Tag: Elections Commission (EC)

Supreme Court hears closing statements in annulment case

The Supreme Court has concluded hearings in the case filed by resort tycoon and presidential hopeful Gasim Ibrahim’s Jumhoree Party (JP) against the Elections Commission (EC), requesting the apex court annul the first round of the presidential election.

Submitting his closing statement the JP lawyer and running mate of Gasim, Dr Hassan Saeed, told the Supreme Court that the party was seeking three remedies from the court.

The first remedy the party sought, explained Saeed, was for the Supreme Court to declare that the voters list used during the election had undermined the constitutional right of the citizens to cast their ballot.

The second request, he continued, was for the Supreme Court to declare that the EC had formulated the list in contradiction of the general election laws, as well as the prerequisites set forth in its own pre-election ruling.

This ruling in question ordered all relevant authorities ensure facilitation of a free and fair presidential election, with the EC remaining duty bound to address any possible errors regarding details on the voter registry.

The third and final request made was for the apex court to declare that the presidential election held on September 7 is void and invalid, Saeed told the seven-member Supreme Court bench.

Attorney General’s contribution

In summing up his case, Saeed said that the party’s allegations – including double voting, voting in the names of deceased people, and underage voting – had been given additional weight after being acknowledged by the Attorney General during hearings.

Saeed also repeated his criticism of the security features on the ballot paper, as well as the under-performing of the Ballot Progress Reporting System (BPRS) – a web based application used by the EC officials at polling stations.

Saeed stressed that the BPRS system’s failure had left polling stations prone to double voting.

Referring to the statements given by the JP’s witnesses, Saeed noted that the party had produced sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate its claims.

He explained that the JP – being a private party – did not have the same resources as a state institution, and therefore the evidence provided was intended to prove that the entire election process was a systematic failure rather than to prove individual cases of misconduct.

In the closing statement given by the Attorney General’s Office, the Solicitor General Ahmed Usham told the court that the state did not wish to take sides in the matter and had only intervened in the case to present the complaints that President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan had received through government agencies.

Meanwhile Ahmed Zaneen Adam, representing the PPM – which had also intervened into the case, told the court that it was imperative it uphold the rights of the people to elect their ruler.

He said that issues concerning the elections had caused doubts among the public regarding the sincerity of the EC.

Zaneen followed Saeed in reiterating the JP’s request that court annul the first round of elections and call for a fresh presidential election with the discrepancies amended.

Election Commission’s closing remarks

Responding to the remarks made by Saeed, EC lawyer Hussain Siraj stressed to the court that the JP had not been able to prove any of their allegations against the commission.

Siraj also requested the court distinguish between procedural irregularity and substantive irregularity in deciding the case. He argued that Saeed’s allegations, even if proven to have happened, would indicate only procedural irregularity rather than a substantive irregularity.

This would be insufficient grounds to annul the election, argued Siraj.

The EC lawyer also responded to the claims made in the JP’s closing statements, but was frequently interrupted by the judges – most notably the former Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed, whose name had appeared on the injunction ordering the run-off’s postponement. Abdulla Saeed requested Siraj to shorten his speech.

The EC lawyer, in his plea to the court, requested that it rule there were no reasonable grounds to declare the voters list invalid and thereby there were no reasonable grounds to void the September 7 elections.

In concluding the hearing, the Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz announced that unless the court required clarifying matters from the parties, it will issue a verdict at the next hearing.

However, shortly after the hearing concluded, an additional case requesting the court delay the run-off was filed by Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed – running mate of PPM presidential candidate Abdulla Yameen.

A member of EC’s legal team told Minivan News that a hearing of Jameel’s case against the EC had been scheduled for Thursday at 2:00pm.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP calls on Supreme Court to remain within “legal ambit of the constitution”

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has called on the Supreme Court to “restrain itself to the legal ambit of the constitution” in an open letter from the party’s chairperson ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik to Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain on Tuesday (September 24).

The party contended that its lawyers Hassan Latheef and Hisaan Hussain were “unlawfully suspended” by the apex court in ongoing proceedings of the Jumhooree Party’s case against the Elections Commission (EC) seeking annulment of the first round of the presidential election on September 7.

“Despite the Maldivian Democratic Party’s legal team claiming that proceedings cannot be held without their representation, the court’s decision to proceed regardless is in breach of the constitution, laws, regulation and juridical norms adhered to in the Maldives thus far,” the letter stated.

“Furthermore, it is of concern that during the proceedings there was apparent deferential treatment towards other parties to the case. Therefore, considering the manner in which the court has acted during these proceedings thus far, and since the party believes that proceedings will not continue in a way which guarantees the rights of the 95,000 people who publicly shown support for the party, this party wishes to revoke its inter-partes claim to the motion filed at the court.”

The MDP lawyers along with EC lawyer Husnu Suood were barred from proceedings by the Supreme Court yesterday for publicly criticising the court’s order indefinitely postponing the second round run-off of the presidential election scheduled for September 28.

“Journey to Justice”

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s stay order (Dhivehi) on Monday night (September 23), the party’s National Council passed a resolution approving continuous protests until a date was given for the run-off election.

MDP Spokesperson Hamed Abdul Ghafoor described the Supreme Court’s suspension of the election pending a judgment on the JP’s case as “a cynical attempt by President [Mohamed] Nasheed’s political opponents to delay an election they feared they were likely to lose.”

Nasheed emerged as the front runner in the first round of the polls with 45.45 percent (95,224 votes), followed by Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) candidate Abdulla Yameen who received 25.35 percent (53,099 votes). The JP candidate Gasim Ibrahim narrowly missed out on the run-off with 24.07 percent (50,422) and contested the results at the Supreme Court alleging electoral fraud.

The JP and the PPM welcomed the Supreme Court injunction as a positive step towards ensuring a free and fair election. PPM candidate Abdulla Yameen told Minivan News that there was “nothing unconstitutional” with the court order.

“The Elections Commission got the opportunity to argue out their case and establish the credibility of the process,” he said.

