Tag: election

Comment: The importance of presidential candidates’ meeting

Even as the rest of the world – and Maldivians too – had almost given up the country as being on the brink of a political and leadership chaos, it has bounced back with the kind of verve and nerve that democracy entails at birth. The three presidential candidates met in what was not an entirely unexpected turn, and declared their intention to try and complete the poll process in time for an elected president to assume office on 11 November, the D-day under the constitutional scheme and national tradition.

Meeting on Sunday night, former President Mohammed Nasheed of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), and his rivals, Abdulla Yameen of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) and Gasim Ibrahim of the Jumhooree Party (JP), unanimously decided to approach the Election Commission (EC) for advancing the poll-dates. If their combined effort next morning when the met the EC officials did not fructify, it owed to the existing electoral scheme – or, so it would seem.

As may be recalled, the EC had fixed 9 November for the first-round and 16 November for the second-round of the once-annulled and once-cancelled polls. The tradition under the continuing constitutional scheme for decades now has been for the elected president to assume office on 11 November. With the second-round of polls, if required for the victor to possess the mandated 50-percent vote-support, scheduled for 16 November, questions have begun to be asked from the highest levels on the possibilities of an emerging constitutional vacuum.

In their meeting, the three candidates claimed to have worked out a scheme for verification of the voters’ list individually. Whatever that may be, they seemed desirous to let nothing – including the possibly an allegedly faulty voter-list – come in the way of completing the poll process. Claims of ‘faulty voter-list’ were among the causes for presidential polls, originally scheduled for 7 and 28 September, getting inordinately and at times inadvertently delayed.

During their meeting on Sunday night, the three candidates decided to urge the EC to advance the first round to 2 November and the second round, if needed, to 9 November. Clearly, they wanted the poll process to be completed in time for the elected one from among them to assume office on 11 November. None of them wanted a constitutional vacuum to emerge in the country during its democratic infancy, particularly after incumbent President Mohammed Waheed expressed a desire to step aside before the deadline for transition.

Going by local media reports, the three candidates meeting the waiting media together after their talks with EC officials, did not elaborate on the EC’s reasons for not being able to conduct the polls. While drafting earlier poll-schedules, the EC had provided the required 21 days for completing the administrative work, comprising re-registration of new voters and those wanting to vote in a booth other than originally assigned. The latter in particular should have thrown up problems while advancing the poll after re-registration had been set in motion.

Under the law, any Maldivian citizen attaining 18 years of age on the day of (first-round) polling are entitled to register their names as voters. After the EC had fixed 9 November as the day for first-round polling and opened re-registration, advancing the poll dates would have been fraught with complications that the constitution’s framers did not foresee, and hence did not provide for. Nor did the 4-3 verdict of the Supreme Court that annulled the 7 September poll and setting out a 16-point guideline for re-poll provide for.

With all sections of parliament involved in the three-candidate negotiations, getting an emergency constitutional amendment Bill through the People’s Majlis would have been a formality. Outgoing President Mohammed Waheed Hassan Manik, who readily endorsed the three-candidate decision, may have also given his assent to such a constitutional amendment. Should any citizen affected by the measure go to the court, however, the process by itself would have been time-consuming, defeating the very purpose of the poll-advancement idea.

‘No’ to military rule

The three-candidate meeting and their meaningful proposal has brought back political pragmatism to the nation’s centre-table, where electoral expediency and excesses alone seemed to rule for a time. President Waheed, who had not very long ago dubbed himself the ‘most hated person’ for the international community and media, set the ball rolling instead, by sounding out the possibility of his resigning from office along with his entire Cabinet, including Vice-President Waheed Deen, for Parliament Speaker, Abdulla Shahid, to take over for a 60-day election-period, as per the Constitution. He followed it up with a letter to Parliament

With the MDP’s Nasheed having won the highest 45.45 percent vote-share in the annulled first-round, the party-led alliance jumped at President Waheed’s proposal. It got the house to pass a resolution on those lines. This is to be followed by a formal bill on the same subject in the coming days, it is said. However, such a course would require a constitutional amendment. The non-MDP alliance parties had boycotted the earlier vote on the resolution. They can be expected to boycott the vote on the upcoming Bill, also, should the MDP still go ahead with the proposal after the three-candidate confabulation.

To the extent the three candidates, their parties and coalitions have been able to distinguish between political realities, electoral exigencies and constitutional compulsions, the nation has been brought back from the brink. Likewise, the Jumhooree Coalition’s Hassan Saeed, vice-presidential running-mate to Gasim Ibrahim, has shot down the proposition of a possible term of ‘military rule’ post 11/11, if the first-round poll of 9 November does not produce a president-elect. The coalition was not considering the option, Saeed said a day after JP parliamentary group leader, Ilham Ahmed, had proposed the same in the house on Sunday.

Air of permissiveness

The JP – and other political outfits – may be in for a time of introspection, if not explanation, a vandal attacked the Indian High Commissioner’s car outside of the diplomatic mission. The car’s wind-screen was damaged, but fortunately, no one was inside the vehicle at the time. Earlier in the day, JP’s mouth-piece, Miadhu, quoted party Secretary-General Hussein Shah as saying that “a foreign Ambassador (had) requested (party founder and presidential candidate Gasim) not to go to court even if there is any vote-manipulations”.

The police are investigating the car-attack. In diplomatic terms, the attack means more for bilateral relations than may be visible and acceptable. Shah’s unsubstantiated claims and the attack on the Indian envoy’s car may have been independent episodes, but both are also reflective of an ‘air of permissiveness’ that has permeated down the democratic political culture in the country. On an earlier occasion, a senior aide of President Waheed attacked the then Indian High Commissioner by name. He was shifted out to a different position, which was considered an elevation, not a punishment, of sorts.

Needless to point out that the President’s Office, Parliament, the police and armed forces headquarters are all within a stone’s throw of the Indian High Commission. The stone that fell on the Indian side could very well have fallen on the other side, too. It only goes on to indicate the precarious nature of the nation’s politics and politics-driven people’s posturing just now. It comes a year and half after the prevailing mood and methods of this kind culminated in the controversial resignation of President Nasheed on 7 February 2012. Each party and politician continues to have a different take and cause for the events, versions and justifications of that day – all of them contributing to the current confusion and consequent impasse.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Translation: Election annulment’s confidential police report

This article first appeared on Dhivehi Sitee. Republished with permission.

Just before midnight on 7 October 2013, the Maldives Supreme Court issued a ruling cancelling the first round of the second democratic elections held on 7 September 2013.

