually abused. This means that of every 100 girls you walk by on the streets of Male’ and its auxiliary islands, 16 have suffered sexually at the hands of a man. How many of these offences end up in unwanted and enforced pregnancies?

Some of the girls are in a position to travel abroad for abortions – and yes, whether we like it or not, it is happening; and it will continue to happen.

Refusing to see that this behaviour is not merely a sin, but also a social issue that affects every human society, does not make it into a religious problem alone with only the harshest of religious solutions. Those who cannot have their unwanted babies surgically removed, resort to dumping them somewhere, drowning them, or subject them to worse forms of mutilation and death. These girls/women need help.

Capital punishment is not a deterrent as evidence from various countries where it is in force has shown. The fate of previous perpetrators would be the last thing on the mind of a woman about to commit such an act. If she were capable of rational thought during those desperate moments, killing a baby would be the last thing she would do.

Immaculate conceptions?

The learned men at Adhaalath see only one reason for the rise of infanticides: the “rising popularity of fornication“, and have called for the death of mothers guilty of the crime. It is not sufficient that some of the women have been jailed for life while the men, who must surely have been involved, have walked scot-free.

Without the existence of a crime defined as ‘rape’, it is easy to categorise every such brutal violation of a woman as ‘fornication’ – the type that is only ever ‘popular’ among depraved, misogynistic men who seem to view preying on vulnerable women as a popular sport. By calling for the death of the women who become victims of such men while remaining wholly silent on the men themselves, the ‘scholars’ at Adhaalath are encouraging such behaviour among the men.

And, by taking such a stance on this pressing social concern, Adhaalath is making itself not just a misnomer, but is turning a blind eye to its own slogan proudly displayed on its masthead taken from Surath An-Nisã (The Women): ‘Allah commands you […] that when you judge between people, you judge with justice’ (4:58).

Criticism of Adhaalath’s views, and that of other religious bodies in the country, do not always arise from ‘mad secularists’, as is their constant accusation. Nor is criticism of these views meant to suggest that religion has no role to play in our society. It does; and there is much Adhaalath and other such institutions can do.

Why not preach against rape in their Friday sermons when they have the ears of most of the country’s male population within their reach?

Why not speak then of the respect with which Islam says women are to be treated?

Why not drive the point home that at least 50 percent of the blame [in cases where the conception arose from consensual activity] lies with the men?

Why not repeat the message until it penetrates through the thick haze of misogyny that seem to envelop many among them that women have not been put on this earth for their depraved ‘pleasures’, sexual or otherwise?

Adhaalath, and other religious bodies, could also use their proven ability for fundraising to raise money for proper research into the rising problem of infanticide.

Or to help boost the adoption programme under Islamic teachings that the Gender Department has been trying hard to get off the ground. Or perhaps to provide funding for a shelter for abused young women or a safe place for young girls turning to juvenile delinquency. None of them have proper care; none of them have a place to go. The buruga may cover, but it does not shelter; and being covered up is not the same as being protected.

There are many different ways to help, and many ways that Islam obliges its followers to help those in need; but they can only become clear when the dogma is put aside and room for reason made.

No doubt the next ‘religious’ edict calling for the death of yet another disturbed or disadvantaged group in society would be prefixed with the customary Bismillah. If only, instead of repeating it like some meaningless chant, a moment is taken to consider its meaning: ‘In the name of Allah, the most compassionate, the most merciful…’ Wither the compassion, Adhaalath?

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)

Suitcase murder victim’s family request death penalty during court hearing

Relatives of a murdered women whose body was placed in a suitcase and then dumped into rubbish at a Male’ construction site last year have requested that her alleged killer face the death penalty during an ongoing trial in the country’s Criminal Court.

Haveeru has reported that the family of the murdered woman, identified only as Shereen, had generally decided in favour of calling for the death penalty under the rules of Islamic Shariah, should suspect Mohamed Najah be found guilty of killing her.

According to the report, during the Criminal Court hearing that took place today in Male’, relatives of the victim, including her father, brother and three sisters, called for the sentence to be imposed over the phone from Lhaviyani Thun’dee Magistrate Court.

Shereen’s mother, who was present at the Criminal Court hearing in Male’, also stressed her preference for the death penalty if Najah was convicted, with Judge Abdulla Mohamed stating that three more relatives, who were unable to attend the court session, were required to provide their consent for the death penalty.

Statements are expected to be taken from these relatives at the court on a later date, the report added. Shareen’s body was discovered on January 2, 2010.

Currently, death penalties imposed within the Maldives are able to be reduced to a 25 years prison sentence by the president under the Clemency Act. In November 2010, the Criminal Court of the Maldives issued a death sentence to a person found guilty of murder. However the last person to actually be judicially executed was Hakim Didi in 1953, who was executed by firing squad after being found guilty of consipiracy to murder using black magic.

The death penalty issue has become extremely pertinent for the nation’s politicians of late with a number of amendments proposed this year to the country’s Clemency Act that outlines policy related to any possible death sentence.

on April 18, Parliament accepted an amendment presented by Jumhoree Party (JP) MP Ibrahim Muthalib requiring the death sentence to be implemented if the Supreme Court upholds an execution decision issued by itself or a lower court.

Out of the 59 present MPs, 14 declined the amendment, while three parliamentarians did not vote on either side.

MDP MPs Alhan Fahmy, Eva Abdulla, Hamid Abdul Gafoor, ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik, Ilyas Labeeb, Imthiyaz Fahmy, Ibrahim Rasheed, Rugiyya Mohamed, Mohamed ‘Colonel’ Nasheed, Ahmed Rasheed, Mohamed Aslam, Ibrahim Mohamed Solih and DRP MPs Ali Azim and Hussein Mohamed voted to dismiss the amendment.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP MP withdraws controversial death penalty amendment moments before vote

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ahmed Rasheed has withdrawn his amendment to the Clemency Act at the last minute, hours before a vote to send the bill to committee. The controversial amendment would have required implementing agencies to execute murderers if the Supreme Court upheld a guilty verdict.

After the preliminary debate over the past three sittings, MP Rasheed was given the opportunity to say his last words on the amendment, which he used as an opportunity to withdraw the bill.

Presenting the bill to the parliament earlier this month, the Hoarafushi MP explained that he was prompted by the recent increase in assaults and murder cases, which had “forced the living to live amid fear and threats.”

In 2008, said Rasheed, 104 cases of assault were sent to the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO), rising to 454 cases in 2009 and 423 cases in 2010.

”In Quran, Sural Al Baqarah verse 178, God says: ‘O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty’,” he then said. ”During broad day light in this very city of Male’ people have been chopped, sliced and crushed using axes, machetes – just like fish are chopped.”

While he did not specify reasons for his decision to withdraw the amendment, Rasheed claimed that he would resubmit the amendment once belated bills on evidence laws, criminal justice procedures and the penal code were enacted. Criticism of the amendment had centered around the capacity of the Maldivian justice system to rule fairly and impartially in such cases.

Unlike most parliamentary debates, MPs were not divided on the issue of death penalty along party lines. Several MPs of the ruling MDP as well as some opposition MPs argued that the fledgling Maldivian judiciary did not have the capacity or public confidence to dispense justice fairly.

The decision comes after 21 year-old Ahusan Basheer was murdered on the streets of Male’ during a gang attack on Thursday night.

The last person to be executed by Maldivian state was Hakim Didi in 1953 for the crime of practicing black magic.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)