The MDP yesterday relaunched its “Journey to Justice” demonstration at the Raalhugadu (surf point) area of the capital Male’ – 18 months after being evicted from the site by security forces – where it had set up a protest camp in February 2012 following former President Mohamed Nasheed’s resignation in what the party has maintained was a “coup d’etat” instigated by mutinous elements of the police and military working with the then-opposition.

The MDP chairperson’s letter to the Chief Justice meanwhile called upon the highest court of appeal to “uphold Article 8 of the Constitution [which] states that all powers of the State shall be exercised in accordance with the Constitution, Article 299 sub-article (a) that states that the administrators of justice shall wholly comply with the provisions of the Constitution, and Article 142 which stipulates that judges are subject to the Constitution and the law.”

The party contends that the court’s order disregarded article 111(a) of the constitution, which states that “a run-off election must be held within twenty one days after the first election.”

In his speech at the Raalhugadu protest site last night, Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid asserted that the Supreme Court did not have the authority to override “any article of the constitution or even a letter of that article.”

Constitutional provisions could only be suspended by the president after declaring a state of emergency, Shahid explained, which has to first be approved by parliament.

Suspension of lawyers

In June 2012, lawyers held a crisis meeting following the publication by the Supreme Court of controversial regulations requiring all practicing lawyers to be registered at a court.

The regulations also authorised the courts to suspend lawyers for publicly criticising the judiciary or court decisions.

In February 2013, the Supreme Court suspended lawyer Abdulla Haseen after he criticised the judiciary on the MDP-aligned Raajje TV. Haseen was barred from advocating in any court in the country while the Supreme Court asked police to investigate him for contempt of court.

The Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) however decided not to prosecute Haseen after police concluded its investigation.

Moreover, earlier this month, MDP MP Imthiyaz Fahmy was charged with contempt of court for allegedly defaming Supreme Court Justices on a Raajje TV programme.

In her report on the Maldivian judiciary, UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Lawyers and Judges, Gabriela Knaul, wrote that the “enforcement of compulsory registration of lawyers with the courts is also unacceptable.”

“The regulation of disciplinary measures against lawyers falls outside of the prerogative of the judiciary or any other branch of power and contradicts the principle of independence of the legal profession. During her visit, the case of a lawyer who had been indefinitely suspended by the Supreme Court for allegedly criticizing one of its judgements in public was reported to the Special Rapporteur. Such a suspension leaves no avenue for appeal and review and it represents a violation of the rights of the lawyer,” the report stated.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court continues hearing witnesses against Elections Commission

The Supreme Court continued obtaining statements from witnesses produced by the Jumhooree Party (JP) in its case against the Elections Commission (EC), seeking the annulment of the first round election over allegations of voting discrepancies and irregularities.

Shortly before the commencement of the hearings on Tuesday, the Supreme Court informed both the EC and the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) – who had also intervened in the case – that its lawyers had been ejected from the case, for acting in contempt of court.

Following the announcement, the court suspended the hearings for two hours to allow the parties to seek a replacement for the suspended lawyers. However, shortly before the two hour period elapsed, the MDP withdrew from the case citing severe discrepancies in the court.

Lawyer Hussain Siraj appeared on behalf of the Elections Commission, replacing former Attorney General Husnu Suood who promptly signed up as an MDP member.

During today’s court session, the Chief Justice announced that the hearing would continue to hear the witnesses produced by the JP in support of its allegations against the Elections Commission.

Three witnesses told the court that when they had gone to vote, EC officials present at the polling station had told them that votes had already been cast under their name but once they had complained, the officials allowed them to vote after manually entering their names into a physical voter list present at the station.

The other two witnesses claimed that they had knowledge of underage people voting in the poll. However, among the two witnesses who made the claim, one witness said that he had only heard about it, after rumours began circulating that such a thing happened.

During cross examination the EC’s lawyer Siraj asked if he had anything to substantiate his claims. The witness said he had neither personally checked whether the alleged underage voter had actually voted, or whether he was actually under the age of voting.

The second witness who testified said he had seen an underage person who had voted and told the court that he had personally gone to the person in question and said that the person had an indelible ink mark on his finger.

According to the witness, the underage voter was 17 years of age as per his National Identity Card (NIC) – one year less than the eligible age of voting which is 18 years.

After questioning the witnesses, the Supreme Court requested the Attorney General’s office submit their list of alleged underage voters.

The lawyer representing the Attorney General’s office told the court that it intended to submit the intelligence report from the police, as stated during the last hearing. However, the lawyer said that the Attorney General’s Office would not submit the report if the Supreme Court was going to share the report with other parties in the case.

Meanwhile, the JP lawyers submitted two more additional documents as evidence – one, an official document from the Maldives Police Service detailing the security services provided to the Elections Commission, and the second document a request made by Elections Complaints Bureau which had requested recount of a ballot box during the polling day. JP lawyers alleged that the EC had disregarded the request and had gone on to announce the results of the box.

In concluding today’s hearing, Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz announced that a hearing would be held tomorrow (Wednesday).

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court continues collecting statements from Jumhooree Party witnesses

The Supreme Court today (September 23) continued taking statements from witnesses produced by the Jumhoree Party (JP), in the party’s ongoing bid to annul the first round of presidential elections over allegations of discrepancies and irregularities in the voting process.

The Supreme Court commenced direct examination and cross examination of witnesses during last Sunday’s hearings, during which three witnesses produced by the JP gave their testimonies to the court.

During the hearing Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz announced that the JP had requested to produce 20 witnesses to give evidence in court to support their case.

Due to a request made by the JP’s lawyers on Sunday, the statements of all witnesses were taken with special arrangements made to ensure their anonymity. The witnesses gave their statements in a separate room and their voices were distorted to protect their identities.

The first witness produced by the JP told the court that his friend working as an election official had informed him that his younger sister – who lived in Malaysia and never went to vote –  had her name on the list in Male’ and which showed that she had voted.

During re-examination, EC Lawyer Husnu Al Suood asked the witness whether he knew which ballot box in which the alleged discrepancy occurred, but he refused to answer and told the judge that he would give the details “in writing” to the court.

