Tag: election

Elections Commission confident of preparations for October 19 election, compliance with Supreme Court guidelines

The Elections Commission (EC) has said it has complied with all guidelines issued by the Supreme Court following its annulment of the September 7 election, and is confident it will be prepared for the presidential election this Saturday October 19.

In compliance with the guidelines the EC said it had collaborated with 28 state institutions, particularly the police, Department of National Registration (DNR) and National Centre for Information Technology (NCIT), and was currently processing complaints received regarding the recompiled the voters list based on the DNR’s registry.

New ballot boxes had been introduced for the Male municipality, while all elections officials had been vetted and retrained according to the Supreme Court’s guidelines. New security features had been included on the ballot papers while the NCIT had advised the commission on its database.

Media would be allowed to use reporting equipment to cover the election following the Supreme Court’s supplemental ruling on October 12.

“Most of the work is done. What remains is [parties] approving the voter registry, and sending off ballot boxes and papers,” said EC member Ali Mohamed Manik during a press conference on Thursday evening.

“The most difficult challenge has been the time limit. We don’t have enough time to attend to everything as much as we would like to. It has been difficult for us and the public,” EC President Fuad Thowfeek said.

Following the Supreme Court’s midnight ruling on October 10 ordering the EC to redo the entire voter re-registration process, the commission received 70,000 re-registration forms in just a 24-hour period from voters wishing to vote a location other than their home island. 65,000 voters re-registered ahead of the annulled September 7 poll.

The election will involve 476 ballot boxes and 1500 voter lists, each between 15-20 pages long. Overseas lists will be prioritised, so that ballot boxes and papers can be shipped to locations on Friday morning. Police will provide security to local locations.

Most complaints received by the commission involved people being registered at locations other than those requested during re-registration, while some forms were rejected due to incomplete information.

“As soon as the database is clean and complaints are attended to, we will print the lists. We will invite candidate’s representatives to put their fingerprints and signatures,” Thowfeek said.

Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has already accepted the new list, noting that while the margin of error was higher at 0.61 percent, this was still “negligible”.

The party noted that the revised voter registry is based on the Department of National Registration (DNR)’s registry and lists 239,198 eligible voters, 395 fewer than the 239,593 in the annulled September 7 polls that saw an 88 percent voter turnout.

“When the voter list of 7 September 2013 compiled by the Election Commission is compared with the 19 October 2013 voter list compiled by the Election Commission with the Department of National Registration as its source, we find that there an additional 2258 ID cards,” the MDP noted in a statement today.

The MDP counted 62 people on the list as doubled or repeated, 0.03 percent of eligible voters, while 789 individuals turned 18 years of age between 7 September 2013 and 19 October 2013 and became eligible to vote.

“When the 789 children who turned 18 are subtracted from the additional ID cards (2,258) on the eligible voters list for 19 October 2013, we note that 1,469 persons have been added to the voters list in unclear circumstances. That is 0.61% of eligible voters,” the party noted.

“Despite noting the aforementioned matters, since the margin of error (0.61%) is negligible and because the Constitution of the Maldives states that there must be an elected President on 11 November 2013, the MDP has decided to accept the list and go ahead with the Presidential Election scheduled to be held on 19 October 2013.

“We believe the voter registry is correct and we are ready to vote with that list. If an election is not held on October 19, and a new president is not elected by [the end of the presidential term] November 11, we lose the constitution,” said former President Nasheed.

Jumhoree Party (JP) candidate Gasim Ibrahim said this afternoon that the party would verify the list as soon it was received.

“We do not have any intention to delay the election,” Gasim said, stating that there was no reason why the election should not be held on Saturday.

Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) Deputy Leader Abdul Raheem Abdulla said the party would ask the Elections Commission for 72 hours to check the registry, although the EC said during the press conference that it had not received such a request.

“We want the election to be held on the 19th, but with [the Supreme Court guidelines] completed. I do not believe it is possible for all candidates to sign a 10,000 page voter registry and hand over to the Elections Commission by sunset. The election cannot be held as per the Supreme verdict unless that list is handed over,” Raheem stated.

MDP candidate Nasheed tweeted: “Once I receive the voter lists for each ballot box, it will not take me more than two hours for me to check and sign it.”

Elections Commission Fuwad Thowfeek said candidates were expected to sign each booklet, not every single page.

“I hope after so much work by the Elections Commission and the people of the country, candidates will sign it. They have seen how much work we have done and how much the public wants a vote,” said Thowfeek.

The Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) has meanwhile appealed to all eligible voters to take “individual responsibility” that the information on the voter registry was same as that on their identity cards, passports and licences.

“Voting is one of the most important opportunities in public participation in governance in a democracy. Use this right with independence, and without influence,” HRCM stated, calling on all political parties to support a successful election and not obstruct the voting process.

The President’s Office issued a statement ordering the Ministry of Home Affairs to ensure the relevant institutions under the Ministry of Home Affairs “conduct matters relating to the first round of presidential elections to be held on 19 October 2013, freely and fairly as per the guidelines delineated by the Supreme Court.”

The JP, PPM and MDP were meanwhile holding rallies tonight ahead of the final day of campaigning.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: The devil is in the judiciary

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

Judicial independence is generally accepted to be a protection from the government or the legislative majority. If rulers are to be controlled, then, rule of law—which checks their power—must remain immune to their influence. But that raises the question: who checks the independence of the judiciary? Checkers being unchecked is an inherent weakness in the role attributed to rule of law in democratic theory.

There are limits, but they are easy to overcome.

One such limit on judicial power is the law. As MDP’s presidential candidate Mohamed Nasheed said on Saturday, judges speak the law, they do not make it. The role of the unelected judiciary is to execute the law enacted according to the will of the elected parliament. But the opportunity to override this limitation is frequently open to the judiciary. When laws are ambiguous, for example, it is the judges who interpret them, and this interpretation comes close to legislation. Precedents are set that must be followed, law-like.

Another restriction on judicial power is the principles of justice: if rule of law is inseparable from a political theory of rights, it means that judges must not only enforce laws, but must also be guided by certain judicial principles. But there are no mechanisms to ensure that such principles are adhered to—they can be easily ignored in the ‘right’ political and social environment as can be seen from the behaviour of the Maldives Supreme Court examined below.

The third restriction on judicial power is administrative—internal checks on the checkers. These include the hierarchy of courts—one court above checking the one below; ethical and professional requirements that should stop just anyone becoming a judge; and disciplinary action and legal liability that stops judges from straying the course. But who enforces these checks? The checkers themselves. In the Maldives, it is the responsibility of the Judicial Service Commission, which is under tight control of certain members of the judiciary.

In a democracy, judges are ‘protected, unchecked, and unaccountable’, and ‘we do not know why the judiciary would be politically impartial and neutral’. Often, therefore—especially, but not always, in consolidating democracies—rule of law becomes an instrument of political power.

For politicians both in government and opposition who are looking for allies to help them achieve their goals, judges—’unchecked agents whose decisions are binding’—are an attractive prospect that cannot be ignored. Over the years, several strategies have become common place: 1) politicians using democracy to subordinate the judiciary and overcome the limits set by rule of law; and 2) politicians using existing norms and independent judges to undermine democracy as a regime; and 3) although democracy is preserved, the independence of judges is turned into a political instrument to get rid of an opponent if the rules of democratic competition are not enough[1].

The Supreme Court as a political weapon to undermine democracy

The 2008 Constitution of the Maldives, based on democratic principles, envisions an ideal world where democracy and an independent judiciary co-exist in harmony and support each other. In reality, this is hard to achieve not just in the Maldives but in most newly democratising countries. In three years of democracy, Maldives did not come even close to the ideal.  The judiciary left behind by the authoritarian regime, and which remained mostly unchanged after the assumption of democratic governance, has constantly been used by politicians as a political weapon—most often as a strategy for 1) undermining democracy as a regime, and 2) to get rid of an opponent while preserving the façade of a democracy. The role of the judiciary in the downfall of the Maldivian democracy in February 2012, and in the authoritarian reversal that has followed, is by now well documented. Its current role is to prevent the restoration of democracy. To execute the strategy, anti-democratic politicians have adopted a majority of the Supreme Court bench as their main instrument.

