Tag: Department of Judicial Administration

Supreme Court barred judges from penal code trainings

The Supreme Court barred judges and magistrates from attending trainings on the new penal code, Minivan News has learned.

The penal code was ratified a year ago and was set to come into force this month, but the ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives has delayed its enactment by three months.

According to judges and lawyers, the Supreme Court denied permission for judges and magistrates to attend trainings conducted by the attorney general’s office and UNDP at a special legal sector resource center, which was set up last year to train law enforcement agencies, judges, lawyers and journalists on the new penal code.

“The penal code is a large, extensive document with criminal proceedings that is new to the Maldives. I wanted to attend but the Supreme Court wouldn’t give us permission,” a judge who wanted to remain anonymous said.

The existing penal code was adopted in 1968 and has been criticised as draconian, outdated and not in line with the democratic constitution of 2008.

Former Deputy Prosecutor General Hussain Shameem, who has trained 1099 individuals on the new penal code, said the legal resource center had invited all judges and magistrates, but “none of them attended the trainings.”

Shameem says the legal resource center could train all of the 186 judges and magistrates in the country within two weeks.

Lawyers have meanwhile expressed concern over judges’ capability in implementing the new penal code without the required trainings.

“The penal code has a whole new section on sentencing. It is completely different from procedures used before,” said Hassan Shiyam Mohamed, who advised a parliament committee that had drafted the new penal code.

“It is imperative that judges be trained on its application. We don’t want to see a situation where everyone else is more fluent in it than the judges. I really don’t understand the Supreme Court’s decision.”

The Department of Judicial Administration, which functions under the Supreme Court, says it is now planning a separate training for judges next month, but an official from the DJA said the apex court has not yet approved the trainings.

“There will be a seminar on the penal code for selected magistrates next month. The seminar will be headed by the Commonwealth,” he said.

The Supreme Court was unavailable for comment at the time of going to press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court to oversee senior administrative appointments

The Supreme Court has published regulations mandating that senior administrative staff of the judiciary be appointed only after direct consultation with the court’s bench.

According to the regulation posted on the court’s website yesterday (January 3), individuals chosen to fill senior administrative positions in the judiciary will be interviewed for the job by a panel appointed by the Supreme Court bench.

Individuals seeking senior administrative jobs must be able to prove their working experience, knowledge of the laws regarding state finances, leadership and managerial skills, fluency in Dhivehi and other foreign languages – including English or Arabic, and their capacity to represent Maldives in international forums and seminars.

The court last year introduced regulations making it mandatory for judges and judicial employees to seek permission to attend overseas events, prompting suggestions that the Supreme Court is centralising judicial administration.

Similar claims made by the Human Rights Commission of Maldives have resulted in an ongoing ‘suo moto’ case in the Supreme Court in which the commission is charged with undermining the Constitution and the country’s sovereignty.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court approval required for transfer of judges

The Supreme Court has issued new rules requiring judges requesting transfer to a different court to seek approval from the apex court.

The rules (Dhivehi) enacted yesterday stipulate that judges of lower courts seeking transfer must write to the Supreme Court stating the reason for the change.

“The transfer of a judge of a lower court from one court to another shall be decided by a majority of the Supreme Court bench,” states section five of the rules.

Former Judicial Services Commission member Aishath Velezinee has accused the court of taking administrative control of the judiciary, while the UN has previously suggested the independence of lower courts is being compromised.

Once a decision is reached, the new rules state that the reappointment would be made by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) based on the Supreme Court’s proposal. The judge would be given time to conclude cases before the transfer is finalised.

Judges must have served at least two years in the court they were appointed to before the request could be considered.

Before proposing the transfer to the JSC, the rules state that the Supreme Court bench must ensure the importance of the judge working in a different court based on academic qualifications and experience and consider whether the judge has relevant experience better suited to a different court.

For evaluation of the request, the apex court should also consider the quality of work done by the judge, the number of cases heard by the court or judicial area, the number of unfinished cases, the number of judges in the court or judicial area to which the transfer has been requested, and the population of the judicial area.

Outspoken whistleblower, Velezinee, told Minivan News today that the Supreme Court was taking over functions of the JSC.

“The Supreme Court is systematically taking control of the judiciary and misconstruing the Constitution for their benefit,” she said.