When Hisaan Hussain, the lawyer from the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) which has intervened in the case, questioned the witness as to whether he was affiliated with any political party, the witness, despite initial reluctance, said that he supported the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP).

The second witness, a female, told the court that she was not able to vote in the elections because EC officials had told her that her National Identity Card (NIC) number did not match with the one that was on the commission’s database. The witness reiterated that despite turning up with an official document from the Department of National Registration, EC officials refused to allow her to vote.

The third witness, a police officer who was on security duty during the time of polling, told the court that he had witnessed elections officials packing up all the paperwork on the ballot counting table – including the original ballot papers – and putting them into a cardboard box, after the officials announced the provisional results of that box.

The police officer said that once the officials had packed the box, they took it away in two taxis. He said that although he had expected them to head to Dharubaaruge, the officials instead went to the secretariat of the commission located in Maafannu.

When the EC lawyer asked the witness what his duty of the day had been, the police officer told the court that he was ordered to follow the EC officials who had left in the taxi, but did not reveal who had given him this order.

When the MDP lawyer questioned the officer as to what distance had he been from the ballot box, the officer said that he was just approximately 15 feet away from the ballot box, 85 feet closer than the 100 foot distance police officers are regulated to maintain from the box.

A fourth witness, a female, told the court that when she contacted the EC to re-register for the run-off election, the EC officials had told her that she had already been registered to vote in Male even though she claimed that she had neither re-registered of voted during the first round of elections. She also contested that the EC official had told her that she had voted in Male.

Another witness told the court that when he had gone to vote, the list which the EC officials working at the ballot box were using showed his name being highlighted as if he had already voted in the election.

However, the witness claimed that following protests and complaints, the officials later allowed him to vote after manually writing down his name and details on the printed list.

During today’s hearing the court was not able to collect statements from two witnesses whose statements had to be collected through telephone.

Each of the two witnesses had appeared in their respective island’s Magistrate Courts to give their witness through telephone. However due to poor reception the court was not able to obtain their statements.

The Chief Justice said that testimonies of the two witnesses would be taken in the next hearing.

After the collection of evidences by witnesses, the JP Lawyer Dr Hassan Saeed requested the Supreme Court give it the party the opportunity to present two new documents of evidence, which included a new list of fraudulent voters and a copy of the leaked police intelligence report currently being circulated around social media.

In response to the request, the judges said that the leaked document could only be accepted after discussing the matter with the other judges. However Deputy Solicitor General Ahmed Usham – who was representing the state, which had also intervened into the case – requested the court for permission to present the original intelligence report to the court, citing that the one that had been leaked on social media had been a part of the original report.

In concluding the hearing today, Chief Justice Faiz said that during the next hearing that the court would try to obtain the statements of the two witnesses, whose statements the court was not able to collect today.

Faiz did not state the date when the next hearing would be scheduled.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Q&A: Elections Commission Chairperson Fuwad Thowfeek

The Maldives’ Elections Commission (EC) is preparing for the presidential election’s second round run-off amidst the Jumhooree coalition’s refusal to accept its first round defeat, triggering a barrage of judicial, political, media and civil society actions against the commission.

The Jumhooree Party (JP) – in conjunction with the Attorney General (AG) and the Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) – has led a Supreme Court case to annul the election, whilst the party’s High Court case against the commission was conducted in tandem. In response to the JP’s vote fraud claims the police barricaded the EC secretariat and searched its garbage, while multiple protests and threats have targeted  the commission and its members and local media has broadcast unsubstantiated information about the commission and electoral process.

The EC has emphatically dismissed allegations of vote rigging as “baseless and unfounded”, highlighting its transparency and extensive preparations – conducted with international support – to ensure a free and fair polling process. International election observers have unanimously commended the first round of polling, calling for losing parties to accept defeat and allow the second round to proceed as scheduled.

With the September 28 run-off 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).

Supreme Court case

Leah R Malone: Considering the politicised nature of the Supreme Court – as highlighted by the UN Special Rapporteur for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul – is there a risk the Supreme Court’s order to hand over the EC’s only original copy of the voter list could lead to it being tampered with? Specifically, given the lack of material evidence or witnesses presented against the EC thus far, is there a potential opportunity for names to be added to the original voter list to substantiate the JP’s claims?

Fuwad Thowfeek: Thursday (September 19) the Supreme Court ordered the Elections Commission provide the original voter list, so we’ve been making color copies. EC members sat down and discussed [the situation], the constitution and presidential election laws, as well as met with our legal team. Since it’s a Supreme Court case they can order anything be given, so it’s best to follow that order [and provide the list].

However our legal team advised us to take very accurate color copies of each page before sending the originals. We are keeping the duplicates and in case any changes are made [to the originals] we will very easily be able to recognise them. It is the best solution we have at the moment.

As of about 3:45pm or 4:00pm Friday (September 20) we sent 120 lists to the Supreme Court. 200 will be sent Saturday and the day after the remaining lists. We are sending the original documents as the copies are being made.

LRM: If the Supreme Court rules to annul the presidential election’s first round, what will the Elections Commission do?

FT: That’s a big question because according to the constitution and even elections law there is nothing said [about whether the Supreme Court can take that action]. We have to ask the Supreme Court to give a timetable or something [for the presidential election]. Other than that there’s nothing we can do.

We won’t be able to fulfill the time requirement set forth in the constitution [if the run-off isn’t held on schedule]. 120 days before the end of the current president’s term a presidential election must be held. If there is no election then the [democratic] constitution, presidential and general election law will not be satisfied.

The strangest, funniest thing is that they are still not able to identify a single person who has voted fraudulently. For example, they have not been able to show anyone who is younger than 18 has voted, but they have been claiming many underage people fraudulently voted. If there are many [that voted fraudulently] they should be able to verify and show at least one person. They are also claiming that dead people voted, and when they submitted the list of seven names to the High Court, the court gave us the list to check. So we reviewed the voter registry and voter list, found phone numbers on record for four people and when we spoke with them, the individuals verified they were indeed alive and had voted. We are sure we will be able to find the remaining three people.