On 7 October 2013, just before midnight, the Supreme Court issued a majority ruling making void the first round of the second democratic election in the Maldives. The election was held on 7 September 2013 and was widely heralded as free, fair and virtually free of error. Initially, only Jumhooree Party (JP), led by tourism magnate, Qasim Ibrahim, disagreed. He filed a case at the High Court on 11 September (01/SH-I-HC/2013) alleging that the Eligible Voters Registry used in the election included ‘hundreds of ineligible voters, several repeated voters’ and ‘several thousand voters’ whose addresses were problematic. JP wanted the court to allow it access to the Eligible Voter Registry. The High Court ruled in JP’s favour, ordering that JP and other contestants in the election be allowed to see the list.

But, before the High Court ruling (on 17 September), JP filed a new case at the Supreme Court on 15 September (42/C-SC/2013), treating it as a court of first instance, rather than the apex court. The Supreme Court accepted the role it was given, and later justified it by saying that Article 113 and Article 145(c) of the Constitution states that it has the final word on any matter relating to the Constitution. There is room to contradict this interpretation of the Constitution, as outlined in the opinion of Justice Mu’thasim Adnan, one of three Supreme Court justices who dissented.

JP made three submissions:

  1. The presidential election on 7 September 2013 violated relevant articles of the Constitution, Elections Law and Supreme Court ruling 39/C-SC/2013 (2 September 2013). Therefore, Supreme Court must rule that it is the right of all candidates to have access to the voters list.
  2. The eligible voters list used for the 7 September 2013 election did not fit the required legal framework or Supreme Court ruling 39/C-SC/2013. Therefore, Supreme Court must rule that it is not a valid list.
  3. The election violated basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution as well as breached Constitutional provisions and laws related to elections in addition to falling outside of the state Constitutional framework. Therefore, with reference to Article 113 of the Constitution, Article 10 (b), Article 11 (a)1 and 3 of the Courts Act, the Supreme Court must rule the election as void.

The case, which lasted from 15 September to 7 October was a farce from beginning to end. Very few legal concepts and principles are left that it did not undermine.

It may as well have been written by Kafka

First, none of the Justices would be on the bench if Article 285 of the Constitution were followed. As discussed earlier, measures available in a democracy to check the checkers are limited. In the Maldives, Article 285 of the Constitution, which outlined the qualifications and professional standards of judges, was one of such limitation imposed on judicial power.

But, with the Judicial Service Commission—-constitutionally mandated to check judicial powers—at the helm,Article 285 was dismissed as symbolic, meaning that an overwhelming majority of the country’s judiciary sits in breach of the Constitution.  The Supreme Court’s ‘ascension’ to the bench was doubly unconstitutional. Moreover, several of the judges on the Supreme Court bench are facing allegations of serious offences or misconduct. The main offenders are Ali Hameed, Adam Mohamed, Abdulla Saeed, and Abdulla Didi. [Theallegations against them are summed up here, on Minivan News.]

Second, most of the evidence presented in the case should not have been deemed admissible. Several witnesses were allowed to give evidence in ‘secret’, as if this was a major criminal investigation where witnesses had to be given protection in case of retaliation by a dangerous defendant. This was, as the Supreme Court was anxious to reiterate, ‘a constitutional matter’. Third, the State Attorney General entered the case to submit arguments against Elections Commission, a state institution. Media reports of the time revealed that AG Azima Shakoor did not even speak to the Elections Commission, an independent state institution,  for clarification of the allegations against it before deciding to side with JP, a political party.

The four Justices, meanwhile, refused to give a fair hearing to the defendant, frequently shutting EC lawyers down in the middle of an argument, or generally disregarding their arguments and submissions. Lawyers for MDP, which like Azima Shakoor had entered the case as a third party, were ejected from the proceedings and held in contempt of court for discussing the case [more specifically the judges] in public. EC lawyer Husnu Suood was given the same treatment, forcing the Commission to find a replacement at short notice. The Supreme Court ordered a report from an ‘expert forensics team’ from the Maldives Police Service (MPS) on its own initiative, and gave them access to all election-related data and the Department of National Registration (DNR) database which holds personal information and fingerprints of the entire population.

The Supreme Court allowed the case to drag on, scheduling the case, cancelling and then rescheduling at whim. It kept odd hours, often sitting late at night, and announcing decisions after midnight. Throughout the duration of the case, Male’ was in a state of unrest as MDP members and other disenfranchised voters continued to protest in the vicinity of the Supreme Court daily. Late in the evening of 23 September, five days before the scheduled second round of the election, the Supreme Court issued an injunction calling a halt to all preparations for it. The court order, signed by the same four judges named above, gave no date on which the second round could be held, making the postponement indefinite.

On 26 September it issued another ruling (06/SC-SJ/2013) again around midnight, ordering the security forces to enforce its order to postpone the election and to halt any preparations for the second round by anyone. With this order, the Supreme Court took the responsibility of conducting the election away from the Constiutionally mandated Elections Commission (EC) and placed it firmly in the hands of the security forces.

The Maldives Police Service, led by rogue Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz, immediately descended on the EC in what amounted to a siege of the premises. Although defiant at first, and determined to hold the second round despite the Supreme Court order—which its lawyers described as unconstitutional—president of the Elections Commission Fuad Thowfeeq announced on 27 September, on the eve of the scheduled second round, that lack of co-operation from the security forces and other essential state institutions meant that the election could not go ahead.

As disenfranchised voters took to the streets with increased frustration, the Supreme Court plodded along with the case. The police were invited to work within the premises of the court, and finally, allowed to submit a ‘secret report’ which the Elections Commission, as the defendant was not allowed to see. That report, on which the Supreme Court based most of its decision to cancel the election, is still a secret. But, from what one of the dissenting judges, Justice Mu’thasim Adnan said, it contained nothing that justified annulling the first round of the election held on 7 September. [Here is another report prepared by the same ‘expert’ police team on 15 September, which gives an indication of the standard the Supreme Court’s report is most likely to be of]. 

After two weeks of deliberation of the above evidence, the Supreme Court reached the majority verdict to annul the first round held on 7 September. Yet again, the verdict was announced at midnight, and was accompanied by brutal ‘enforcement’ by the security forces. Rogue Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz’s Special Operations (SO) police, guarding the Supreme Court premises throughout the case and monitoring the constantly present protesters in the vicinity, charged into the public at precisely the moment the court announced its decision. Pepper-spray and disproportional force were used to disperse the crowd. The message was clear: any defiance of the Supreme Court order to annul the election would not be tolerated and would be violently subdued by security forces working in tandem with the four judges.

Subverting democracy with the rule of law

A subsequent detailed MDP analysis of the Supreme Court verdict comparing it to the secret Police Forensic Experts Report shows that in actuality, the total number of votes that could have been cast fraudulently is an astounding 242 (two hundred and forty two).

That the Supreme Court ruled in this way based on such flimsy and fictitious ‘evidence’ is proof of its politicisation and demonstrates how it is being used by politicians as a means of a) undermining democracy as a regime and b) getting rid of an opponent who cannot be eliminated by abiding by the principles of democracy. Cancelling the election puts anti-democracy politicians well on the path to realising both goals. To ensure that the destination is arrived at, first the Supreme Court ordered that a re-run of the cancelled first round be held before 20th October. This gave the Elections Commission a grand total of 12 days in which to organise everything for an election in which over 240,000 eligible voters are expected to vote. It also issued Guidelines consisting of 16 conditions the Elections Commission must abide by in it preparations  for the election.

In addition to these orders aimed at making an election as difficult as possible, the Supreme Court verdict also acted against several principles of democracy and rule of law, which as discussed earlier, are among the few limitations meant to check judicial power discussed at the beginning of this analysis. This included infringing heavily on the role of the Elections Commission, not only setting a new date before which the election should be held (12 days from the verdict) but also strict guidelines according to which the election must be conducted.

These included more restrictions of democratic values and principles such as the an order minimising access to polling booths by media and independent observers, helping obscure what is meant to be a transparent process. The court also ordered that all voters who registered to vote in the second round in an electoral area outside of their home address re-register. The order also stipulated that the re-registration form should bear the fingerprint of the voter, two witnesses, and if the form was being submitted by another person on behalf of the voter, the fingerprint of that person too.