Although the election was found to free and fair by over a thousand domestic and international observers, Jumhooree Party candidate Qasim Ibrahim filed a case at the apex court citing fraud and vote rigging during the election.

The 4:3 verdict cited a confidential police report submitted to the court allegedly claiming that 5600 votes were ineligible. The report has not previously been available to the public and was not shown to the Election Commission’s defence lawyers.

On the Supreme Court’s request, a team of ‘forensic experts’ from the Maldives Police Service worked from 26 September to 3 October inside the Supreme Court premises analysing ‘evidence’ of alleged fraud and vote rigging on 7 September.

It was cited in the Supreme Court ruling as the main basis on which the court ruled in Jumhooree Party’s favour. Dhivehi Sitee discovered a copy of the report online. The following is an English translation.

Maldives Police Service, Forensic Service Directorate, Male’, Republic of Maldives

Report No: K/JER/2013/0001

Report on discrepancies found in lists compared in the case submitted on vote rigging in the first round of the presidential election

1. Introduction

This is a report on the findings of the investigation into the validity of evidence submitted against Elections Commission by Jumhooree Party in case No. 42/C-SC/2013 being heard at the Supreme Court, conducted upon a request made by the Supreme Court in its letter 197-C1/171/2013/30 dated 26 September 2013.

A large number of Forensic Document Examiners, Digital Examiners and support staff participated in the analysis, gathering and compilation of the information contained in this report. The work was conducted in the Supreme Court of the Maldives, in the presence of Court staff, between 26 September 2013 and 03 October 2013.

2. Material compared

2.1 List of 470 ballot boxes described as containing (in separate boxes) List of People Who Voted in the 2013 Presidential Election (7 September 2013): (Note: Although this is how the box files sent by the Elections Commission were marked, the separate booklets contained in the box files were labelled ‘List of Eligible Voters in 2013 Presidential Election’. From now on, all references to this list or to the booklets in this report will be as ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’. Thus, in total, the number of booklets or lists were contained in 44 box files, total 796 booklets.)

2.2 The following documents submitted to the Supreme Court by Jumhooree Party

2.2.1 Children under the age of 18 in the Eligible Voters List (41 names included);

2.2.2 List of dead people in the Eligible Voters list (list including 669 names);

2.2.3 Names of people repeated in the Eligible Voters List (list including 204 names);

2.2.4 List of people in the Eligible Voters List not included in the ID card registry of the Department of National Registration (List in which names of 1818 people are included);

2.2.5 List of people in the Eligible Voters List registered at addresses without knowledge of the home owner (Including information on 1187 people).

2.3 Personal information of citizens stored by the Department of National Registration (DNR Database);

2.4 Access logs of the computer software Ballot Progress Reporting System (or B.P.R.S) used in the Elections Commission on polling day;

2.5 Copy of the Eligible Voters List provided to the Jumhooree Party by the Elections Commission;

2.6 Eligible Voters List in the 2013 Presidential Election published in the Government Gazette.

3. Methodology of verifying validity of the lists

To establish the validity of the lists submitted to the Maldives Supreme Court by the Jumhooree Party, they had to be compared against the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ submitted to the court by the Elections Commission. The origins of the on-going case submitted to the Supreme Court by Jumhooree Party lie in doubts raised over the Voters Registry of the Elections Commission. Hence, assessing the validity of the Elections Commission’s ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ was also seen as essential and efforts were made to do so. Thus, information contained in the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ was compared with personal information stored by the Department of National Registratin (DNR Databse) and discrepancies found are included in this report.

Further, the ‘Presidential Election 2013 – Eligible Voters List’ published in the Government Gazette Vol.42, No.94 of 30 May 2013; ‘Amendments made to the 2013 Presidential Election Eligible Voters List of 30 May 2013 following complaints received’ published on 29 June 2013; and the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ submitted to the Supreme Court by the Elections Commission were also compared and the findings are included.

To conduct this work, separate lists in the 470 boxes of ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ were re-typed into computers and compared with the DNR database. As more than 1 (one) list was included in one ballot box, information in such lists were looked at and analysed individually.

Further, the lists referred to in 2.2 of this report were individually compared with the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ and the DNR Database.

Access logs of the computer software Ballot Progress Reporting System (or B.P.R.S) used by the Elections Commission on polling day were obtained.  But, due to the manner in which the system was used with access allowed from many IP addresses and the short time available for research, adequate analysis was not carried out.

In examining the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ efforts were made to establish how [officials] verified the identity of which person from the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ was casting the vote. This was done with reference to Chapter 3 (Taking Votes) of the ‘Officials Handbook – Presidential Election 2013’ compiled by the Elections Commission.

Moreover, efforts were made to assess information around the lists that we believed must be looked at in conducting work of this nature. Points of note from these efforts are also included in this report.

3.1 To establish that persons named in the ‘List submitted to the Supreme Court by Jumhooree Party of 41 children who were under 18 and ineligible to vote but are said to have been allowed to vote’, referred to in 2.2 of this Report, are Maldivian citizens, the list was compared with the DNR Database. To this effect, as those not included in the DNR database are people who have not obtained a national identity card, they have been regarded as people who not eligible to vote. If the people in this List were found in the DNR database, their ages were verified and it was established whether or not they were 18 years of age by 06 September 2013 and therefore eligible to vote.

3.2 Information relating to the 669 people who are said to be dead were compared, as stated in the previous point, to the DNR Database. In addition, it was checked whether those people from the 669 whose information was found to be in the DNR database were included in the Eligible Voters List said to have been used in the polling stations of the presidential election held on 7 September 2013. It was also checked whether such an individual had voted in the presidential election on 7 September 2013.

3.3 The list submitted by the Jumhooree Party of 1187 people from the Eligible Voters List in the Presidential Election on 7 September 2013 said to have been registered at a different ballot box without the knowledge of the voter cannot be verified through data comparison work such as this. Therefore, this work could not get to the bottom of it. But, we state that the issue must be addressed in concluding this case and propose that it be verified by the relevant complaints (elections) office or committee records.

3.4 Information relating to the 102 people noted by Jumhooree Party as repeated in the lists of eligible voters in the presidential election of 7 September 2013 were compared with the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’.

3.5 Checked whether any individual’s name was repeated in the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’. It was also checked whether such a person voted more than once.

3.6 To verify Jumhooree Party’s claim that 1818 people described by Jumhooree Party were entered into the List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election without valid information, their details were checked against data comparison [sic], DNR database and the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’.