The other thing is if a dead person voted, someone should be able to show that this is the person who voted under the deceased’s name. Also, the JP is claiming 50,000 fraudulent votes have been added. The strangest thing is none of these ballots have been identified. No ballot boxes were found to have more votes cast than voters registered. Only one ballot box – located on a resort island – was found to have exactly 100 percent voter turnout. The average voter turnout was 88.44 percent nationwide.

LRM: Has Attorney General Azima Shukoor been in contact with the Elections Commission?

FT: That was another surprise to us actually. She has not been in contact with us and then suddenly appeared in the Supreme Court case. The funniest thing is the AG is supposed to support government institutions, but in this case the AG is speaking against the EC. She is supporting JP without evidence or witnesses, just saying there were errors in the voters list, but is not able to cite what those specific errors are because she has not seen [or requested to see] the list.

When I heard the AG was going to participate in the Supreme Court case, I thought it would be on behalf of the EC and she would tell the court [the vote rigging allegations are] simply not possible and the court cannot give any room to cancel the first round and re-hold it. [However,] when the AG came out and spoke against the EC – just like any political party supporter of JP – we released a press statement stating that the commission regrets this action by the AG. Both the AG and the JP have not provided any evidence or witnesses to support their allegations.

The government has spent over MVR 30 million (US $1,949,310) on the first round, there is no budget remaining [to hold both rounds again]. If it’s difficult for the government to provide the additional budget for the second round, there will be so many difficulties if the [results are annulled and] voting rounds are held again.

[Prior to the Supreme Court case] we hadn’t had much contact with the office of the AG or the AG. Last year after the change of government, in March or April, the EC met with the AG and spoke about changes that were required in the election laws, but nothing has materialised so far. She told us at the time that there were so many laws requiring revision.

Before the end of the last Supreme Court session, the Chief Justice ordered the EC to submit the original copy of the voters’ list. They are probably going to check the list to see whether people below the age of 18 voted. If they want to check for that, it’s fine. We are 100 percent sure they will not find anyone below 18 who voted.

Accessing the voter list

LRM: Following the High Court order for the EC to allow JP access to the voter list – under the guidelines determined by the commission – what were the exact protocol guidelines the EC enacted during the JP representative’s visit? What other political party representatives were present?

FT: Tuesday (September 17) the High Court ordered the EC to show the voter list to political parties. We have only one original [copy of the voters list] and had to make arrangements to follow the High Court’s order to show JP [the list], so we made the arrangements for Thursday (September 19).

This was because the EC needed time to prepare, seek advice from our legal team, and to hold a discussion meeting with our members. At the same time, arrangements for other candidates to see the voter list were also made. We invited all four political parties to send representatives to see the original voter list.

The viewing started at 10:00am. A team from JP came and GIP, but no PPM – even in court they said they did not want to see the voter list. An MDP representative came, but he said he did not want to see it.

We asked the other two – representatives from JP and GIP – what they wanted to see. Then again they wanted more people [from their parties] to come and for the EC to make copies [of the list for them]. But we couldn’t make that arrangement because we have to be very careful with our only copy [of the list], so our own official would show it to one representative at a time. There were arguments from the political party representatives [about these guidelines].

[However,] the lawyer, Dr Hassan Saeed [JP presidential candidate Gasim Ibrahim’s running mate and head of JP’s legal team] said that now he does not need to look at the voter list anymore because he would prefer for the EC to hand it over to the Supreme Court.

(JP’s Legal Advisor Mohamed Haleem told Minivan News last week that the party would seek an additional High Court order for unrestricted access to the voter list).

LRM: With the ‘leaked’ police intelligence report – which the AG is citing in the Supreme Court – alleging there were “some opportunities for fraud” and “illegal voting”, the AG arguing for the Supreme Court to order the police to investigate the EC, and the police barricading and searching the EC’s garbage, do you think the police are politicised and acting against the EC?

FT: I don’t think anything will happen. I heard the AG demanded the PG issue an order to the police to investigate some of these allegations, but so far the commission has not been contacted by the police or the PG. But we don’t know anything about this. The AG should have met and spoke with the EC before making such a decision and then advising another institution [to take action].

LRM: What has been the outcome of the Maldives Broadcasting Commission (MBC)’s investigation into Villa TV (VTV) broadcasting programmes to incite hatred and create an uprising against the EC? Have any substantive actions been taken by MBC against VTV?

FT: We don’t know about the [outcome of the] MBC investigation. They said they will be taking actions against those broadcasting untruthful content. We know that VTV has stopped broadcasting the ‘Olhuvaalee Vote Ge Namugai’ (‘fraud in the name of the vote’) programme. But for a very long time they have been showing ‘Fasmanzaru’ (‘five horizons’), where various JP political party members or supporters just talk against the EC or against the election’s first round. Although what they have to say has no substance.

Saturday or Sunday we have to send a complaint letter to MBC. Again I have called MBC’s President Mohamed Shahyb and by phone have spoken to him about ‘Fasmanzaru’ [and the unsubstantiated claims its spreading].

LRM: How will the EC provide more timely information to media during the second round run-off to avoid the confusion created by inaccurate local media reports of polling station figures during the first round?

FT: We have not yet decided. I think we need more frequent refreshing of figures and will try to have more frequent reports from the EC on the 28th. If everything does not go well it may be difficult… we may not be able to go to the Dharubaaruge [convention centre in Male’]. We will try to have better updates through the internet, but will be focusing on communicating directly with the media.

Threats and protests

LRM: The ‘National Movement’ has announced they will raise their voices in protest if the Supreme Court doesn’t rule against the EC. They are calling for the EC to be reformed – with yourself, the Vice Chair Ahmed Fayaz, and commission member Ali Mohamed Manik resigning. Have previous JP protests and planned National Movement protests caused any problems for the EC? Why are they targeting the three of you?

FT: Even JP supporters – except the 20 or 30 people shouting on the streets – have accepted the first round results and are not causing any problems.