The underlying ethos of the entire ruling is that there should be as many restrictions placed on the right to vote as possible rather than facilitate it being extended to as many as possible.  Most subversively, the Supreme Court verdict does this by invoking the principle of universal suffrage. Everybody has the right to vote, therefore, we will make sure as few people as possible can do so.

The unnecessary assumption of dangerous powers

One of the gravest threats to democratic governance included in the Supreme Court ruling is the power it has given itself  to invoke the principle of necessity to resolve the current dispute should it deem fit to do so. As mentioned at the beginning of this analysis, the power to interpret laws can be akin to the power to legislate.

In 2009, the Supreme Court considered the legality of delaying parliamentary elections scheduled for 15 February 2009 by Article 296(a) of the Constitution. On 13 January 2009 it issued a ruling (02/C-SC/2009) stating that only a natural disaster beyond human control or a state of war  would justify delaying the completion of a task specified in the Constitution, as specified in the Constitution and within the time specified. The verdict of 7 October, not only breaches this verdict of its own (as highlighted in Justice Mu’thasim Adnan’s dissenting opinion in 42/C-SC/2013) but also adds ‘necessity’ to natural disaster and state of war as conditions under which such a Constitutional deadline can be neglected without legal liability.

Necessity, Machiavelli’s guiding principle, is based on the belief that infringing on the moral law is justified when necessary. It allows an actor to engage in conduct that would under normal circumstances be deemed illegal because it is ‘necessary’. The principle has a long philosophical and juridical history, and has been invoked by countries to declare a state of exception, a state of emergency and martial law. The principle is easy to distort; as Cromwell put it, ‘necessity hath no law.’ It was in this state of exception based on the principle of necessity, for example, that the United States deemed many illegal acts, such as torture, legal during the War on Terror. US government lawyers argued then that the defence of necessity permitted acts of torture that violated domestic and international laws[2].

The Supreme Court’s decision to include ‘necessity’ among the conditions in which the Constitution can be legally ignored has allowed the Constitutional deadline (Article 110) to elect a new president at least 30 days prior to the expiry of the current presidential term on 11 November to lapse without legal liability. According to the Supreme Court verdict, there is no judicial or legal basis to argue that the time the Court took to deliberate the case was responsible for the lapse—it is the duty of the Court to properly and duly examine any allegation that a state institution has acted unconstitutionally. The deadline was bypassed not because of its own actions in delaying the case for so long, but because a state institution (namely the Elections Commission), in meeting the Constitutional deadline for presidential elections, acted outside of the Constitution. Therefore, under the principle of necessity, the Court’s lengthy and erratic deliberations, during which time the Constitutional deadline passed, can be deemed legal.

Responding to the argument that this lapsed Constitutional deadline to have a new president elected and ready to takeover on 11 November before 12 October means that the Maldives entered a constitutional void, the Court again invokes the principle of necessity to deny the accusation. And what occurred when the deadline lapsed, says the Supreme Court, is not a constitutional void but a ‘defacto state’ in which the doctrines of ‘state of necessity’ and ‘continuity of legal government’ allow the extra-legal extension of the Constitutional deadline to be deemed legal. In other words, by invoking the principle of necessity, the Supreme Court has assumed the power to deem the unconstitutional and illegal continuation of the current government as legal.

How long would the state of ‘necessary’ exception continue?

According to the Supreme Court, the Maldives is now in a ‘defacto state’ where it is possible to invoke the principle of necessity—by the Supreme Court—whenever it sees fit or until such time as elections are held. What has become crystal clear, especially in the days following the Supreme Court verdict, that it is working with political parties, most obviously former authoritarian ruler Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM), to obstruct the elections as much as possible.

As discussed above, the Supreme Court’s verdict to annul the election came with strict Guidelines that make preparations nigh on impossible. Since then, the Court has issued one additional order that eases the restrictions (allowing media access to the polling booths on election day) and two orders that further complicates the preparations. All three orders were issued at midnight and signed only by the Chief Justice. The Supreme Court has not sat together as a group since.

This is because, after issuing the ruling, the most corrupt of the judges, Ali Hameed, flew to Mecca for the Haj pilgrimage in what appears to be a cynical attempt to duck and cover behind religion.  At a time when the stability of the nation hangs in balance, his eagerness to seek forgiveness for the sin of fornication could have taken a form that does not require being abroad. Repentance, for instance, is locally available to ‘Justice’ Hameed by admitting to the multiple incidents of fornication the nation has borne witness to, and accepting a public flogging.  This would have the added benefit of Hameed being able to attend to the judicial duties he has given himself tenure to perform for as long as he lives.

The whereabouts of the rest of the other three judges who have worked with Hameed to bring the Maldivian democracy to its knees is not known. Taking on their subversive role and performing it with double eagerness is Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz, one of the three judges who dissented to the majority verdict annulling the election. The first of Faiz’s rulings was on Thursday October 10, ordering that the Elections Commission start the re-registration process from scratch; the second was on October 12 relaxing restrictions on the media outlined in the 7 October verdict; and the third, issued midnight on Sunday October 13 allowing fingerprint verification if any party complains, has the potential to make the election before 20 October absolutely impossible despite the Elections Commission’s determination that this not be the case.

As stated before, for as long as there is no election, the country remains in the ‘defacto state’ where the Supreme Court has given itself the power to invoke the principle of necessity and to make legal actions that are unconstitutional and illegal. Rogue Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim, the disgracefully retired former Colonel who (with rogue Police Commissioner Riyaz) was instrumental in bringing the first democratic government to an end on 7 February 2012, has denied that he, and other coup-makers, are planning a military takeover. Experience has proven Nazim’s word means nothing, so such a circumstance cannot be ruled out. But, given that the Supreme Court has invoked the principle of necessity and already declared as legal the unconstitutional [and from the beginning illegitimate] ‘coalition government’ of Waheed, the declaration of martial law becomes a moot point. All it would take to stall the restoration of democracy in the Maldives indefinitely is for the Supreme Court to continue its declared State of Necessity where the rule of law is nothing but a political weapon for the subversion of democracy.

What is currently playing out in the Maldives is an all-out confrontation between democracy and autocracy in which the biggest weapon of the autocrats is the judicial independence that is widely accepted as a means of making democracy possible. If there ever was a text-book case of democracy being subverted by the rule of law, the unfolding events in the Maldives is it. If there is no election on 20 October, the only power that can stand up to the unchecked power of the judiciary is the source from which both judicial power and democracy stems: the power of the people.

Dr Azra Naseem has a PhD in International Relations

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court’s annulment verdict “troubling” given ongoing international criticism of judiciary: Bar Human Rights Committee

The UK’s Bar Human Rights Committee (BHRC) has expressed concern at the annulment of the first round of presidential elections, stating that such a verdict was “particularly troubling in the context of the ongoing international criticism concerning the lack of independence of the Maldivian judiciary and the lack of adequate separation of powers.”

The BHRC conducted independent observations of the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed in the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court earlier this year, a trial the MDP presidential candidate contended was a politically-motivated attempt to bar him from contesting the upcoming election.

The BHRC concurred in its observation report: “BHRC is concerned that a primary motivation behind the present trial is a desire by those in power to exclude Mr Nasheed from standing in the 2013 elections, and notes international opinion that this would not be a positive outcome for the Maldives,” wrote observer Stephen Cragg on behalf of the BHRC, the international human rights arm of the Bar of England and Wales.

In its most recent statement, the BHRC noted that the Supreme Court’s verdict to annul the September 7 election, in which Nasheed received 45.45 percent of the popular vote, “runs contrary to the conclusions of national and international election monitors, including the expert Commonwealth Observer Group, which confirmed that the electoral process was free, fair, well-organised and transparent. BHRC further notes with concern that the Court’s verdict appears to have been based on an unsubstantiated and as yet undisclosed police report.”

“Recent reports indicating that on October 10, the Progressive Party of Maldives filed a petition to the Supreme Court to invalidate the candidacy of Mr Nasheed are also cause for concern,” the BHRC added.