3.7 Checked whether any person was included in the lists of eligible voters used in the polling stations in the presidential election of 7 September 2013 that was not in the DNR Database or had invalid information. Clerical evidence available was used to verify whether or not any such individual voted in the presidential election of 7 September 2013.

Findings

4.1 Following are the findings of note resulting from examination of the lists submitted as evidence by Jumhooree Party

4.1.1 The ‘List of children under the age of 18 included in the Eligible Voters List’ submitted by the Jumhooree Party did not give the identity card number of the 41 children named in the list. When this list was compared with the DNR Database, 32 of them were found to have been under the age of 18 by 7 September 2013. The remaining 9 people’s information could not be verified because the list did not contain identity cards. That is, their names could not be found by the work conducted using their permanent addresses, names and ballot boxes as the basis. List of People Who Voted in the Presidential Election of 7 September 2013 notes that 12 of those 32 children voted. Information relating to the 32 persons identified are listed in Annex 1 of this report.

4.1.2 When the ‘List of Dead People Included in the Eligible Voters List’ containing names of 669 people submitted as evidence by the Jumhooree Party was compared with the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’, information relating to 637 people were found. 14 of them were noted in the List of People Who Voted in the presidential election 2013 (7 September 2013). 2 of the 14 people were recorded as having voted using an identity card that was no issued in their names. Moreover, when the Elections Commission official noted the identity card of one of the two people using a pen, one digit from the identity card number was omitted. DNR database shows that 156 people recorded as deceased died on 01 January 1800. This information is in Annex 2.

4.1.3 When the names of 204 people submitted by the Jumhooree Party as list of people repeated in the Eligible Voters List was compared with the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ 174 matching entries were found. This includes 22 people the DNR Database had noted as repeated and entered “REPEAT / REPEAT.REPEAT” as their permanent address. This information is in Annex 3.

4.1.4 When the list submitted by Jumhooree Party as containing information of 1818 people who are not in the Department of National Registration’s ID Card Registry were compared with the DNR Database it showed that DNR has not issued 1637 of these people with ID cards. Efforts to find the remaining people by matching other information were unsuccessful. This also includes 7 people referred to in Point 4.22. Records show that of the people identified, 207 did vote. 96 of them voted using identity cards that were not the same as listed in the gazetted list. Information relating to this is in Annex 4.

4.1.5 When the information relating to 1187 people listed as registered to certain addresses in the Eligible Voters List without the knowledge of the homeowners was compared with the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ and the DNR database, 1186 records were found. 44 of these people were registered some place other than their home islands. While these 44 people voted, the Registry shows 1115 people in the list voted. It is believed that more information about this list cannot be found by data comparison. Information relating to people with such discrepancies is included in Annex 5.

4.2 It is noted that the ID card numbers of some people in the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ did not match with some of the ID card numbers written in pen on the list as voted. In this regard, 815 individuals had identity card numbers that did not match. Information relating to such discrepancies are given in Annex 6.

4.3 In instances where people’s information contained in the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ did not match their information in the DNT Database, it must be noted that, they were given the opportunity to vote by changing such information with a pen to match that contained in the DNR Database. Information relating to such individuals are contained in Annex 7.

4.4 In sorting the names in the two lists of Ballot Box Number T03.1.4 different methods were used. While one of the lists was sorted according to the addresses on the identity cards the other was sorted according to the order of identity card numbers. Therefore, the names on the two lists were topsy-turvy and the two lists had lost their order.

4.5 Some people’s names were added to the ‘List of People who Voted in the Presidential Election 2013 (7 September 2013)’ with a pen and given the opportunity to vote. It can be noted from the lists that 07 people were given such an opportunity. Information relating to such individuals is contained in Annex 8.

4.6 It was noted that the list used to highlight people who voted in Ballot Box No. Z33.1.1 installed on “Vivanta by Thaj Coral Reef Maldives” was similar to the list gazetted by the Elections Commission. Therefore, the list did not contain important voter information such as Identity Card and Date of Birth. This is a list different from the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ and similar to the list gazetted by the Elections Commission.

4.7 It was noted that the methods used to note those who voted on the Eligible Voters List varied at different polling stations. The following are methods used to note people who voted:

4.7.1 Using highlight markers to note who voted;

4.7.2 A tick against the name of the person who voted in pencil or pen instead of using a highlight marker;

4.7.3 Writing the voter’s identity card number with pen or pencil instead of using a highlight marker;

4.7.4 Putting a cross (x) beside the name with a pen or pencil after using a highlight marker;

4.7.5 Using a highlight marker to denote a person having voted and not at all entering their identity card numbers;

4.7.6 Using a highlight marker to denote that a person had voted, then using a different coloured highlight marker to denote the person had not voted; and

4.7.7 Having noted a person as voted by writing the person’s identity card number in pen, then crossing it out with a pen, then connecting it to an identity card number against someone else’s name with a line.

“Officials Handbook – Presidential Election 2013, Chapter 3 (Taking Votes) states that it should be done thus: ‘After checking the voter’s name in the list, note the voter’s identity card number in the allocated box and, once the person who issues the ballot paper has done so, note the person’s name in the list with a highlighter marker.’

4.8 It was noted that while two or three lists were used with the ballot boxes at some polling stations, others used only one list.

4.9 While it was noted that 690 people recorded as dead on the DNR Database was included in the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’, records show that 18 people recorded as dead in the DNR database voted. Information relating to these 18 people are on Annex 9.

4.10 It was noted that the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ included information related to minors under the age of 18. 39 such children were included in the list. 07 of them voted after changing their age. It is evident from the Identity Card numbers entered into the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ with a pen that 4 out of these 7 children voted using another Identity Card belonging to someone over the age of 18. One such person voted at a ballot box abroad, in Malaysia. Information related to persons noted in this point are included in Annex 10.

4.11 It was noted that votes were cast using the same identity card (repeatedly) in the lists of eligible voters in 07 September 2013 presidential election. It was noted that three identity cards (ID Card Number: A047595, A100910, A263120) were used to vote repeatedly.

4.12 ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ repeated 07 different identity cards. Information relating to such persons is in Annex 11.

4.13 Of the people included in the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ 2273 people had Dates of Birth different from that listed in the DNR Database. Information relating to people in the eligible voters lists whose dates of birth were listed differently in the DNR Database is included in Annex 12.

4.14 There were 1804 people in the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ whose addresses were typed in the DNR Database as “REPEAT / REPEAT.REPEAT”. The registry of people who voted in the presidential election show that 225 of these people voted in the 07 September 2013 election using this identity. Detailed information relating to such persons is included in Annex 13.