Thursday night around 10:30pm 20 or 30 protesters came near the EC Secretariat, shouted for 30 minutes and left. They were demanding my resignation and saying ‘thief of votes’ and that type of thing, they wanted the [first round] results cancelled and a fresh election to be held. Sometimes they ask for myself and the Vice Chair to resign, sometimes different EC members, and sometimes the entire commission.

These are a few unsatisfied people paid by somebody – who has the money – but they know they’re not shouting for any solid thing. They get on a loudspeaker [and protest] after somebody asks or pays them – they are doing it for that reason alone, not based on anything reasonable. If it was a public thing then I’d be more concerned. But this is just a few people and most are not educated. They don’t know what’s going on [with the election] or how the voting process works.

There are five members of the EC and all decisions are made by the five members. [However,] the Vice Chair Fayaz, member Manik, and I are the three members interacting the most with the public, on TV etc  – that’s why they are going against us.

LRM: What kind of threats have been made against EC members and/or staff?

FT: Some of us are getting threats from unknown people. I have received SMS messages saying ‘be careful when you come out on the street, you’ll be stabbed in the stomach’. We [commission members] have security provided by the police and we move around with them.

My wife has been scared. Two times people went near our home shouting [and protesting], but the police protected our home and stopped the people from coming too near.

LRM: Do you think the MPS can provide adequate security for EC members?

FT: Yes, the MPS is fully capable. I’m sure nobody can harm me. They have to look at a distance but can’t touch me. Of that I’m fully confident, I’m not scared. I’m confidant know what I’m doing is right and I have the support of the people and the whole international community – observers and monitors. They’ve seen the electoral process [during the first round], which they have commended, praised, and complemented. I’m very happy and am moving ahead with my duties. My work cannot be stopped by a few people. I have full confidence in myself and am moving ahead.

LRM: The JP, some of their supporters, and the National Movement have claimed the EC, its members and staff are biased toward MDP – will you clarify for the public whether there is any truth in this accusation?

FT: There’s no truth to that, it’s some kind of story that some of the opponents wanted to spread. This commission, all its members and staff, do not belong to any political party or align with any political party.

We have staff who are married to people from different political parties – PPM, MDP, DRP, etc – and police officers. Staff members’ spouses may belong to a political party, but that is their own interest and has nothing to do with the duties of our staff. I have full confidence in our staff, they are very faithful to their duties and this commission and would not do anything unjust. I’m confident in my staff and that none are aligned with the MDP.

If they [a particular politician or political party] don’t get the result they want from a particular institution, they tend to claim that institution is opposition-aligned. The MDP got the best result [Nasheed secured 45.45 percent of the vote], so this time the EC is accused of being MDP aligned. If Yameen won then the EC would be accused of being PPM aligned.

In another instance, right after the change of government [in February 2012] some said the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) was PPM aligned, because most of the decisions made were more likely to the advantage of PPM. That’s just the kind of talk that happens.

Run-off preparations

LRM: What kind of support are local and international partners providing the EC for the second round? Is anything additional needed prior to the run-off scheduled for the 28th?

FT: We are getting a lot of support from international and local partners. The Commonwealth has expressed their satisfaction with the EC’s professionalism and their continued support for the commission. They will be sending another observer team for the run-off. The EU sent different observer teams – from various countries – on the 7th and will most likely send more for the 28th. Observers from Japan, Thailand, India, UK, US, and a Pakistani Elections Commissioner were present during the first round and expressed their interest in observing the second round. They will most likely send more teams for the run-off. I think they will come before the 28th to see the place, visit other islands, and see how ready we are for the second round.

Transparency Maldives sent the observers nationwide and their report praised the electoral process. The HRCM also observed the first round and praised us on our work and confirmed everything during the election went well. The Maldivian Democracy Network also expressed their support and commended the work the EC has done.

LRM: How have EC members, staff, and their families been impacted by the controversy the commission has faced since the first round? How has this impacted run-off election preparations?

FT: Right now there is very heavy work we have left to do before the 28th. We are so busy we are working 24 hours a day and the EC staff works in shifts, half are sent home to sleep when the other half report in.

For example, in addition to the 470 ballot boxes necessary for the first round, the second round will require an additional box be placed in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and two more on tourist resorts that have applied to keep ballot boxes this round.

Everyone of us has to spend so much time in the office. We go early in the morning and stay until late at night, even on weekends, while our families are alone at home. Our families suffer, but they fully support us so we can fulfill our national duty.

It’s a very difficult job but I’m lucky to have the confidence of the people and [political party] leaders – even Gasim’s close people, President Waheed and President Nasheed know me well, and the honorable Yameen and Gayoom know and trust me. Even those who speak against me only speak for political gain or just to control their supporters.

I know what I’m doing is right and everything will be fine for elections to take place the 28th. We are fully ready for the second round. If we are able to hold on until the 28th then we will know the next president of the country.

LRM: Given the barrage of judicial, political, media and civil society actions against the EC, is the electoral environment still conducive to holding a free and fair presidential election on September 28?

FT: I think on the 28th of September the second round will go ahead as we have planned and have been working toward. There has been very little or no change [in the electoral environment] that would require we make any changes to our own program. Compared to last week, this week things have very much improved. I’m very confident things will calm down.

I’ve spoken to different people [representing political parties] and the most interesting thing is even those against us in the Supreme Court, they know there was nothing wrong with the election. Gasim’s employees, senior political party members, are trying to just give him a perspective that they did so much to cover up their failure to get Gasim the required number of votes [to proceed to the run-off]. They know the cases submitted in the High Court and Supreme Court are not going to give them any recount. Nothing will come out in their favour. They just want to go as far as they can go.

A lot of energy has been wasted by everyone – their people, our people, the Supreme Court.

I’m very hopeful the country will be ready for the run-off. We cannot keep this second round [from happening on schedule]. Particularly for the benefit of the country, to maintain the peace and harmony of our home [nation], we have to hold the second round.