“BHRC urges the Maldivian national authorities to conduct prompt and effective investigations into these incidents, and to ensure that human rights, electoral freedoms and respect for the rule of law, including for Constitutional provisions, are respected at all times, not least in the current uncertain electoral climate,” the statement concluded.

Australia calls for parties to respect outcome of polls

The Australian government has meanwhile issued a statement acknowledging the Maldivian government’s “commitment to hold a fresh round of Presidential elections on October 19.”

“It is important that the elections are held in a free, fair and inclusive manner and facilitate a peaceful transition to a new President by 11 November, as required under the Constitution of Maldives,” the statement read. “We encourage Maldives voters to take part in the rescheduled process and note preparations being undertaken by the Elections Commission to facilitate voter participation.”

The Australian government called on all parties “to accept the outcome of a free and fair contest”.

“As a fellow member of the Commonwealth, we look to all parties in the Maldives to uphold democratic values and the rule of law by ensuring an orderly and peaceful electoral process.”

“Alongside other Commonwealth member states and other concerned parties in the international community, we continue to watch developments in the Maldives very closely,” the statement concluded.

The Australian government’s statement follows a statement this week from UK Foreign Secretary William Hague, declaring that it was “imperative that there are no further delays and the elections be free, fair and inclusive, and that international observers are invited.”

Hague urged presidential candidates “to act in line with the interests of the people of Maldives”, and expressed hope “that the process will enable the President elect to be inaugurated by 11 November, in line with the constitutional framework.”

UK Foreign Office Minister Alistair Burt has previously said the country was “extremely concerned” when the Supreme Court ordered the second round of presidential elections delayed.

“I recognise the right of the Maldivian courts to ensure legitimate allegations of electoral malpractice are investigated appropriately. However, it is vital to avoid any unnecessary disruptions to the national electoral process, and for representatives from all sides to be represented during any legal proceedings,” Burt stated, prior to the court’s annulment of the first round’s results.

The US also said this week that it was is “deeply concerned” about continued legal actions “that could further delay the Maldivian presidential election”.

“It is important that the [election] go forward unimpeded in a fair, inclusive and transparent way,” said Deputy Spokesperson for the US State Department, Marie Harf, in a statement.

“The basis of any democracy is for citizens to choose their government, for political differences to be decided at the ballot box in an environment free of violence and for election results to be respected,” the statement read.

“We continue to urge a peaceful political process that is inclusive of all candidates in order to ensure the Maldivian election that will meet international standards of an elected, legitimate democracy,” it concluded.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Deadline for voter registration complaints extended to 6:00pm Wednesday: Elections Commission

The Elections Commission has accepted and finished processing all re-registration forms and has called for people to submit complaints over mismatched details by extended deadline of 6:00pm Wednesday (October 16).

The Commission warned that people whose ID card details do not match those on the voter registry would be unable to vote this coming Saturday, October 19.

Voter details can be checked in the Maldives by sending an SMS to 1414 in the format ‘VIS [ID#]’, or by calling the helpline on the same number. Registration details can also be checked online at http://elections.gov.mv/index2715.html

Following the conclusion of the complaints process, the commission has said it intends to publish the final registry before Thursday (October 17). The EC has printed the ballot papers and is currently in the process of vetting elections officials.

A sudden midnight ruling from the Supreme Court last week ordered the EC to redo the entire voter re-registration process from scratch, barely a week before the election.

Despite the extremely expedited timeline and a window of less than a day to re-register, more than 60,000 people still submitted the new fingerprint forms to vote in the first round – just 5000 short of the 65,000 who re-registered ahead of the annulled September 7 poll.

“It’s not possible to give more time. We will check the complaints we receive tomorrow, and make amendments if possible,” President of the Elections Commission Fuwad Thowfeek told media at a press conference last night (October 14).

Thowfeek said protesting PPM and MDA supporters in the re-registration centre the previous evening had caused a six hour delay in the registration process.

A system crash around 2:30pm on Sunday (October 13) due to the large volume of data saw the EC begin manual processing while the system was restarted. An official said the problem was fixed two hours later at 4:30pm, however some people reportedly became upset as the manual process meant they were unable to be immediately issued with a confirmation slip.

Meanwhile, PPM candidate Abdulla Yameen told Haveeru that only questionable registration forms would need to be subject to fingerprint identification.

Yameen previously told the paper that he would not sign the final voter registry – another requirement of the Supreme Court’s new election guidelines – should the voter list not be subject to fingerprint authentication, despite the lack of a comprehensive fingerprint database or institutional capacity to conduct verification on a national scale.

A police official told Haveeru that it would take 3-5 minutes to verify each fingerprint, if the print was recorded with the Department of National Registration or in the police database.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

PPM accuses JP of backing MDP, claims any vote for Gasim “a waste”

The Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) has suggested that Jumhooree Party (JP) presidential candidate Gasim Ibrahim is “stuck” under the influence of advisers sympathetic to his political rivals.

Speaking to local media yesterday, PPM candidate Abdulla Yameen’s election agent suggested that former Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) members within the JP were working to bring former President Mohamed Nasheed back to power.

“Lately we haven’t seen any campaigning from Gasim. Or Gasim pitching his policies or manifesto. All we’re seeing him do is complain and launch attacks against rival candidates,” Abdulla Ameen told local media.

After both the PPM and the JP had mooted the idea of backing a single anti-Nasheed candidate in the upcoming vote, it was revealed by local media yesterday that the parties could not agree on a candidate.

Whilst the JP were said to have favoured incumbent President Dr Mohamed Waheed as the sole candidate, Yameen was reported to have rejected the proposal.

Campaigning for the presidential elections resumed in earnest last week after the Supreme Court scheduled a new date for the first round, annulling the previous poll held on September 7.

The court’s investigation of potentially fraudulent voting was initiated by Gasim’s JP after it finished in third place, just 2,677 votes behind the PPM.

Ameen yesterday predicted that Gasim would again fail to reach the run-off in Saturday’s re-scheduled election, branding any vote cast for the JP candidate “a waste”.

Current JP President Ibrahim Didi – formerly president of the MDP – has dismissed the PPM’s claims.

“It’s not true,” he explained, “But the reality is that the majority of members of JP don’t support PPM leadership in their policies.”

Didi left the MDP in acrimonious circumstances shortly after Nasheed’s controversial resignation in February 2012.

MP Alhan Fahmy left the MDP at the same time after both he and Didi were accused of making statements contrary to the MDP’s official position that the February transfer of power had amounted to a coup.

Fahmy has since returned to the MDP, as has former JP member Abdulla Jabir – both of whom have a history of party switching.

Gasim and Nasheed met last month to discuss matters of national interest and the maintenance of stability and public order.

Speculation regarding potential coalitions would prove premature following the court’s recent verdict, though when asked following the pair’s meeting Gasim stated that he bore no personal animosity towards any other candidates.

Nasheed meanwhile said that Gasim was “a family friend since childhood” who has offered good advice and counsel throughout the years.

The JP were initially aligned with the MDP following Nasheed’s victory over 30-year autocrat Maumoon Abdul Gayoom in the 2008 presidential election.

The coalition lasted just a few months, with the JP later going on to form part of the ‘December 23’ coalition which led months of protest calling for the protection of Islam against the so-called irreligious policies of Nasheed’s government.

After subsequent unrest preceded a police mutiny and Nasheed’s resignation, the JP went on to form part of Dr Mohamed Waheed’s national unity government.

Waheed last week opted to withdraw from the re-scheduled election after receiving just five percent of the popular vote in the initial poll last month.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Q&A: “There are people who want to block this vote” – Elections Commission Chairperson Fuwad Thowfeek

The Maldives’ Supreme Court issued an injunction on September 23 to indefinitely delay the presidential election’s second round until a verdict was reached in the Jumhooree Party (JP)’s case against the Elections Commission (EC).

Ultimately the Supreme Court ruled to annul the first round of the 2013 presidential elections, held September 7, citing a secret police report on alleged electoral irregularities, despite unanimous positive assessment of the polling by more than a thousand local and international election observers. The apex court’s verdict issued around midnight on October 8 included 16 point guidelines the EC was to follow to hold new presidential elections before October 20.