“The JSC is controlled by the Supreme Court and remains silent on these matters, facilitating the Supreme Court take over.”

The promotion and transfer of judges was previously overseen solely by the JSC. Last month, the JSC demoted former Chief Judge of the High Court, Ahmed Shareef, to the Juvenile Court as a disciplinary measure.

Under the Judges Act passed in 2010, transfer of judges was to be made by the Judicial Council, before the Supreme Court struck down the relevant articles in the Judicature Act, abolishing the council.

“Take over”

In May, the Supreme Court enacted new rules stipulating that the Department of Judicial Administration (DJA) – tasked with management of the courts and public relations as well as providing facilities, training, archiving systems and security for judges – will function in accordance with policies set by the apex court bench and under the direct supervision of a designated justice.

Velezinee stressed at the time that the administration of justice and the administration of the courts were “two different though interconnected issues.”

“The Supreme Court is misconstruing article 156 of the Constitution and the appointment of a Supreme Court judge to [oversee] the DJA is tantamount to control of the courts,” she contended.

In a comprehensive report on the Maldivian judiciary released in May 2013, United Nations Special Rapporteur for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, wrote that “the dissolution of the Judicial Council and the direct control of the Supreme Court over the [DJA] have had the effect of centralising administrative decisions in the hands of the Supreme Court.”

“This has undoubtedly contributed to the strong impression that lower courts are excluded from the administration of justice and decision-making processes,” she noted.

She also referred to “several complaints about internal tensions in the judiciary, where lower courts are left with the feeling that the Supreme Court only works for its own interests, without taking into account the situation of other judges and magistrates.”

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court informed lower courts that it would be appointing magistrates to take over cases where magistrates have recused themselves.

The apex court noted that it has learned of magistrate courts writing to the JSC to appoint magistrates in cases where the presiding magistrate had excused himself.

Noting that the Supreme Court was the “highest authority for the administration of justice” under Article 141 of the Constitution and referring to a circular issued on August 10, 2011 – which stated that the Supreme Court would specify rules for appointing magistrates following recusal –  Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain asked magistrate courts to write to the Supreme Court if a magistrate recuses himself from a case.

In May, the Supreme Court also formulated new regulations making it mandatory for judges and judicial employees to seek permission to attend overseas workshops, seminars, conferences, or training programmes.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

New regulations require Supreme Court permission for attending overseas events

The Supreme Court has formulated new regulations making it mandatory for judges and judicial employees to seek permission to attend overseas workshops, seminars, conferences, or training programmes.

Made public yesterday (May 20), the regulations (Dhivehi) require judges and staff to submit an “overseas travel permission” form to the Supreme Court for approval if expenses are provided from the judiciary’s budget or by a foreign party.

The regulations appear to lend credence to what critics regard as the increasing centralisation of judicial administration, with the potential effect of compromising independence and increasing tension within the system.

Should permission for overseas travel be granted, the regulations state that a second form providing details of expenses must be submitted to the Department of Judicial Administration, after which approval must also be sought from the Ministry of Finance and Treasury.

Moreover, a report must be submitted to the Supreme Court at the end of the trip.

The regulation also states that equal opportunity must be provided for judges and judicial employees to participate in overseas programmes while all expenses must be made in accordance with public finance rules.

The regulations, however, exempt overseas travel by judges and judicial employees for participation in workshops or seminars in their personal capacity, so long as expenses are not covered by the state.

“Centralising administrative decisions”

The Supreme Court stated that the rules were formulated under authority granted by articles 7, 141, and 156 of the constitution.

While Article 141(b) states that the Supreme Court “shall be the highest authority for the administration of justice in the Maldives,” Article 156 states, “The courts have the inherent power to protect and regulate their own process, in accordance with law and the interests of justice.”

Referring to the articles, the Supreme Court earlier this month introduced new regulations requiring the Department of Judicial Administration (DJA) to function under its direct supervision.

The DJA – tasked with management of the courts – was formed by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) in October 2008 to replace the Ministry of Justice following the adoption of the new constitution.

While the DJA was to function under the JSC, in December 2008 the Supreme Court brought the department under its control before the Judicature Act in 2010 transferred the DJA to the new Judicial Council.