4.15 Of the people included in the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ 4032 were found to have permanent addresses different from their addresses listed in the DNR Database. 2830 of these people voted. People whose permanent addresses listed in the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ were different from that listed in the DNR database are included in Annex 14.

4.16 Of the people included in the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’, 319 people’s gender was listed as different from that listed in the DNR Database. Information relating to these people is in Annex 15.

4.17 Of the people included in the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’, 1164 individuals were found to have names different from the DNR Database. Registry of Voters shows that 952 such people voted on 7 September 2013. Information relating to people whose names were different is in Annex 16.

4.18 It was noted that carelessness when writing in identity card numbers of those who voted from ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’, meant some digits were missing or illegible. The information of 162 people were noted this way. Moreover there were 815 people in the registry of voters whose ID card numbers written in pen by the polling stations did not match the ID card numbers printed in the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’. This figure includes the 162 Identity Card numbers previously mentioned. This information can be seen in Annex 07 of this report.

4.19 Of people in the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ 07 people were completely missing from the DNR Database. Of those 07 people, one person voted in the 07 September 2013 presidential election. As this person has a passport, it is believed that the person voted using the passport. Nevertheless, no information relating to this person is in the DNR database. Information relating to the 7 people is included in Annex 17.

4.20 It was noted that there were differences between the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ published in the government gazette and list given to Jumhooree Party candidate by the Elections Commission. As such, while the total number in the gazetted amended Voters registry (on the Elections Commission website) was 239956, the total number of eligible voters as per B.P.R.S was 239593. The list Elections Commission gave the Jumhooree Party contained the number 239593. The voters registry sent to the Supreme Court by the Elections Commission (on a CD) contained information relating to 239971 individuals. However, the booklets (used in the polling stations, printed on paper) containing ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ that the Elections Commission submitted to the Supreme Court to show the registry of people who voted contained a total of 239603.

4.21 Discrepancies were noted in results from ballot boxes. As such, there was a difference of 251 votes between the total number given in the ‘List of People Who Voted in the 2013 Presidential Election’ and results announced by the Elections Commission on its website and other forums. Total number of votes from 66 boxes was less than the number published by the Elections Commission. While 284 boxes had no problems, 120 boxes had more voters than announced by the Elections Commission. While the number which voted less is 123, the number of votes cast more than the total at the boxes was 254. Annex 18 contains a list which shows the discrepancies in the vote boxes.

Conclusion

5.1 Of the issues noted in No.4 of this report, records show 773 people were allowed to vote despite discrepancies in identity card numbers, 7 people whose names were not on the list were added by pen, 18 people voted who were listed as dead in the DNR registry, according to the Registry 07 children voted, 3 people voted repeatedly, 225 people voted who were marked as ‘repeat’ in the DNR and were not issued with identity cards, 2830 people were given the opportunity to vote even though their permanent addresses did not match, 952 people voted despite discrepancies in their names, 7 people voted whose records were non-existent in DNR, and 819 people were included whose identity card numbers in the printed Voter Registry did not match the identity card numbers entered with insufficient care by Elections Commission officials. This is a total of 5623 votes. In relation to the announced results of this election, we see this as a massive figure.

5.2 While officials in the presidential election 2013 were given training, a particular procedure was set for them to follow, and an ‘Officials’ Handbook’ was printed and shared with them, it was noted that there was no consistency in how voters’ identity card numbers were entered and in drawing the required line with highlighter markers to denote people who voted. This created additional difficulties in entering this information into the computer.

5.3 We did not receive enough technical information necessary for analysing the Ballot Progress Reporting System. Therefore, we cannot explain the system’s process and data flow mechanisms and did not have the information to assess the importance of using such a system or to identify the vulnerabilities of the system if any. When we asked for the system’s server access log and audit trail, we only got the access log. Adequate information in this kind of work cannot be gathered this way. However, as access log shows that the software has been accessed by several IPs, it is our view that these access points be identified and their legitimacy established. From analysing the access logs, it can be seen that the Ballot Progress Reporting System is a server hosted in a way that allows access to it by the general public. That is, the server had been accessed by a large number of domestic and foreign IP addresses. As such, records show that it had also been accessed several times by IPs in countries that did not host ballot boxes on that day. The IP counts of the access log also shows up information that makes us believe that some Nets used at polling stations were also connecting to the server. It is also our opinion that additional people (third-party), too, can enter the server. As the Elections Commission did not provide the audit trail of the Ballot Progress Reporting System, we could not do the work to answer complaints raised by the public about its stoppage at various times on polling day.

5.4 As the database of the Ballot Progress Reporting System could not be obtained, we could not further verify the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ submitted to the Supreme Court by the Elections Commission.

5.5 As the clerical evidence obtained cannot get to the reality of the claims that votes had already been cast in their names when some people arrived at polling stations, and because there is no time to carry out such work, and as we do not have information on complaints filed at complaints bureaus, it was not possible for this report to get to the origins of those suspicions. For the same reasons the validity of the ‘List of 1187 people included in the Eligible Voters List who were registered at addresses without knowledge of homeowners’ could not be adequately verified.

5.6 Although the figure shown in point (5.1) is not a large percentage of the eligible voters, there is sufficient room to believe that it can affect the second round of the election. But, it must also be said that in relation to the error-margin this is not that big a number. When considering what has happened, it has to be said that there is vast opportunity to say that these things were done intentionally rather than unknowingly. That is, things like the inclusion of 1804 people in the Voter Registry to whom the Department of National Registration had not issued identity cards, a large number of dead people (690) being included in the Eligible Voters Registry and some of them casting votes, 39 children who were not 18 years of age according to the Roman calendar and 07 of them casting votes, 2830 people whose permanent addresses did not match being included in the Voters Registry, including in the Eligible Voters Registry 1164 people whose names contained huge discrepancies are issues which could have been, but were not, easily clarified from the Department of National Registration. For these reasons, it cannot be believed that this was an election in which work of the Elections Commission staff was sufficiently and cleverly supervised.

5.7 Since the issues listed above creates the room in which some people can see them as actions carried out for the benefit of a particular candidate, it is our view that ensuring that such matters are not repeated in future elections is vital for maintaining people’s trust in the young Maldivian democracy.

5.8 There is a difference of 251 people between the election results announced by the Elections Commission and the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’. Although we cannot say directly how this difference has emerged, this will also be added to the Registry of people who voted. But, as all officials did not mark the voters registry as outlined in the Officials’ Handbook, and did not act with consistency or use the same method in noting names of people on the list who turned up to vote [sic]. And, it could also have happened because people who were not on the registry were also given the opportunity to vote this time, differences existed in the various copies used at even the one ballot box, or some other reason that has not been noted in this work. Moreover, judging from other problems encountered in the Registry, it is our view that it is also possible that people could have cast extra votes.