Giving it just 11 days to prepare for the next round of the presidential election, the Supreme Court has also issued subsequent rulings dictating managerial and administrative tasks the EC must undertake while preparing for the repeat first round.

With the October 19 repeat first round less than a week away, Minivan News discusses some of the challenges faced by the commission with Fuwad Thowfeek, Chairperson of the country’s first independent Elections Commission (EC).

Leah R Malone: In a previous interview you noted that the EC would normally require 45-60 days of preparation to hold a presidential election in accordance with the Maldives’ constitution, presidential and general elections law. Will the Elections Commission be able to hold the presidential election’s repeat first round on October 19, given the limited preparation time available? Are you satisfied with how preparations are proceeding?

Fuwad Thowfeek: The Maldivian people have so much trust and faith in the Elections Commission. Our future, our democratic country, depends on how we act and react at this time.

240,000 voters believe in our work, and for the sake of the people coming to keep up the democratic process and rule of law we are sacrificing ourselves to get these things done in the short time given.

People everywhere I go tell me “Thank you for your work, don’t quit, don’t do anything to take us back [to dictatorship], don’t step down, don’t resign”. So many people are so worried [the election will not take place]. They have so much faith [in us], we should not and cannot let the Maldivian people down. We are not going to accept defeat. The election will be conducted, the votes counted, and the results released.

The EC’s staff are ready go ahead [with the election], they will give their maximum 100 percent support. This is the time we all have to sacrifice our holidays and our pleasure for the people of the country. Rarely will a person get a chance to do that for their nation.

We have been working very hard day and night with no break, there are three staff shift rotations [so the commission is working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week]. We also have to work through the Eid holidays.

We are making it possible for people of the country [to exercise their right to vote]. If this was only for our personal benefit we would not be [sacrificing so much].

Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM)’s Vice Chair Abdul Raheem Abdulla said he thinks it is impossible to hold the election October 19, so we will make the impossible possible.

(Recent videos on social media show PPM MP Abdul Raheem Abdulla using obscene language against Speaker Abdulla Shahid and insulting his mother during disorderly protests in Parliament by MPs of the government-aligned PPM and Jumhooree Party (JP).)

Death threats continuing

LRM: Has any progress been made regarding the investigation into the death threats received by Elections Commission officials? Or identifying who set fire to the lot next to your home?

FT: There has been no progress in identifying the individuals sending death threats to EC officials or determining who set fire to the lot next to my home.

LRM: Are Elections Commission officials still receiving death threats?

FT: I have not received any additional threats about being stabbed, but general threats against the Elections Commission are continuing. This evening (October 11) we received a threat that the voter registration section would be attacked, people would throw stones at the windows and burn things there.

When we received that information we wrote the police and Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) requesting protection of our office.

It’s very sad. There are a group of people who want to block this [vote], those who know they may not do well, so they are trying to buy time and make the election difficult.

But I hope these things can be handled by the police and MNDF. The whole world is watching and wants this election.

Police elections role

LRM: Supreme Court’s verdict in the Jumhooree Party’s case against the Elections Commission mandates that the police should play a substantive role in handling the logistics and security of the election and ballot papers. However, after receiving the EC’s complaint that the security forces had ‘hijacked’ the EC the evening before the presidential elections scheduled second round, the Prosecutor General’s Office stated it will take any necessary action to ensure the constitution is upheld.

In this context, can police play an impartial role while adhering to the Supreme Court’s verdict, or does their involvement compromise the electoral process?

FT: We were told there should be more of a police presence from printing [ballot papers] until voting takes place. This time a police officer will accompany Elections Commission officials for every movement [of the ballot boxes].

Police officers still must adhere to 100 foot rule during polling and counting. Police should not be present [within a 100 foot radius of the ballot boxes] during counting. [After counting] once the boxes are in a certain place, police will then guard them.

The way the police reacted on the 27th [of September] was quite unfriendly… but we are trying to cooperate and I hope they will also give cooperation because this Supreme Court case has ordered the EC and all government institutions to follow the verdict.

(The EC was forced to postpone the presidential election’s second round, scheduled to take place September 28, due to a lack of state cooperation that prevented the commission from holding a “free and fair vote without intimidation, aggression, undue influence or corruption”. The announcement was made September 27, shortly before the EC secretariat was surrounded by Special Operations police with orders from Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz to take over the building and ballot papers should it proceed with election preparations.)

LRM: Was the EC ever provided the details of the police intelligence report that the Supreme Court’s verdict to annul the presidential election’s first round was primarily based on?

FT: The EC had not received the police intelligence prior to the Supreme Court verdict, but two days after the verdict was issued we were sent some documents and files. The document the EC received was “another analytical report based on the lists [in the police intelligence report] sent to the Supreme Court”.

We have still not been given the original police report based on their intelligence findings and observations. That report was passed between the Maldives Police Service, the Attorney General and President Waheed before being given to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court based their verdict on these claims, not the EC’s records.

We are going to review the Department of National Registration (DNR) data ourselves and will verify if the data [in the police report] is true or false and differentiate between whether it is five percent or 100 percent accurate. We will analyse it as soon as there is time, but right now there is no time to verify and cross check.

(The police intelligence report has not been made public and was not shown to the Election Commission’s defence lawyers).

Supreme Court guidelines

LRM: How have the Supreme Court guidelines impacted the EC’s preparations for the presidential election’s repeat first round?

FT: I have been speaking with the Supreme Court Chief Justice to get clarifications regarding the verdict’s guidelines for the EC.

A difficulty is our ballot box officials will not be able to keep their cell phones, so one polling station official will have to remain 100 feet away with their cell phone. If any incident occurs a ballot box official will then have to walk over to the polling station official so they can call for assistance.

Another difficulty is that there are nine days of public holidays for Eid [and government institutions will be closed during that period].

Registration

LRM: How has the Supreme Court ruling issued October 11 that ordered the commission to restart the entire elections re-registration process impacted preparations?

FT: We understand from the Supreme Court that [in their order] they were referring to old forms without fingerprints [being invalid].

65,000 people previously registered on the ‘dhaftharu’ [the special registry for Male’ residents who are from other islands]. They have to re-register because there was no thumb print on their registration forms. They need to fill the registration form in the presence of two witnesses and all three must thumbprint the form. Although there is no way for the EC to verify the authenticity of their thumbprints.

I believe by cancelling over 65,000 [people’s voter registration] we will not be able to provide the opportunity to register many of them within the limited time. So many people will not be able re-register within the one-and-a-half days and although they will have the option to travel [back to their home islands to vote] it will be a burden for them: time and money.

For overseas voters, the one way to email their registration is after they fill the form, with two witnesses, and the necessary thumbprints they can then send it via email to someone who will then need to physically bring it to a Maldives Embassy. For example, if a Maldivian voter lives in Scotland, after filling the voter registration form, he or she can email it to a friend in London, who will then need to take it to the [Maldives] Embassy in London.

(The Elections Commission opened a 24-hour re-registration window – that ended at 4:30pm October 12 – for all eligible voters, after the Supreme Court ordered the EC to disregard re-registration efforts for the annulled presidential elections, and restart the entire process with fingerprinted forms for all voters who wish to vote in a location other than their permanent address.)

LRM: With the High Court ruling that it no longer has jurisdiction to hear election related cases, due to the Supreme Court’s verdict, how can individuals seek redress?

FT: I’m sure there will be so many complaints because ID cards [names and addresses] will have slight variations compared to the DNR’s voters list.

Now if an individual wants to seek redress regarding their complaints, they must file the case with the Criminal Court. Because of the Supreme Court verdict, the special consideration for the High Court to see to all election related matters is no longer valid.

Government Institutions

LRM: The Election’s Commission previously cited lack of state cooperation as one of the reasons it was prevented from holding a “free and fair [second round] vote without intimidation, aggression, undue influence or corruption” on September 28 as constitutionally-mandated. Are government institutions currently cooperating to re-hold the presidential election’s first round on October 19?

FT: The Elections Commission has been promised all government institutions will provide whatever they can [for the election to take place].