If we fail, we will likely face more and more problems as the time passes. It will be in the interest of the government, all political parties, and all thoughtful citizens of the country to hold the run-off. Anybody trying to obstruct the election is unpatriotic.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP proposes changes to Supreme Court bench and no-confidence motion against Attorney General

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) decided during a contingency meeting of the party’s national council on Friday (September 20) to pursue a no-confidence motion against Attorney General (AG) Azima Shukoor and change the composition of the Supreme Court bench through legislation.

The meeting took place after three consecutive days of lengthy Supreme Court proceedings of a case filed by the Jumhooree Party (JP) against the Elections Commission (EC) seeking annulment of the first round of the September 7 presidential election. The Supreme Court hearings adjourned for the weekend on Thursday.

At its meeting yesterday, the MDP national council adopted a resolution to undertake all necessary efforts to ensure that the presidential election would be free, fair and transparent and “decided only by the vote of the people and not by the courts”.

The resolution submitted by MDP MP Ahmed Hamza was passed with unanimous consent of all 51 members of the national council in attendance.

‘Certainty of the margin’

During the debate on the resolution, the MDP presidential candidate former President Mohamed Nasheed said it was important for all political parties – including the JP – to have no doubts over the integrity of the electoral process.

Nasheed said that the JP’s main issue was the narrow margin of 1.28 percent – a difference of just 2,677 votes – between its candidate Gasim Ibrahim and the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) candidate Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom.

For the JP to accept the narrow margin, Nasheed said that the registry of voters had to be checked to verify the JP’s claim that ineligible voters were on the list.

Nasheed noted that the EC had published the registry in the government gazette for public scrutiny, after which the MDP had identified some 800 people in the list that were either deceased, underage or repeated more than once.

The question that has to be answered, said Nasheed, is whether more than 2,000 people who were not eligible to vote had cast their ballots.

The former president expressed confidence that electoral fraud had not occurred in the September 7 election even if there were problems with the voters registry.

Altering Supreme Court composition

“As experts are noting that some judges on the Supreme Court bench lack certain kinds of legal knowledge and experience, it is our view changes has to be made to the composition of the Supreme Court’s bench. That is, by amending the Judges Act,” Nasheed said.

Shortly before the MDP government was toppled on February 7, 2012, the party proposed a bill to amend the Judicature Act that would reduce the number of judges on both the benches of the Supreme Court and High Court.

MDP Spokesperson Imthiyaz Fahmy told Minivan News at the time that the amendments had been forwarded due to inefficiency of both the High Court and the Supreme Court in concluding cases.

In March 2013, the MDP national council, following a controversial Supreme Court ruling that overturned parliament’s decision to vote out Civil Service Commission (CSC) Chair Mohamed Fahmy Hassan on sexual harassment charges, passed a motion calling on its parliamentary group to seek to abolish the existing Supreme Court bench and replace it with a new panel of judges, including foreign judges.

Meanwhile, during Friday’s national council meeting, Nasheed also stressed the importance of speeding up the process of appointing a parliament representative to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). The seat reserved in the JSC for a member of parliament was declared vacant after JP Leader Gasim Ibrahim formally became a candidate of the presidential election.

No confidence motion against Attorney General

During the debate, MDP MP Ahmed Sameer announced that the MDP parliamentary group has prepared a no-confidence motion against Attorney General Azima Shukoor.

Sameer contended that the Attorney General neglected her duties and has advocated on behalf of a political party against the EC, a state institution.

A special sitting of parliament during its ongoing recess has been scheduled for Sunday upon request by 29 MDP MPs.

Deputy leader of PPM’s Parliamentary Group Moosa Zameer told local media outlet CNM today that the PPM would not support such a motion against Shukoor in parliament.

Zameer said that although the PPM had not taken an official stand on the matter, the party would not support removal of its former council member.

However, with the support of at least six out of ten MPs of the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) – which recently decided to back former President Nasheed in the run-off election – the MDP would have enough votes in parliament to pass the no-confidence motion.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Elections Commission grants JP access to voter list, JP seeks additional High Court order for unrestricted access

The Elections Commission (EC) has granted Jumhooree Party (JP) representatives access to the voter list today in compliance with a High Court order issued earlier this week, however the party is seeking an additional court order to gain unrestricted access to the registry.

The High Court ordered the commission to allow the JP supervised access – under guidelines set by the EC – to the voter lists in lieu of ordering the EC to release hard copies of the list to the party. The unanimous ruling also stated that the JP was unable to offer any evidence to substantiate the claims of electoral fraud.

The EC has emphatically dismissed allegations of vote rigging as “baseless and unfounded”, highlighting its transparency, extensive preparations – conducted with international support – to ensure a free and fair polling process, its ongoing complaints investigations, and the praise from a broad spectrum of election observers who noted peaceful voting and the preparedness of the EC.

The EC granted two JP representatives access from 10am to 12pm today to check the voter lists from the presidential election’s first round held September 7, however the JP has accused the commission of not fully complying with the High Court order.

JP representative Ahmed Saleem “refused to accept” guidelines established by the commission which allowed individual names given by the party to be verified, instead of granting JP unrestricted access. As a result, the JP was unable to verify all the names on their list.

“They said that they will check names and other information as requested by us,” said Saleem. “We’re not interested in checking the voters’ list in this manner. It’s not acceptable.”

Last night the JP requested the EC allow a team of 25 people have a minimum of 36 hours to review the voter list, which was denied by the commission.

“They allocated [the JP] only two hours and only two representatives [to check the lists], [which was] not possible when there are 470 ballot boxes,” JP’s Legal Advisor Mohamed Haleem told Minivan News today.

“They would not allow us to take notes or touch the list,” he lamented.

“We want to compare the published voters registry with that of the Elections Commission’s list of people who had voted,” he continued. “We should have been allocated enough time, and enough representatives.”

“The High Court ordered the Elections Commission to allow us to check the list to address all of our doubts,” he noted. “We will find a solution through the legal process and seek an order through High Court again.”