6. Researchers

This proposal was researched by a team of people with knowledge in various fields. Thus, document examiners, computer forensic analysts and technical staff participated.

03 October 2013

[Signature]

Assistant Commissioner of Police Hussein Adam

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Supreme Court is subverting the democratic process”: UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay has released a statement on Wednesday expressing concern about “the dangerous drift in the democratic process in the Maldives largely as a result of the Supreme Court’s repeated interventions in the presidential election process”.

“I am alarmed that the Supreme Court of the Maldives is interfering excessively in the Presidential elections, and in so doing is subverting the democratic process and violating the right of Maldivians to freely elect their representatives,” the statement read.

The Supreme Court immediately hit back today, with Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz describing Pillay’s comments as “poorly researched” and  “irresponsible”.

“The Supreme Court nullified the first round of the Presidential Election of 7 September 2013 on the basis of irregularities in the process, despite the general conclusions by national and international observers that the election was free and fair,” read Pillay’s statement.

Pillay also described the court’s election guidelines as “onerous” and “difficult to satisfy”.

“There have been longstanding concerns about the independence and impartiality of the judiciary in the Maldives, which both the High Commissioner and the Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, addressed during official visits to the country in 2011 and 2013,” added Pillay

“I am normally the first to defend the independence of the judiciary, but this also carries responsibilities. Judges should act in accordance with the principles of impartiality, propriety, equality and due diligence, as reflected in the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of Judiciary, the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, and Maldives’ own code of conduct,” Pillay stated.

The statement further also expressed concern regarding the court’s threats to charge lawyers, media and civil society groups for challenging its decisions, as well as “the reactivation of old cases to arrest opposition MPs or bar them from Parliament.”

“The Supreme Court appears set on undermining other independent institutions, stifling criticism and public debate, and depriving litigants of the legal representation of their choice,” Pillay stated.

Chief Justice’s response

“I harshly condemn UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay’s  false allegations regarding the Maldives Supreme Court’s work to uphold its constitutional duties and responsibilities. I do not believe she has any authority to speak in such terms,” responded Chief Justice Faiz today.

Defending the court’s neutrality, Faiz argued that Pillay’s statement was unacceptable for an official operating under the UN’s mandate to protect the rights of large and small states alike.

“False allegations by any party on the Supreme Court’s work does not aid strengthening democracy, administration of justice in the Maldives or uphold the rule of law. It does not encourage the promotion of democracy, rule of law or protection of human rights,” read Faiz’s statement.

The first round of the Maldives presidential election – held on September 7 was annulled by the Supreme Court earlier this month, with a fresh round of elections arranged to be held on October 19.

The re-scheduled vote, however, was also cancelled after police obstructed the Elections Commission, citing the Supreme Court’s issued 16 regulation as justification.

As well as condemning the police for the delay, the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives has also condemned the police for “acting beyond its mandate”, while a leaked report by the commission questions the credibility of the evidence used by the apex court in its annulment of the first round of elections.

A joint statement by the International Federation for Human Rights and local NGO Maldives Democracy Network has described the court’s verdict as being founded on “materially baseless arguments”, after the first round was “applauded as a success by the international community.”

A new first round is now scheduled for November 9, with the EC President Fuwad Thowfeek maintaining it will not be changed despite requests to expedite the polling date from both the current government and the contesting presidential candidates.

Government-aligned parties go to SC for political solutions

Progressive Party of Maldives lawyer Ibrahim ‘Wadde’ Waheed submitted a case to the Supreme Court on Tuesday seeking a ruling on the motion passed by the parliament to appoint Speaker Abdulla Shahid as interim head of state in the instance that an elected president cannot be installed by the constitutionally mandated date, November 11.

Waheed is quoted in local media as saying the parliamentary motion has been passed against the constitution and the verdicts of the Supreme Court.

On the same day, Wadde has also submitted another case to the court asking it to rule that the MDP MP Ahmed Hamza’s appointment to the judicial watchdog – the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) – was conducted in breach of the constitution.

In this case, Wadde argued that Hamza is a person who works “against the judiciary” and so he finds it “unacceptable that such a man can serve in the JSC”.

Earlier this month Wadde, alongside Jumhooree Coalition member ‘Madhanee Ihthihaadh’ (Civil Alliance) President Sheikh Mohamed Didi, filed a case in the apex court challenging opposition Maldivian Democratic Party candidate and former President Mohamed Nasheed’s candidacy.

The petition gave as grounds Nasheed’s criticism of the judiciary, as well as his “outright criticism towards Islam and iposing Islamic Sharia’ in the Maldives”.

Jumhooree Coalition’s Presidential Candidate Gasim Ibrahim has also this week called on President Dr Mohamed Waheed to seek advice from the apex court on the course of action he should take should there not be an elected leader by November 11.

Speaking at a party rally, Gasim stated that as Waheed has previously written to the parliament for advice, he believes the president should also seek the opinion of the Supreme Court.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“We in the EU should apply maximum pressure to reverse this judicial coup,” says European MP

Charles Tannock, Conservative Member of the European Parliament (MEP) has told a plenary session of the EU parliament in Strasbourg that organisation should apply “maximum pressure”  to reverse what he described as a “judicial coup” in the Maldives.

“The people of the Maldives deserve better than this: they must have their voices heard, and their decisions respected. The constitutional crisis in Male which looms if a new President is not elected before the current President’s mandate expires could spell disaster for this small but dignified nation,” Tannock told the 766 member legislature.

The MEP went on to call for politicians to put the interests of their country ahead of their own careers and “a small band of disfavoured elites allied to ex-President Gayoom and Islamist parties, who determine the country’s future.”

“I believe the Maldives could face a very strong and unwelcome response from the international community if these failings are not mended, he told journalists following the session.

“I am sure that no regime there would find it comfortable if governments began advising their citizens not to visit as tourists because of the dire state of human rights including particularly women’s rights and the lack of basic democratic freedoms.”

EU High Representative Catherine Ashton said she was “deeply concerned” following the most recent delay in the Maldives presidential elections.

“The EU reiterates its confidence in the impartiality and efficiency of the Maldivian Election Commission. It recalls that elections cannot successfully be held if the process can be repeatedly brought to a halt through legal injunctions,” she said in a statement.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Human Rights Commission alleges police intimidation of its staff

The Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) has alleged that the police are attempting to intimidate commission staff members following the start of its investigations into what they maintain is police obstruction of the October 19 presidential election.