We have also been in contact with the acting Finance Minister and acting Home Minister to get input as well as the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF), Maldives Police Service (MPS), the Department of National Registration (DNR), the National Center for Information Technology (NCIT), the Civil Service Commission (CSC), the Maldives National University (MNU) and the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO).

MNU staff from the Faculty of Education and different sections because we need more people to do the work in they very limited time [before October 19], so we are asking them to come here [to the EC]. Some work has been delegated, for example the DNR is assisting with photo formatting.

LRM: The Supreme Court guidelines also require government institutions to enhance the commission’s database security, so how is the EC protecting its data from external influences?

FT: The EC’s data is still secured. We are using the NCIT’s expertise in areas where risk to data security is not involved. For example, the format of voters’ photos and attachments are different at the DNR and EC, so NCIT is converting the photo formatting and providing support in different technical areas.

Commission member resignation

LRM: With commission member Ibrahim ‘Ogaru’ Waheed resigning last week due to health reasons, when will the EC seek a replacement?

FT: We will seek a replacement after the presidential election, because the process takes time. The president has to call for applications, then send nominees to the ‘Majlis’ [‘Parliament’], and in many cases the names submitted will not be accepted.

To establish the current commission, and select the five members, the whole process took four to five months. It would probably take at least two months to find a replacement for Waheed.

International observers returning

LRM: What international election observers will be returning for polling on October 19?

FT: I’ve had friendly conversations with the German, American, and UK Ambassadors by phone to provide them updates. Right now the German Ambassador is here and we recently met in Male’ and the US Ambassador will be arriving from Colombo.

One of my colleagues in Brussels called to ask about EU observer teams coming and I said they are most welcome to come observe the election. The Indian High Commission has said a team of Indian observers are coming and the Commonwealth is also coming with a team.

We are very delighted to have them here and have sent written invitations to all the countries and organisations that came to observe polling on September 7, which included Japan, Thailand, India, Pakistan, the UK, US, Commonwealth, and EU.

Hopefully everyone will return to observe the election.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Translation: September 15’s secret police report on election

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

Shortly before midnight on 7 October 2013, four of the seven judges on the Maldives Supreme Court Bench put out a majority verdict annulling the first round of the 2013 Presidential Election held on 7 September 2013. The election was heralded as free, fair and largely free of errors by both local and international observers. The four judges ignored this consensus and, instead, chose to rely heavily on a ‘secret report’ compiled by a team of ‘forensic experts’ from the Maldives Police Service as the main evidence to support claims of Jumhooree Party, the complainant in the case. The report was so secret that it was not shared even with lawyers of the defendant, the Elections Commission, depriving them of the essential undeniable right of reply.

The following is a translation of another secret report the so-called expert forensic team compiled on 15 September 2013, the same day the Jumhooree Party filed its case at the Supreme Court. It was leaked on the internet yesterday. Although it is not the secret report which the Supreme Court ordered from the police after the case began, it is among the documents the court considered, and gives a taste of the quality of the greater report these experts later prepared. Hopefully, this latter report will also be soon made available for public perusal by a concerned citizen, as it should rightly be.

Read original (Dhivehi)

***************************************

Maldives Police Service,

Male’

Maldives

J2 (A)/2013/926

Issues noted in the Eligible Voters Registry used in first round of the presidential election & other problems with the election

Introduction

This report is [to] verify whether or not the allegations being made by political parties and political figures about validity of the results of the presidential election held on 7 September 2013 have any provable basis. Thus, this report compares and includes discrepancies noted in: the ‘Presidential Election 2013 — Eligible Voters List’ published by the Elections Commission on 30 May 2013 in the Government Gazette Vol.42, No.94 and “Amendments made to the Presidential Election 2013 Eligible Voters List published in Government Gazette on 30 May 2013 based on complaints received” that appeared in Government Gazette Vol.42, No.101 of 29 June 2013, and citizen information records kept at the Department of National Registration.

This report is based on multiple comparisons of a large number of records. Moreover, as the Elections Commissions has not even up to this day made public any list or registry of those of who voted in the presidential election on 7 September 2013, any discrepancies in the lists or registries used in the activity will enter this report also. However, it is believed that such an error-margin will be extremely slim. As this report regards the Department of National Registration Database as its main source, any incorrect information in it would also naturally enter this report. If the Elections Commission omitted listing the district when entering someone’s address, this report does not consider it as a problem or a discrepancy in address. Nor does it consider variations in spelling a person’s name as a discrepancy.

Points of Note:

In examining the Eligible Voters List, or Voter, and the records received from the Live Link of the Department of National Registration, several discrepancies were noted. They are listed below:

1865 people who were not given ID cards by the Department of National Registration were included in the Elections Commission’s Voter Registry. Information regarding those persons is included in Annex 01 of this Report

07 people whose information is not found in the Department of National Registration records were included in the Voter Registry. This information is included in Annex 02 of this report. One of these persons has made a Maldivian Passport.

588 who are believed to be now dead are included in the Elections Commission Registry. These dead people’s information is in Annex 03.

39 children who, according to the Department of National Registration Database, were not 18 years of age by 7 September 2013 were included (by modifying their date of birth) in the Elections Commission Registry. Annex 04 contains information on the children whose dates of birth are believed to have been altered.

Voter Registry shows 22 records of people who were on two ID card numbers. Annex 05 contains details of such people.

3568 people were noted whose Date of Birth on the Elections Commission Registry was different from that on their ID cards. Such persons are listed in Annex 06.

1627 people were noted as having discrepancies in their names. Their details are in Annex 07

10020 people’s records were found whose address on the National Registration Database did not match with their address in the Elections Commissions Registry. Their details are in Annex 08

747 people were found whose male female sex did not match[sic]. Their details are included in Annex 09. It is believed that the following problems arose as a result of mismatched sex:

  • According to the Registry gazetted by the Elections Commission a total of 5 women were registered to vote in Z.43.1.1 Lux Resort. It can be seen from the results announced on the Elections Commission website that 6 women voted in this box. Therefore, it must be believed that 1 woman more than was registered voted here.
  • 502 women were registered to vote in Ballot Box No. NT.0.2 for Thaa Atoll in Male’. Results published on the Elections Commission website shows that 517 women voted in this box. Therefore, it is known that 15 women more than were registered voted here.
  • 79 men were registered to vote in Box No.Z.50.1.1 placed on Robinson Club Maldives Resort. It is known from the results published on the Elections Commission website that 81 men voted here. Therefore, it is known that 2 men more than were registered voted here.
  • 1 woman was registered to vote in Box No. Z.51.1.1 placed on Jumeirah Dhevanfushi Resort. It is known from the results published on the Elections Commission website that 2 women voted in this box. Therefore, 1 woman more than was registered voted in this box.

But, no votes were cast in these boxes more than the total numbers registered to vote there. Problems in votes cast in these boxes can be found in Annex 10. Detailed information about these will be found in Annex 10.

Below is a graph based on information listed above including the total number of problems found:

PoliceReportGraph

Problems that could arise with reference to points noted above:

In considering what has been noted in the Voter Registry, it is seen that there is some opportunity for fraud and rigging. Whether the problems in the Registry are intentional or otherwise, there is ample room to form the view that this could create opportunity for some people to vote illegally. Although the issues noted cannot be confirmed without first verifying them against the list checked at the polling booths, it must be accepted that even children under the age of 18 were allowed to vote. There is also room to say that people without a national identity card had the opportunity to create a card that is not valid and use it to vote. The view can also be formed that since there were 02 ID card numbers, one person could have had the opportunity to vote 02 times.

Other points of note:

Even though the Elections Commission acted according to Article 9 (a) of the General Elections Act which requires it to publish the Eligible Voters Registry in the Government Gazette at least 45 days (forty five days) prior to the election, it cannot be seen that the Commission published the information on their website as required. And, while second round of the 2013 Presidential Election is scheduled for 28 September 2013, the information still does not appear on the Elections Commission website.

Information has been received that Retired Judge Johan Griegler [sic] sent to the Maldives by the UN on request of the Elections Commission has not been given the opportunity to work there. Information has also been received that UN made a plea at the National Complaints Bureau to use his expertise. But, information has been received that he was not given the opportunity to work there that day.