The Judicial Council was subsequently abolished by the Supreme Court in late 2010, however, in a ruling that struck down the relevant articles of the Judicature Act.

The apex court’s move to cement control over judicial administration is in contravention to the constitutional concept of the independence of courts, former JSC member Aishath Velezinee told Minivan News earlier this month.

The new regulations were the culmination of a “systematic takeover” of the DJA, she contended, as the department “should stand as an independent institution solely facilitating administration of the courts.”

In a comprehensive report on the Maldivian judiciary released last year, United Nations Special Rapporteur Gabriela Knaul wrote that “the dissolution of the Judicial Council and the direct control of the Supreme Court over the Department of Judicial Administration have had the effect of centralising administrative decisions in the hands of the Supreme Court.”

“This has undoubtedly contributed to the strong impression that lower courts are excluded from the administration of justice and decision-making processes,” the report stated.

Knaul also expressed concern with reports of the Supreme Court “not following due process in many of its decisions.”

“It is also troublesome that some of the Supreme Court’s interventions are perceived as arbitrary and as serving the judges’ own personal interests. Such misinterpretation of the independence of the judiciary needs to be urgently resolved both with regard to the public perception of the judiciary and the internal functioning of the justice system,” she advised.

“The Special Rapporteur heard several complaints about internal tensions in the judiciary, where lower courts are left with the feeling that the Supreme Court only works for its own interests, without taking into account the situation of other judges and magistrates.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Judicial administration brought under direct control of Supreme Court

The Department of Judicial Administration (DJA) will function in accordance with policies set by the Supreme Court bench and under the direct supervision of a designated justice, according to new rules (Dhivehi) promulgated by the apex court.

The rules made public last week states that the Supreme Court bench shall assign a justice to ensure that the DJA – tasked with management of the courts, public relations and providing facilities, training, archiving systems and security for judges – was implementing policies determined by the court.

The justice will be assigned for a one-year period with the responsibility of supervising the functioning of the department and “providing instructions and guidelines from the Supreme Court bench.”

The designated justice will also report to the bench on the operations of the DJA.

The Supreme Court stated that the rules were formulated under authority granted by articles 141 and 156 of the constitution.

While article 141(b) states that the Supreme Court “shall be the highest authority for the administration of justice in the Maldives,” article 156 states, “The courts have the inherent power to protect and regulate their own process, in accordance with law and the interests of justice.”

“Systematic takeover”

The DJA was formed by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) on October 1, 2008 to replace the Ministry of Justice following the adoption of the new constitution in August 2008.

While the DJA was to function under the JSC, on December 2, 2008, the Supreme Court brought the department under its remit with a ruling to that effect.

With the enactment of the Judicature Act in 2010, the DJA was reestablished with a mandate for court management, public relations, training of judges, providing for structures, facilities and archiving systems, and providing security for judges.

Although the department was to function under the Judicial Council created by the new law, the Supreme Court abolished the council in a ruling that struck down the relevant articles in the Judicature Act.

The DJA has since been functioning under the direct supervision of the apex court.

Speaking to Minivan News today, former JSC member and outspoken whistleblower, Aishath Velezinee, stressed that the administration of justice and the administration of the courts were “two different though interconnected issues.”

“The Supreme Court is misconstruing article 156 of the constitution and the appointment of a Supreme Court judge is tantamount to control of the courts,” she contended.

“This goes against the constitutional concept of independence of courts whereby each court is an independent institution, separate from the influence of other courts, including the Supreme Court. And, the own decisions of 2008 and 2011 the Supreme Court refers to are a systematic takeover of the DJA which should stand as an independent institution solely facilitating administration of the courts.”

In a comprehensive report on the Maldivian judiciary released in May 2013, United Nations Special Rapporteur for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, wrote that as a consequence of the Supreme Court’s ruling abolishing the Judicial Council, “the only platform for internal communication within the judiciary where difficulties, challenges, experiences and opinions could be exchanged, disappeared.”

“Many interlocutors reported that the dissolution of the Judicial Council and the direct control of the Supreme Court over the Department of Judicial Administration have had the effect of centralising administrative decisions in the hands of the Supreme Court,” the special rapporteur stated.