Ilyas Hussain and Ahmed Thaufeeg, members of President Mohamed Waheed’s Gaumee Itthihad Party (GIP), were also present at the EC when JP representatives arrived to view the voter list this morning, local media reported.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Statements by election observers “have not much weight”, JP running mate Hassan Saeed tells Supreme Court

Former Attorney General Dr Hassan Saeed, running mate of resort tycoon and presidential candidate Gasim Ibrahim, has told the Supreme Court that positive assessments of the September 7 presidential poll by local and international election observers “do not carry much weight”.

Dr Saeed – who is now leading the Jumhooree Party (JP)’s legal bid to annul the election results in the Supreme Court – made the remarks during the second hearing of the party’s case against the Election Commission (EC) held on Wednesday.

Dr Saeed told the Supreme Court that statements made by both local and international observers that the election had proceeded smoothly and freely did not reflect the reality of the situation.

“Yes, I even agree that the voting process went very smoothly. But those foreign observers don’t know the depth of the issues. Their words do not carry much weight. Some of the elections which have been observed by the international observers, some people have died, but yet they have reported the election went smoothly,” Saeed told the court.

He also claimed the JP – which narrowly missed a place in the run-off with 24.07 percent of the vote – had sufficient evidence and witnesses who would testify in court that electoral discrepancies and irregularities had taken place.

Dr Saeed also declared that Attorney General (AG) Azima Shukoor’s acknowledgement of electoral discrepancies during the first round of presidential elections gives weight to the party’s allegations  of electoral fraud.

During the first hearing of the case, Attorney General Shukoor told the court the AG’s Office had also found discrepancies in the voter list, including underage people listed as eligible for voting, and the mixing up of voter information – including gender, address, and date of birth.

Addressing the seven-member Supreme Court bench, Saeed also alleged the EC was not following a High Court order issued Tuesday (September 17) to allow viewing of the original voter list at the commission. Saeed claimed that despite repeated requests – both verbal and written – the commission was yet to give any response.

The High Court ruled that it was a right of all presidential candidates and their affiliated political parties to view the original voter list and ordered the EC to allow this to take place at the commission in presence of its officials.

Instead, Saeed claimed, the EC lawyers had dismissed as baseless and unfounded JP’s evidence suggesting electoral fraud, without giving the party the chance to verify it evidences against the commission’s data. This action by the EC, the former Attorney General contested, disregarded the doctrine of ‘Clean Hand’.

The ‘Clean Hand’ doctrine is a rule of law that a person coming to court with a lawsuit or petition for a court order must be free from unfair conduct (have “clean hands” or not have done anything wrong) in regard to the subject matter of his/her claim.

During the hearing, Saeed also criticised the EC’s Ballot Progress Reporting System (BPRS) – a web based application that tallied the number of voters who had cast their vote or are in the queue to vote – contesting that it had several weaknesses and loopholes.

He claimed that the entire application was built without due consultation with the National Center for Information Technology (NCIT) – a government agency responsible for management of IT systems within government institutions. Instead, Saeed claimed the system had been built and designed by Indian IT specialists.

Saeed also noted that the EC members had previously acknowledged that the BPRS were having problems and yet, at the same time the EC had claimed that there was no possibility of double voting. This, Saeed contested, did not make any sense, and he alleged there was a difference between the number shown by the BPRS that had voted and the EC’s figures obtained through manual counting. He challenged why the commission had not shifted to the manual system when the electronic mechanism collapsed.

In response to the arguments raised by the EC lawyers during Tuesday’s hearing, Saeed said the country would not go into a constitutional void even if a new president failed to take the oath of the office on November 11 – the date on which the term of incumbent President Mohamed Waheed Hassan expires.

Reflecting on the delay in electing the new parliament in 2009, Saeed claimed that no one had challenged the legitimacy of the parliament even when it had been elected months after the date mentioned in the constitution.

“We need to ensure that the person who is elected by the popular vote of the people takes the oath as the president. Not someone who has found their way to it by deception and cheating. Right now, we are no longer sure whether it is the person who the people voted is taking the office,” Saeed told the court.

Saeed also requested the court issue an order to the police to investigate the party’s allegations of electoral fraud.

EC’s counter argument

EC Lawyer and former Attorney General Husnu Al Suood responded to Saeed’s arguments claiming the Attorney General’s acknowledgment of issues during the voting process did not substantiate the JP’s baseless allegations.

He repeated his arguments claiming that the JP has till to this day, failed to produce any substantial evidence to support their claims, let alone annul the elections.

Suood also claimed that the General Elections Act – the parent legislation on general election procedures and issues – did not envision the annulment of an entire election, but rather only allows the annulment of the results of ballot boxes in which discrepancies were proven in court.

He claimed that factors that could lead to annulment of the results of a ballot box were criminal offences such as bribery and illegal influencing of voting, and therefore any claim of electoral discrepancies must be proved by the standard of proof required for criminal offences: beyond reasonable doubt.

Suood also reiterated that the JP’s claim that its evidence was based on information obtained from the party’s own hotline and private investigations lacked any value as evidence, and that it was not sufficient to annul elections.

He also criticised the request made by the Attorney General Azima Shukoor to order the Elections Commission to suspend holding the run-off elections until the issues had been resolved, describing it as a request for an indefinite order that could put the entire state in a state of limbo.

Suood also claimed that if the Supreme Court went on to issue such an order as requested by the Attorney General, it would lead to the suspension of the entire constitution.

“We are not aligned towards the JP” – Attorney General Azima Shukoor

Speaking during the hearing, Attorney General Azima Shukoor told the court that the State was not taking sides in the legal dispute between the JP and the EC, while maintaining that it had not admitted to any claims made by the JP.

However, the Attorney General repeated her claims that the AG’s Office had come across discrepancies in the voter registry published by the EC prior to the election.

“There were names of underage people in the list. There were names repeated in the list. Unless these issues are not resolved before holding the second round of the elections, rights of many voters will be undermined,” Shukoor told the court.

She also claimed that the State should and would be concerned when a group of 50,000 people came up to it seeking justice.

“What is happening here is that one party is claiming that there were discrepancies in the voting process while the other party is simply questioning the authenticity of the claim,” Shukoor said.

“How can those allegations be verified unless the Elections Commission allows access to the information of the voting? Here, we are speaking about one party who has the information but is refusing to share it in order to verify the claims,” Shukoor claimed.