It was also noted that even though Intelligence received information that the Elections Commission’s web server was hacked a few days before the election, and this information was relayed to the Commission, nothing was done about this for days. Even though it cannot be said for certain that information that could be ‘compromised’ was released as a result of hacked web server, it is believed that the server does contain such information. And, given that remote access has been granted to the server, it is certain that anyone who knows the password of that server will be able to access it from anywhere in the world. It was also discovered that it is this server which fetches the information and graphs needed for the Elections Commission website.

Because there is no one to take responsibility for the IT Department of the Elections Commission, that work has been assigned to Aminth Majda responsible for voter registration. That person works as Assistant Director of voter registration. Since most of the problems with this election is related to technology and registration, it is necessary for those investigating this to have information that it is one person responsible for these two things.

Although it was announced that arrangements were made for Indian citizens working in the Elections Commission to be absent from office on that day, information has been received that they were inside the premises on that day.

It was noted that, although percentage of voters was connected through net books assigned to those boxes through a web service, the link was broken at 15:00 on 7 September 2013 and could not be updated. Some people say that it was 71% of eligible voters who had voted at this stage. Information has also been received that, to ensure as many people as possible could vote in relation to this problem President of the Elections Commission Fuad Thowfeeq met with leaders of Jumhooree Party at 15:45 of that day. [The sentence structure is the Forensic Experts’, not mine.] And, the figure remained unchanged as voting continued until it showed a voter turnout of 88% at dawn. 2008 was a year when a lot of people voted, wanting a change. In comparison, unlike that time, various poll results showed that there were a large number of undecided voters. Even in the second round of the 2008 presidential election when citizens wanted a change, the voter turnout was 86%. Therefore, questions can be raised that there would be an 88% turnout this time.

While only one candidate, No.1 Qasim Ibrahim had a photo beside their name in the ballot papers used in the presidential election this time, some voters in Addu City saw ballot papers with photos of all candidates. In this regard, 4 people from Addu City have said they received this kind of ballot paper for voting.

Before the election, a person who played a lead role for a political party’s canpaign [sic] in Haa Dhaal Kulhudhuffushi printed some ballot papers similar to those used in this presidential election. This person and someone else were arrested in relation to this, and are being investigated.

Intelligence received reports sometime in the middle of this year that some people had got some ID cards printed abroad and were going to use it to voter registry using these cards, and investigations began to check the extent of truth in this information. Details about dead people were gathered through notes sent to various councils, and Intelligence began checking if any dead person had been included in the voter registry. But this work had to be brought to a halt temporarily because political actors and councils did not extend much co-operation to this work, Voter Registry was made public, media sources raised questions about this action by the police, and because of the extra work related to security of the election.

Some people are saying that when some people went to the voting stations to vote votes had already been cast in their names.

Proposals:

  1. It is proposed that since investigations so far reveal problems with the Voter Registry, the Voters Lists used at polling stations on that day must be made public.
  2. It is important that an audit be conducted of the server connected to the laptops at the polling booth, the server used in this work, and the system where the Voter Registry is kept.
  3. Because some people are saying that when they arrived at the polling booth votes had already been cast in their names, this information must be collected. It is also the view that file information on how the records were updated on netbooks used must be checked, and how polling duty was changed must also be checked.
  4. Given that the above noted problems can create more problems in the second round and could result in loss of peace, and given that even the work done up to now reveals a lot of problems that should not, relatively, exist in the voter registry, and because this creates the room for various parties to create doubts over the current preparations being done by the Elections Commission, and to ensure that people’s trust in elections preparations are upheld, and to seek public confidence in the results of the presidential election, it is the view that validity of the election must be proved to the public even if through government intervention.
  5. When the points above are considered, there are problems that can affect the results of this presidential election. Therefore, it is the view that re-counting the vote boxes a second time will erase the doubts about the election in people’s hearts and reduce potential unrest related to this.
  6. It is the view that because different people are saying that they saw different kinds of ballot papers, the ballot papers must be checked even if through random sampling.
  7. It is proposed that in the future arrangements should be made to prevent foreign technicians from having access inside the Elections Commission. It is also proposed that, in circumstances where foreign technicians and experts are necessary, this information should be given to the public before people raise questions about something like that.
  8. It cannot be accepted that registering voters through political parties is the best thing to do in the infancy of the Maldivian democracy. Therefore, it is the view that arrangements must be made so that everything to do with voter registration is done by the Elections Commission, and mechanisms established for easy registration.
  9. This election has revealed the importance of recruiting staff to work at the polling stations well ahead of time so that it is assured such people are not affiliated with any political party.
  10. It is the view that, to give people certainty and confidence, a security future [sic] be included in the ballot paper when they are being prepared. In circumstances where such a future [sic] is not included, and if a vote-related problem later arises where it has to be checked, then, if the only security futures [sic] it possesses are only futures [sic] that can be checked via a machine, it will be very time consuming and contains the potential for technical problems. It is the view, therefore, that some security futures [sic] visible to the naked eye be included in the ballot papers used in the election.

15 September 2013

Directorate of Intelligence

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

US “deeply concerned” about legal actions potentially delaying Maldives’ October 19 election

New voters and voters who wish to vote from a location other than their home island must submit the NEW fingerprint re-registration form by 4:30pm Saturday October 12, in line with Thursday night’s Supreme Court ruling. People who re-registered prior to the Sept 7 election will need to complete the process again, or may be unable to vote. Fingerprint forms submitted on Oct 9-10 will still be valid.

Forms are available at all island council offices, Addu City Council departments, party offices, diplomatic missions and at www.elections.gov.mv. In Malé forms will be accepted at the Elections Commission’s registration center on Handhuvaree Hingun.

Check your registration by SMSing 1414 ‘VIS ID#’, call the hotline on the same number, or visit http://elections.gov.mv/index2715.html

The US has said it is “deeply concerned” about continued legal actions “that could further delay the Maldivian presidential election”.

The Supreme Court opened at midnight on Thursday in response to a petition from the Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM), and ordered the Elections Commission to redo the entire voter re-registration process, despite previously ordering polls to be held before October 20.

Earlier in same day the PPM had sought to file another petition to bar former President Mohamed Nasheed from the polls on the grounds of him being “irreligious” and critical of the judiciary, although this appeared to stall following dissent within the party.

“It is important that the [election] go forward unimpeded in a fair, inclusive and transparent way,” said Deputy Spokesperson for the US State Department, Marie Harf, in a statement.

“The basis of any democracy is for citizens to choose their government, for political differences to be decided at the ballot box in an environment free of violence and for election results to be respected,” the statement read.

“We continue to urge a peaceful political process that is inclusive of all candidates in order to ensure the Maldivian election that will meet international standards of an elected, legitimate democracy,” it concluded.

The statement followed UK Foreign Secretary William Hague’s urging of presidential candidates “to act in line with the interests of the people of Maldives”.

“It is imperative that there are no further delays and the elections be free, fair and inclusive, and that international observers are invited,” the Foreign Secretary said.

“Cynical attempt to delay election”: MDP

Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has meanwhile begun the task of re-registering tens of thousands of voters, in line with the Supreme Court order. Re-registration is required for new voters or people wishing to vote at a location other than their home island, with almost 65,000 people re-registering in the annulled first round – almost 30 percent of the voter turnout.

At the same time the MDP condemned Thursday’s ruling, warning that it risked further delaying the elections.

“The MDP is extremely concerned that the Supreme Court is interfering in the electoral process for political reasons, issuing unconstitutional rulings and acting with impunity,” said the MDP in a statement.

“The MDP fears that the PPM is seeking to delay the elections and also disenfranchise overseas and resort-based voters, who will now likely have to re-register and who tend to vote overwhelmingly in favour of President Nasheed,” the party stated.

“This is a cynical attempt by the PPM and the Supreme Court to prevent elections from taking place next week,” said the party’s spokesperson, MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor.

“The PPM is running scared of the voters because they know they will lose a free and fair election., and the Supreme Court is facilitating the subversion of the democratic process.”

The party reaffirmed its confidence in the embattled Elections Commission, and called on security forces and the international community to ensure the Commission’s protection.

PPM MP Ahmed Nihan meanwhile told Minivan News last night that he believed the Supreme Court’s latest order would mean additional delays to the voting, currently scheduled for October 19.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Maldivian Democracy – Where to from here?