“This has undoubtedly contributed to the strong impression that lower courts are excluded from the administration of justice and decision-making processes.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Criminal Court staff file complaint over ‘unlawful suspension’

Criminal Court staff suspended following a refusal to work overtime without pay have asked the Department of Judicial Administration to review the court’s ‘unlawful’ decision.

Eleven staff members at the Criminal Court refused to work overtime on February 10 and were suspended on February 13.

The Criminal Court has subsequently decided to close offices after official work hours due to budget restrictions.

The court at the time told the press that it had no funds to pay overtime allowances for employees, and that the Ministry of Finance had not responded regarding the matter. The Civil Court has taken the same measures owing to lack of funds.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

EC extends local council application deadline

The Elections Commission (EC) has extended the application deadline for candidates who wish to contest in January’s local council elections.

Applications will now be accepted until 3:00 pm on December 10.

The deadline was extended to allow candidates to obtain criminal and debt records from the Maldives Police Services and Superior Courts.

The High Court, Criminal Court and Department of Judicial Administration have opened out of hours in order to serve the large number of requests for criminal and debt records.

The EC has said it expects over 4000 candidates to contest the 1118 seats in local council elections.

Political parties held primaries during the last week to determine candidates who will contest elections on their tickets.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Swedish national acquitted of charges related to death of British couple in quad bike crash

Swedish national Filip Eugen Petre has been acquitted of all charges pressed against him during a Criminal Court trial, concerning his alleged role in a quad bike accident that resulted in the death of a British couple at Kuredu Island Resort in August 2011.

Emma and Jonathon Gray from Yorkshire in the UK, who had been staying on the resort for their honeymoon, were reported dead on August 6, 2011, after the quad bike they were riding was believed to have collided with a tree.

Petre, a son of a shareholder at the resort, was later charged with ‘disobedience to order’ by state prosecutors over his alleged decision to transport the couple on a vehicle not intended for passengers.

Criminal Court Media Official Ahmed Mohamed Manik confirmed that the presiding judge had ruled the suspect was not guilty, based on statements and evidence produced during the trial. The decision was made shortly before the presidential election held on September 7.

Manik said he was unable to provide Minivan News with further details of the case at time of press.

Local media reported on September 6 the presiding judges’ conclusion that, although the quad bike was not intended to carry passengers, staff on the resort had said the vehicle had previously been used to transport more than one person at a time.

According to Haveeru, the Criminal Court also ruled that the state could not conclusively prove Petre was directly responsible for the incident on the property.  He was therefore acquitted of the charges.

Local media reported that Kuredu’s management had offered to cover all the expenses for the upbringing of the Gray’s son, who was just six months old at the time of the incident.

A spokesperson for Kuredu Island Resort declined to comment on the case, referring media enquiries to the Criminal Court.

Case stalled

Minivan News reported in March this year that Petre’s case was at a standstill as the Criminal Court claimed it was waiting on responses from the parents of the deceased regarding their preferred form of punishment for the accused.

However, both police in the UK and the families of the deceased previously insisted that their decision had been submitted and re-submitted to the court in 2012.

Director of the Department of Judicial Administration Ahmed Maajid at the time said that, although the trial hearings were over, a final verdict would not be delivered by the court until all family members had been consulted on their preferred form of punishment for the accused.

A relation of the Grays previously told Minivan News that their statements had been submitted multiple times on different occasions to the courts.

“On the last hearing, which was held on February 27, closing arguments were given by the state and the defense. The judge has stated that the final verdict of the charge would be delivered at the next scheduled hearing,” the relative said the family had been told.

Under Islamic law, the family of the victim is given the option to sentence the accused to execution, blood money or to forgive them.

The same relative added that, while they did wish to see some form of punitive sentence for the driver if he was convicted, the family did not want any severe or long-term action to be taken against the defendant.

“He’s just a young guy. We don’t want to see his life ruined,” the relative said.

Jonathan Grey’s mother Cath Davies told UK-based newspaper the Halifax Courier in March 2012 that the prospect of Petre facing the death penalty was “shocking. It’s absolutely horrendous.”

Previous hearings

In previous hearings of the trial, prosecutors claimed that the charge of ‘disobedience to order’ Petre was accused of had resulted from his decision to carry people on a vehicle which was not intended for passengers.