“The commission believes that what we are facing now is serious, unprecedented and unjustifiable intimidation from the police. We will continue the investigation, while also ensuring that we continue protecting every one of our team members,” HRCM member Jeehan Mahmoodh has told Minivan News.

Jeehan stated that, after criticising the police for acting outside of their mandate when obstructing the Elections Commissions (EC) efforts to conduct the presidential election on October 19, they have been facing what the commission believes to be attempts by the police to intimidate its staff.

Jeehan said that the police had requested the HRCM provide “complete details” of the staff members who witnessed the police’s actions outside of the EC on the morning of October 19.

“In the history of HRCM, we have never before had such a request, where details of individual staff are asked for in relation to an investigation. This just cannot be done,” Jeehan said.

“We responded, invoking Article 27 of the HRCM Act and informed the police that the commission will not compromise the safety of any of our staff members. We also explained that as this is an ongoing investigation we cannot compromise it by providing detailed information regarding the matter,” she continued.

Article 27 of the HRCM Act has two parts, with part (a) stating that, “No criminal or civil suit shall be filed against the President or Vice- President or a member of the Commission in relation to committing or omitting an act in good faith whilst undertaking responsibilities of the commission or exercising the powers of the Commission or the powers conferred to the Commission by a law”.

Part (b) of the same article says “The Commission can only be questioned or a suit can be filed against the Commission in court regarding a component in a report published by the Commission following an inquiry, should sufficient evidence be available to prove the component is false”.

Speaking out on human rights violation is our duty: HRCM

After Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz tweeted saying, “HRCM to seek information after findings revealed!!”, Jeehan’s response echoed the HRCM statement released following the police’s initial suggestions that the HRCM had not made a balanced assessment.

“This is definitely not the first time HRCM has made comments in the instance that we observe a breach of human rights, regardless of who the instigators are. If a human rights violation becomes apparent to the commission, then we have both the right and the responsibility to promptly share this with the general public,” she said.

“For instance, after the events of February 8, 2012, HRCM immediately made a public initial statement on the matter…The police are well aware this is the norm,” she continued.

“Putting it in a different context, let’s say the police see a crime being committed, and arrests a person red-handed at the crime scene. They don’t wait for their full investigation to end, and nor does their investigation end there. But since they saw it happen, they get to make a stand. Similarly, when it is evident that a human rights violation has been committed, the commission will take a stand,” she said.

October 19

Jeehan also spoke to Minivan News about the HRCM’s work on October 19, the date intended for a fresh round of elections after the initial September 7 poll was annulled by the Supreme Court.

“Our team – it’s full strength including the commissioners – was on duty by 5:30am on October 19, as we were ready to carry out election observation. We then received reports of police obstructing EC officials, and immediately dispatched investigators to the EC offices. Our staff spoke with the EC Secretary General Asim Abdul Sattar, as well as a number of police officers there. Thereby, our staff are witnesses to the events that took place that day,” she explained.

“HRCM Vice President Tholal was in charge as Commission President Azra was away on hajj pilgrimage. Tholal tried multiple times to reach the police focal point – incidentally the same as the focal point for the EC – Assistance Commissioner of Police Ali Rasheed by phone, and finally sent a text message. ACP Rasheed did not respond to even the text until nearly midnight,” Jeehan continued.

“Tholal then called the Acting Home Minister [Ahmed Shafeeu], who is in effect the oversight over the police force. He asked the minister, and I quote, “why have police obstructed elections?”. The Minister informed us that the obstruction is not a police initiative or decision, and that they are following orders after much deliberation. Contrary to some media reports, the Home Ministry’s statement did not deny our claims that we contacted him and got this response, but rather confirms it,” Jeehan said.

“Police did not act in their own accord”: Home Minister

A press statement of the Home Ministry reads, “As the letter sent by the HRCM to the Police alleging that the police obstructed the elections scheduled for October 19 reveals that when they contacted the Acting Home Minister via phone and asked him why police had obstructed elections, he responded that the police had not acted out of their own accord but on orders that they had received, this ministry feels we must clarify what happened.”

“On the 19th of this month, in a phone conversation, Vice President of HRCM Ahmed Tholal asked why the police had acted in a manner against the government’s statement that it will provide cooperation to holding the election.”

“In response, the Minister had said that the police had not acted on their own accord, and that it had been in accordance with the advice of the relevant government bodies which was based on the verdict of the Supreme Court,” the statement concluded.

Police asks HRCM to identify officers they spoke with on October 19

Jeehan said that the police had also requested the HRCM provide identification details of the police officers that the commission’s investigators had spoken with on the morning of October 19.

“This is information that the police must have. They ought to know which of their officers they dispatched there, and what they did in their line of duty. That was the commission’s response to them, shouldn’t they know who it was?” Jeehan asked.

Jeehan also said that the commission has requested the police to provide an incident report on the events of October 19, as well as copies of all communication they have exchanged with any other institution after the date of the initial annulled election.

“It isn’t at all like the police are claiming on various media. We are not asking for information after reaching a conclusion. We made that initial statement that police obstructed elections based on our observations, and the fact that our staff were witness to it. We are now conducting a procedural investigation of the matter,” Jeehan explained.

“Furthermore, we have asked for copies of any communication between the police and any other institution from beyond the date of the obstructed election for an investigation that is based on other additional information we have received. We cannot yet reveal the details of this as it may compromise the investigation, but it will be made public upon completion,” she continued.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Week in review: October 12 – 25

The past fortnight has been dominated by the build up to, and the fallout from, the re-scheduled presidential elections. Due to take place on October 19, the poll was delayed at the eleventh hour when police blocked the removal of documents from the Elections Commission (EC).

The police’s decision – later criticised by the Human Rights Commission as well as the EC – came after the EC had been unable to obtain the signatures of the candidates as mandated by the Supreme Court for the completion of the voter registry.

Both Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) and Jumhooree Party (JP) candidates had broken off contact with the EC, just as the commission neared completion of a frantic drive to re-register over 70,000 voters in less than two weeks.

The EC’s efforts were further placed in jeopardy by the court’s maintenance that any concerns regarding fingerprint verification must be addressed – a task that the commission maintained was beyond its capacity.

Re-registration was made harder still when PPM and supporters of its coalition ally the Maldivian Development Alliance (MDA) caused chaos in the re-registration queues after a systems malfunction. The police were again criticised by the EC for failing to come to its aid in a timely manner, with Chair Fuwad Thowfeek (fore-)telling Minivan News “there are people who want to block this vote”.