“Maldives can never have stability through elections which has opposition Maldivian Democratic Party presidential candidate Mohamed Nasheed’s name on the ballot”

“We will not hand over [power] through an election, [we] will not hand over even if he gets elected”

“Election fraud should be investigated and the election commissioner should resign”

– Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) vice presidential candidate Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed

These are not political statements. This is not political discourse. This is not democratic discourse. We call ourselves a democracy – a young democracy. But these statements are the symptoms and early warning signals of a failing democracy.

Failing democracy

There are different versions and theories on what a ‘true democracy’ is, even though I believe that term is flawed to the core. No system is perfect and a ‘true democracy’ is too ambitious an aspiration to be realistically achievable. At the same time, democracy is also not just giving everyone above 18 a right to vote and a right to represent.

Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) runs an annual survey for a ‘Democracy Index’, which rates various sovereign countries across the world on how effective they are as democracies. They rate countries on five arameters which are commonly accepted as relevant for judging the strength of democracies: 1) Electoral process and pluralism; 2) Functioning of government; 3) Political participation; 4) Democratic political culture; 5) Civil liberties. While this annual ‘Democracy Index’ typically covers around 160 – 165 countries across the world, the Maldives is not ranked. One can go through the details of this index here and build their own perspective on how well are we doing on this.

My summary view on the state of Maldivian democracy based on an assessment of these parameters is that we are a democracy on ventilator, desperately gasping for life. The statements by a vice presidential candidate highlighted above are a reflection on the sanctity of our electoral process, rather the lack of it. No only this, ours is a democracy where the Supreme Court decides on the sanctity of electoral process based on a ‘secret report’ by the police without even giving a chance to the Elections Commission, or anyone else, to see the report – let alone comment on it. At the same time, one only needs to see through the various actions of the current government to see that we clearly fail on the parameter of functioning of government, with the rampant corruption and decisions that are typically taken under the influence of one of the president’s allies or the other.

President Waheed has been sanctioning millions of dollars’ worth of favours to the people who put him in power – £5million payments to Grant Thornton to stop corruption investigations against Abdulla Yameen, and the arbitrary 99-year lease extension for Mamigili airport are just a couple of cases in point. The recent decision by Waheed’s cabinet to sell MACL shares in the course of a week, while being totally silent on the valuation or process for sale as well as the role of the Majlis or the privatization board in the same is a further example of absolute failure of governance, which is marred by corruption, in our democracy.

Civil liberties, or the lack of them, is the most significant problem for us today. None of the media houses are independent since their owners are aligned with one political party or the other – a case in point is a recent headline in a national electronic newspaper which said “Nasheed ‘doesn’t have time’ for second round presidential debate” while referring to the cancellation of MBC’s presidential debate. Brutal crackdowns on anti-government protestors are a norm of the day and tolerance for the opposition view is totally amiss from governance.

As for a democratic political culture, our country is being run by a ‘president-by-chance’ who has no popular support and who has been totally inept at maintaining public order, largely because he represents the old order and vested interests who brought him to power. It is only political participation that is the last remaining hope for the Maldivian democracy, and I am proud to say that we may be one of the best in the world on this parameter, but I fear we are starting to view our democracy in this very narrow perspective.

Constitutional void or civil disobedience or much more?

It is apparent from the discussion above that Maldivian democracy is faced with a number of challenges that threaten its very existence. What started in February 2012 was a political turmoil. Where we are at today is a constitutional void – where no one knows who has the power on which matters, and everything is a question of interpretation of the constitution. The more worrisome aspect, after this Supreme Court judgement on validity of elections, is where do we go from here?

Whether the Supreme Court had the power to cancel the second round or not is still in question – the executive was only too happy to implement its orders anyhow without regard to the powers of the constitutional institutions such as the elections commission. Whether they were right in annulling the first round, on the basis of a report the existence of which is in question, is an even bigger question. Parliamentary supremacy is a bit of an unknown concept in our democracy and anyone and everyone seems to challenge it based on their convenience – be it challenging the position of the speaker, or validity of seats of opposition MPs, or the simplest of things like not destroying the audio systems just to stop the other side from making their case.

The questions are many and there are no clear answers. Can the elections commission ensure a free and fair election with the high level of control that has now been given to the Maldives police? Will the Maldives’ police, who are led by a man recently reprimanded by integrity commission for his anti-Nasheed activism in the forces, really allow a free and fair election? Will any election in which Nasheed wins, despite any odds, be conceded as a free and fair election? What will deter the losers of the re-election from running to the Supreme Court again pleading some other kind of foul play and getting the elections annulled once again? Will Nasheed supporters accept a defeat calmly and with grace, without crying foul play, having received 45 percent votes in the annulled elections? Now that the sanctity of the electoral process has been undermined significantly, what is the way out of this situation?

Using undue influence over the Supreme Court to play with the electoral process is not an acceptable answer for one side of the political spectrum. Disqualifying the most popular candidate from contesting the elections or not letting him take power – even if he wins the election and possibly even a re-election – is clearly not a plausible answer for the other side. This is a stark conflict and everyone is getting involved. Even the MNDF is getting politicised and polarised, along with the customs, air traffic control, and resort employees. That this conflict will only escalate further is increasingly likely and the recent arson attack on pro-opposition Raajje TV is an early warning signal of how bad things can get, if not checked in time.

Where to from here in search of solutions?

A conflict where a large proportion of people with a political voice start looking at every action of the state with suspicion is mostly avoidable. No one likes conflict and certainly not a violent conflict. With everything that is going on in the rest of the world – in Syria, Egypt and elsewhere – no one wants a conflict in the much more peaceful Maldives. Given the polarised nature of this conflict, it is important for order to be established in the Maldives sooner rather than later. Leaving internal institutions in the Maldives to chance upon a solution after a prolonged conflict is not what is required at present and may even be counter-productive.

Clearly, the Maldives needs the international community’s support to ensure that this conflict is not prolonged and is resolved for good with this round of elections. Moreover, it is not in India’s interests to see any prolonged conflict in its backyard, for such conflicts allow an opportunity to other countries to start playing an active role where they have been largely absent till date. It is important for India to establish diplomatic supremacy once again in the Maldives.

Ever since the suspicious transfer of power in the Maldives in February 2012, Indian engagement in the Maldives has largely been reactive. It has been on the ‘back-foot’ since February 2012 with the rising anti-India voices from some quarters of the political spectrum. President Waheed went back on his word to the Indian prime minister in cancelling the GMR agreement, and the much prolonged ‘Nasheed-holed-up-inside-Indian-high-commission’ drama in February 2013 only exacerbated discord. India has reacted well to manage some of these situations, though Indian diplomacy has failed on a few fronts, particularly in failing to gauge the allegiance of the current government of President Waheed.

The current conflict in the Maldives provides a perfect opportunity for India to take charge of the situation. The re-election is an opportunity to set the Maldives in order and to define Indian diplomatic supremacy in the region. It has to play an active role in building domestic as well as international consensus on whatever is required to ensure that the re-election, now that everyone seems to have accepted it, is free and fair and actually results in a smooth and consensual transfer of power on November 11. The number of diplomatic options India has are endless, but just strongly worded statements don’t seem to be enough of a deterrent to the various political actors in the Maldives. On the other extreme, far-fetched options like an international peace-keeping force or any sort of ‘boots-on-ground’ is totally out of bounds as well. While some sort of economic sanctions are a plausible diplomatic action, these haven’t been much of a deterrent in many cases across the world.

A possible tourism-embargo will hit the various political actors involved in this conflict and would force them to tow the democratic line such that the starkly polarised domestic politics could be sorted out once and for all. This is a call that has been made by the MDP as well, and has been welcomed and criticized in equal measure by various people across the socio-political spectrum in the country. Having said that, it is such details of what and how that India has to play without becoming actively involved in the local politics and without taking political sides. India has to build international consensus on what carrots and which sticks need to be used to ensure that any dubious dealings no longer stymie Maldivian democracy.

Maldivian democracy is on life-support and it needs international help, especially from India, to help it come back to life again after the 11th November.

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)