The prosecution contended that his criminal action began from the moment he allowed the couple to ride with him on the vehicle.

Presiding Judge Abdul Baary Yousuf declared in court during earlier hearings that Petre’s lawyer had himself confessed during the trial that his client had driven the quad bike carrying Emma and Jonathan Gray as it crashed on the tourist property.

As a result of this confession, the judge said the state did not have to produce any evidence to prove Petre was the driver of the vehicle during the collision.

Representing the prosecution, State Attorney Aishath Fazna also contended that because Petre had “confessed” to driving the quad bike, she did not believe the state had to produce evidence to support this assumption.

However, Petre’s lawyer Areef Ahmed responded at the time that his client had not directly confessed to driving the quad bike and argued that his client continued to deny the charges against him.

Petre’s lawyer has also contended that his client could not be charged under Islamic Sharia because his client is non-Muslim.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP expresses concern with President Waheed’s appointee to JSC

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has expressed concern over President Dr Mohamed Waheed’s appointment yesterday of former Department of Judicial Administration (DJA) Spokesperson Latheefa Gasim to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), alleging the appointee had ties with the Jumhoree Party (JP).

In a press release yesterday (June 24), the party characterised Latheefa Gasim’s appointment as an attempt to “increase the political and other forms of influence of a particular group and promote their self-interest” through the judicial oversight commission.

“Latheefa Gasim is the wife of Mohamed Ikram, who is employed by Jumhoree Party presidential candidate Gasim Ibrahim as the head of V-media’s political department and a presenter of VTV, who campaigns for Gasim Ibrahim,” the party said, adding that Ikram was also a member of business magnate Gasim’s JP.

JP Leader Gasim Ibrahim is the parliament’s representative on the 10-member JSC, which consists of three judges from the three tiers of the judiciary (trial courts, High Court and Supreme Court); a representative of the President, the Attorney General, the chair of the Civil Service Commission; the Speaker of Parliament, a member of parliament elected by the People’s Majlis, a member of the public selected by parliament; and a lawyer elected by licensed practitioners in the Maldives.

Gasim, the JP MP for Alif Dhaal Maamigili, is the chairman of the Villa Group of businesses, which owns resorts, tour operators, a cement packing factory, a gas provider, an airline and several retail outlets.

The MDP alleged in its statement that Gasim has been “working ceaselessly” through the JSC to bar former President Nasheed from the upcoming presidential election on September 7, adding that the rival candidate has made public remarks to that effect.

Latheefa Gasim’s appointment to the commission has secured “two seats for the Jumhooree Party presidential candidate,” the press release continued, which has afforded the JP leader “further opportunities to advance his political and personal interests and exert extreme influence on the JSC.”

The press release also noted that Latheefa Gasim had made several statements to the media concerning MDP presidential candidate and former President Mohamed Nasheed’s trial at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

The former DJA spokesperson was not responding to Minivan News at time of press.

Latheef Gasim’s appointment yesterday followed the removal of Mohamed ‘Reynis’ Saleem by President Waheed last week ostensibly over allegations that the lawyer commissioned gangs to retrieve money owed to him.

The President’s appointee on the JSC was summoned to the police for questioning over the allegations in May.

The Criminal Court meanwhile refused to grant police an arrest warrant to take Saleem into custody, a decision which was backed upon appeal by the High Court.

Saleem was the defence counsel of Deputy Speaker of Parliament Ahmed Nazim in criminal cases involving an alleged scam to defraud the now-defunct Ministry of Atolls Development.

The cases were dismissed by the Criminal Court shortly after the controversial transfer of presidential power on February 7, 2012.

Meanwhile, in her report to the United Nations Human Rights Council following a visit to the Maldives, UN Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul observed that the JSC had a “complicated” relationship with the judiciary, given that the commission “considers that it has exclusive jurisdiction over all complaints against judges, including over criminal allegations, while the Prosecutor General understands that the criminal investigation agencies have the competence to investigate criminal conducts by anyone.”

The special rapporteur stated that there was near unanimous consensus during her visit that the composition of the JSC – which includes representatives from all three branches of government instead of exclusively the judiciary as was the norm in other nations – was “inadequate and politicised”.

This complaint was first highlighted in a report by the International Committee of Jurists (ICJ) in 2010.

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)