The police subsequently defended its role in delaying the election.

JP and PPM officials re-surfaced in the afternoon prior to the polling date to state that they would not sign the register without further verification – of 10 and 5 percent of fingerprints, respectively – before both parties returned to the Supreme Court, requesting the further delay of polls.

When the court failed to accede to these requests, the police obliged, prompting the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) to take to the streets in a peaceful sit-down protest that covered the length of Male’s main thoroughfare and beyond. In a rousing speech MDP candidate Mohamed Nasheed vowed to “establish good governance in the Maldives”.

Two nights of these protests followed, as did meetings between the EC and political parties, before the election was moved to November 9 – with a potential run-off scheduled for the 16th. The Supreme Court, however, has already deemed that its prior guidelines must be followed to the letter.

After deciding to withdraw his own candidacy for the new poll, President Waheed publicly expressed his doubt over credibility of the scheduled October 19 vote.  Waheed also stated his refusal to acknowledge the five percent vote he had received in the first (annulled) poll.

In his latest foray into Maldivian politics, British businessman Richard Branson revealed this week that he had been on the verge of writing to Waheed to congratulate him on his handling of the democratic process before the vote’s deferral.

Waheed’s calls, the day before the scheduled vote, for parties to cease obstructing polling fell on deaf ears, as have his calls for conciliation. Waheed suggested to Indian media that he would threaten to resign if necessary, a sentiment strongly supported by Nasheed.

Fierce rhetoric has refused to abate in the aftermath of the cancelled vote, with the two presidential coalitions launching attacks on the EC, after having focused on one another prior to the 19th.

JP presidential candidate and MP Gasim Ibrahim called for the Majlis to declare a state of emergency in order to pursue criminal charges against the EC and Chair Fuwad Thowfeek – whose superhuman efforts prompted an outpouring of support from the public.

Meanwhile, the prospect of the court invalidating Nasheed’s candidacy altogether remains on the table as PPM council member Ibrahim ‘Wadde’ Waheed refused to defer to the requests of his leaders and withdraw his court case.

The MDP – who now enjoy a Majlis majority with the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) – tabled multiple no-confidence motions against senior cabinet members, as well as legislation to ensure the orderly transition of power from the executive to the speaker should the presidential term end (on November 11) without a successor having been chosen.

This flurry of activity in the legislature prompting the Supreme Court to fast-track the suspension of two MPs on charges of decreed debt.

Elsewhere

Aside from the elections, the police received continued criticism from Raajje TV regarding the station’s arson attack, with its chairman seeking international assistance to find the perpetrators.

One officer who failed to return from accompanying the ballot box to the UK was caught out on social media as he tweeted about his attendance at Arsenal’s Champions League game this week.

Following a suicide in Male’ in a location frequented by drug users, the National Drug Agency warned of a potentially lethal drug in circulation.

Finally, global climate justice NGO 350.org told Minivan News this week that the recent IPCC report only strengthened the world’s need for climate justice advocates such as former President Nasheed.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Virgin tycoon calls for elections in the Maldives “as soon as possible”

British business tycoon Sir Richard Branson has called for free elections “as soon as possible” in the Maldives, after police blocked the election from taking place on October 19.

The head of the Virgin Empire, who has previously blogged on the Maldives’ political turmoil, said he had drafted an article several weeks ago “to praise President Waheed for taking his country back into free and fair elections and bringing true democracy back to the country.”

“But before I had chance to publish it, the Maldives police intervened and stopped the ballot boxes reaching the polling stations,” Branson said.

His comments follow findings from the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) that the police stopped the election illegally, in violation of the constitution.

Additionally, a leaked Human Rights Commission (HRCM) report obtained by Minivan News questions the credibility of the evidence used by the Supreme Court to annul the first round of presidential polls, and the court’s authority to issue guidelines effectively permitting candidates to effectively veto future elections.

“Knowing President Waheed as I do, my instinct is that he is not behind the blocking of the election process, and that other people who didn’t do well in the first round of the elections are trying to stop a fair election taking place,” the tycoon suggested.

Waheed, who received 5.13 percent of the vote in the annulled first round, has withdrawn from the revote and publicly stated that he has no intention of remaining in power after the end of the presidential term on November 11.

“I am not comfortable to stay on. It would be my preference that there be an elected President. And it would also be my preference that if this is not possible, then there would be some other arrangement made,” Waheed told The Hindu.

Branson however observed that while the election had been rescheduled for November 9, “the Maldives Supreme Court has brought a ruling that the candidates will have the power of veto – so unless all candidates agree to the electoral roll there will be no elections.”

“Plus, if a run off is needed it will be on November 16th, which is after the expiry of the current presidential term, creating a constitutional void. This whole process is a huge threat to democracy, which perhaps sadly is what some of the candidates want, having seen how the public voted in the first election round,” Branson wrote.

“The people of the Maldives need fair representation and they need free elections as soon as possible. Should that not happen, governments must lobby for change and the world community must demand action until free, fair elections take place,” he concluded.

Virgin politics

Branson first waded into Maldivian politics on his blog on February 24 2012, soon after Waheed’s controversial ascension to power amid a police mutiny earlier that month.

Branson publicly called for President Waheed to “do the right thing” and hold free and fair elections before the end of the year.

It was, Branson wrote to Dr Waheed, “completely astounding that you have been part of an overthrow of a democratically elected government that has effectively let the old regime back into power.”

“Knowing you, I would assume that you were given no choice and that it was through threats that you have ended up in this position,” Branson said. “I do very much hope that was the case rather than you doing it of your own free will.”

Days later, Branson wrote another entry, saying that he had spoken on the phone to Dr Waheed, who told him he had appointed “a respected person” to examine the truth of what caused President Nasheed to “resign”.

“He says that he didn’t know who issued an arrest warrant for President Nasheed after he left office but that it had been rescinded within 48 hours. He is determined to be an honest broker, to be seen to be one, and to get everyone’s confidence. He said that he offered to bring in people from President Nasheed’s party but they refused to join.”

A few days later, Branson wrote a third post, resuming his first call for early elections “as soon as feasibly possible”.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court issues edict insisting all guidelines be followed

The Supreme Court last night issued a ruling ordering the Elections Commission (EC) to continue to abide by the guidelines in its October 7 verdict scuttling the results of the first round in September.