She also questioned the panel of judges as to whether the EC should go on to hold the second round of elections with the allegations and claims unanswered.

However, the Attorney General claimed that she still had faith in the Elections Commission’s ability to resolve the issues, but said this could only be done if the commission gave up its “defensive approach” and showed openness to look into the claims.

Shukoor also said the Attorney General’s decision to intervene in the case was only to bring the issues it had found to the notice of the judges and to seek a remedy to them, and that the government did not wish to take a stand on whether the election should be annulled or not.

Meanwhile, the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s lawyers told the court that the party had accepted the outcome of the results and had not come up with any discrepancies during the elections that would affect the outcome.

The party also echoed similar sentiments as that of the EC’s lawyer Suood, claiming that the JP’s evidence could not be considered as admissible evidence by the courts.

The next hearing will be held on Thursday morning (September 19) at 11:00am.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP condemns Attorney General’s intervention in JP’s Supreme Court effort to annul election results

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has condemned the intervention of Attorney General (AG) Azima Shukoor in the Jumhooree Party’s (JP’s) case at the Supreme Court seeking annulment of the September 7 presidential election, expressing concern over the AG’s support of the JP’s stance at Tuesday’s hearing.

In a press release on Tuesday night (September 17), the MDP accused Azima Shukoor of advocating against “the interests of a state institution or the state and in favour of the Jumhooree Party’s self-interest.”

As the Attorney General represents the state, the MDP contended, Azima Shukoor should advocate on behalf of the state and protection of the public interest.

“Therefore the party calls upon the Attorney General – appointed by Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik, who got only five percent of the vote – to cease advocating on behalf of the state to nullify the votes cast by the people in the first round of the presidential election, and annul the election to dis-empower the people and the constitution,” the statement concluded.

Azima meanwhile told newspaper Haveeru today that article 133(d) of the constitution allows the Attorney General to intervene in such cases. The article states, “The Attorney General shall have authority, with the leave of the court, to appear as a friend of the court in any civil proceedings to which the Government is not a party, where in the opinion of the Attorney General the interests of the State or the public interest dictate.”

“The government decided that we have to say something for the sake of public interest since we can see all this information,” Azima was quoted as saying.

Azima also denied seeking annulment of the election at yesterday’s Supreme Court hearing. She had however asked the apex court to order the Prosecutor General and the police to investigate alleged electoral fraud as “serious issues” had been noted.

The AG told the court that her office had uncovered discrepancies in the voter registry, including underage people listed as eligible for voting, and the mixing up of voter information – including gender, address, and date of birth.

High Court ruling

Meanwhile, in its judgment (Dhivehi) yesterday in the JP’s case against the Elections Commission (EC), the High Court ordered the commission to allow the JP supervised access to the voter lists in lieu of ordering the EC to release hard copies of the list to the party.

The JP had claimed that the registry included hundreds of ineligible voters (underage citizens), names of voters doubled or repeated, and thousands of people registered to houses without the home owner’s knowledge.

The High Court ruling however stated that the JP was unable to offer any evidence to substantiate the claims of electoral fraud.

The ruling stated that election complaints “should not be submitted based on suspicion,” noting that the EC’s lawyer, former Attorney General Husnu Suood, had addressed each of the JP’s arguments.

Of the seven people the JP claimed were deceased but had voted, the EC proved to the court that four were alive.

On the JP’s complaint regarding people registered to houses in Male’ allegedly without the home owner’s knowledge, the EC explained that people who were originally on the Male’ Municipality’s Special Register – a special registry of people residing in the capital without owning homes – were registered to vote in ballot boxes closest to their current residence. They were registered upon written request, the EC lawyer noted.

Moreover, Suood said that the EC depended heavily on data provided by the Department of National Registration (DNR) in compiling the voters registry. The 170 names that the JP claimed were doubled on the list would have different identity card (ID) numbers and dates of birth, he noted.

DNR Director General Fareeda Yoosuf insisted yesterday that there was no chance forged IDs could be used to vote.

Each individual identity card is unique and does not change even when renewed and, even in cases where lost IDs are replaced, the same identity number is used, Yoosuf noted.

“The card number will remain the same for each individual no matter how many times the card is renewed,” she explained. “We haven’t issued identity cards with two different numbers to the same person, so I’m certain that can’t be done.”

“When each person has a unique number and is allowed to vote based on that number, there is no chance a person can vote more than once by using different ID numbers,” she continued.

No complaints of forged identity cards have been received by the DNR so far, she noted.

“Vote Rigged!”

According to the official results of the first round of voting, MDP candidate Mohamed Nasheed finished top with 45.45 percent (95,224 votes) of the vote, followed by Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) candidate MP Abdulla Yameen in second place with 25.35 percent (53,099).

JP candidate Gasim Ibrahim narrowly missed out on a place in the second round run-off on September 28 with 24.07 percent (50,422 votes). The JP coalition however disputed the results at both the High Court and Supreme Court and launched a “Vote Rigged!” campaign of rallies – complemented by special programmes on Gasim’s Villa TV – alleging that the EC rigged the polls.

“God willing, it will be Gasim Ibrahim who will be the President of the Maldives on 11 November. Allah willing, do not doubt this. I tell you, do not doubt this,” the business tycoon declared at a recent rally.

Early on Monday morning , police acting on a tip-off from the JP, barricaded streets around the EC and took its garbage into custody. The JP accused the commission of disposing of evidence, though police later reported that the rubbish contained nothing affecting the outcome of the election.

EC Chair Fuwad Thowfeek has emphatically denied allegations of vote rigging, pointing to the commission’s transparency, ongoing complaints investigations, and praise from a broad spectrum of election observers.

The UN Resident Coordinator in the Maldives, Tony Lisle, issued a statement yesterday encouraging “all presidential candidates to respect the results” of first round of presidential elections – in line with those of all other observers on the September 7 polls including delegations from the Commonwealth, UK, India, Australia, Malaysia, US, EU, Japan and Thailand.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)