The latest ruling declared that “as the aforementioned presidential election not being held on the dates in the judgment is not a legally justifiable reason for not holding the election in accordance with the guidelines provided in Supreme Court case number 42/SC-C/2013, [the Supreme Court] informs and orders the Elections Commission and all relevant institutions of the Maldivian state to hold the presidential election that must be held in 2013 in accordance with the guidelines provided in Supreme Court number 42/SC-C/2013.”

The guidelines included holding the election before October 20, as well as demanding that all parties sign the voter lists, effectively giving presidential candidates power of veto.

The day before the election candidates Abdulla Yameen and Gasim Ibrahim had still not signed the voter lists and were not responding to phone calls from the EC or officials sent to their homes.

The pair, who received 25.35 percent and 24.07 percent respectively in the annulled first round, subsequently demanded extensive fingerprint verification of the new voters’ registry – another Supreme Court demand, issued at midnight on October 10. The evening before polls were due to open, both sought a Supreme Court ruling demanding that the election be delayed.

Receiving only a brief instruction from the court to follow its guidelines, the EC prioritised the guideline requiring an election before Oct 20 and proceeded with the vote. However, staff attempting to leave the commission’s office with ballot documents and equipment just hours prior to polls opening were obstructed by police.

Following the rescheduling of the election for November 9 – just two days before the end of the presidential term – Elections Commissioner Fuwad Thowfeek labelled the Supreme Court’s guidelines as “restrictions” and expressed concern that they effectively allowed political parties to stop elections from happening.

“We have said that when we get to a certain point, when a certain party doesn’t do what they must do, it should not affect the entire election. If that is the case, we will never be able to hold an election,” Thowfeek said, following meetings with the President, the cabinet and political parties.

“They assured us they will not allow for these kind of obstructions in the upcoming election. Ministers have given us commitment that they will find a solution and facilitate this. That is why we have started work again. If the same thing happened as before, this is not something we must do. We are starting work again because we are confident there will be an election. I am certain we will succeed this time,” he added.

“I hope the government considers these restrictions in the future and finds a solution. Otherwise, holding elections will become impossible and that affects the most fundamental [right] in a democracy,” he said.

Last night’s Supreme Court ruling

“The constitution of the Republic of Maldives obligates the Elections Commission and all relevant state institutions to ensure that the presidential election that must be held in the Maldives in 2013 is one where all Maldivian citizens eligible to vote is able to exercise the right [to vote] freely and without any kind of obstacle,” read the Supreme Court edict, signed by Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain.

“The elections must be held in accordance with the guidelines stated in the Supreme Court case number 42/SC-C/2013 to ensure that elections held in the Maldives are fair and conducted transparently in line with the principles specified in article 170 of the constitution of the Republic of Maldives,” read the edict.

The integrity of the Supreme Court has meanwhile come under increasing criticism, domestically and abroad.

Following the Supreme Court’s indefinite suspension of the first round despite local and international praise of the vote as free, fair and democratic, Transparency Maldives warned “the failure of parliament and the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to address alleged integrity issues of the Supreme Court judges have “created avenues for political and other actors to question the conduct, injunctions and verdicts of the Supreme Court”.

Prior to his registration as a presidential candidate Gasim was a member of the JSC, and was responsible for rejecting a recommendation from the JSC’s own subcommittee recommending that Supreme Court Justice Ali Hameed be suspended pending an investigation into his leaked sex tapes.

The sex tapes and suspension of the election have resulted in escalating protests targeting the courts, with large pairs of white underpants quickly becoming widely adopted as a protest symbol.

“Expeditious resolution of such allegations and issues is imperative to ease rising tensions in the election environment and prevent the derailment of democratic processes,” said Transparency Maldives in its statement.

“Relevant state institutions, including the Judicial Service Commission and the Parliament of the Maldives must expedite the resolution of these issues and allegations, in a transparent manner free of conflict of interest, to reduce questioning of and allegations of partisan bias in such processes.”

UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, raised concern over the politicisation and impartiality of the Supreme Court as far back as May.

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

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

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

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

China calls for Maldives to “maintain national stability and social development”

China has called for “national stability and social development” to be maintained in the Maldives, in a rare official statement on the country from its Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

“The presidential election is the internal affairs of the Maldives. China respects the choice of the Maldivian people and hopes all relevant parties could settle the disputes properly through friendly negotiations. The Chinese side believes that the Maldivian government and people have the wisdom and capacity to resolve relevant issues,” read the statement.

“As a friendly neighbour of the Maldives, China is closely observing the developments in the Maldives and sincerely wishes that national stability and social development can be maintained,” the statement added.

While India has historically been the Maldives’ strongest regional ally, relations have been strained between the two governments partly due to the consistently poor treatment of expatriate Indian workers, and the government’s extra-contractual expropriation of the Maldives’ single largest foreign investment, GMR’s renovation of Male airport.

This has led some overseas observers to speculate that China may seek to increase its own diplomatic efforts in the country, after it recently opened an embassy in the capital Male.

China is also now the single largest tourism market for the Maldives, responsible for almost a quarter of all tourism arrivals as of 2011.

Recent protests and political turmoil over the delayed, cancelled and obstructed elections have been extensively covered by Chinese state media, Xinhua.

A Chinese travel advisory, updated on September 27, noted that while the Maldivian social order “is generally stable”, “partisan conflicts around the presidential elections are intensifying.”

The Chinese Embassy in the Maldives urged Chinese visitors to monitor the local security situation, contact and confirm the hotel booking before departure, and avoid non-essential travel to Male’.

Friday’s protests were also extensively reported by Chinese state-run press agency, Xinhua.

The Chinese statement follows those from the Commonwealth, UK, EU, India, US, UN, Canada and Australia expressing concern over the delayed presidential election and calling for free, fair and inclusive polls.

“The international community has been watching developments in the Maldives with concern ever since the Supreme Court annulled the first round of Presidential Elections on October 7,” read the latest statement from the Australian government, noting the rescheduling of polls for November 9.

“The first round of Presidential Elections on 7 September was judged free and fair by international and domestic observers. Following the annulment, a new first round of Presidential elections was scheduled to be held on 19 October but did not proceed. The Election Commission has now announced that elections will be held on 9 November.

“It is imperative that the elections now be held as scheduled with no further delays. Maldives voters have engaged actively and in good faith with the electoral process and this commitment needs to be honoured,” the statement read.

“As a fellow Indian Ocean country and Commonwealth member Australia stresses the importance of abiding by democratic values and processes, good governance and strong resilient institutions. Australia looks to all state bodies and presidential candidates in the Maldives to work together collaboratively to ensure that the election can take place in a manner that is free, fair and inclusive,” it concluded.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)