EU concern over Supreme Court’s action against Elections Commission

Read this article in Dhivehi

The EU has expressed “concern” over the Supreme Court’s decision to prosecute the Elections Commission for contempt of court

“The EU Delegation notes with concern the current action of the Supreme Court on its own initiative to bring before it members of the Elections Commission who have expressed concern over its judgments,” read a press release from the EU delegation based in Sri Lanka.

The court’s decision to bring the charges of contempt of court refer to criticism of the decision to annul last September’s presidential election first round.

The EC has also been accused of disobeying a Supreme Court order by dissolving eight political parties earlier this month.

September’s annulled vote had been universally praised as free and fair, while the evidence used to cancel the result has been criticised by the UN as well as EC President Fuwad Thowfeek.

“The EU Delegation recalls the importance of legal proceedings being fair and transparent in accordance with international standards, and call on the Government of the Maldives to ensure the independence of the Elections Commission in the run up to and during the Majlis Elections so that they can proceed as scheduled on 22 March 2014. “

In addition to utilising new ‘Sumoto’ (or ‘Suo motu’) regulations that allow the apex court to initiate hearings and act as both plaintiff and judge in a trial, the Supreme Court’s contempt charges are based on privileged testimony given to the People’s Majlis by EC members.

Article 90 of the constitution says no person will be subject to any inquiry, arrest, detention, or prosecution with respect to anything said in the People’s Majlis or any of its committees if such a statement is not contrary to tenet of Islam.

However, claiming the establishment of justice to be a tenet of Islam, Supreme Court Judge Ahmed Abdulla Didi has said the EC’s testimony at the independent commissions oversight committee obstructed justice and could therefore be used in court.

EC President Thowfeek has denied the charges against the commission, noting that “testimony provided at the People’s Majlis committee was not given to hold the court in contempt, but to be held accountable to the EC’s actions.”

The Supreme Court has said that no party has the authority to question or criticise its decisions as per Article 145 (c) of the constitution which states that the Supreme Court shall be the final authority on the interpretation of the constitution, the law, or any other matter dealt with by a court of law.

In today’s statement, the EU has expressed concern that the current proceedings “risk undermining the vital independence of the Elections Commission, respect for the separation of powers and free expression in the Maldives.”

The issue of separation of powers has been a regular theme this week as politicians continued to campaign for the March 22 poll, with leaders from both the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and the Progressive Party of Maldives claiming that their parties can best ensure the three branches of government are kept apart.

Most recently, while campaigning in Malé for the governing coalition on Sunday (February 23), former President Dr Mohamed Waheed suggested that “we have separated the power so much that the country is suffering”.

“This country can’t go forward if we separate the powers any more,” said Waeheed.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed yesterday told representatives of the UN that he did not expect his MDP to take part in the elections should the EC members be arrested and replaced.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court’s contempt trial against Election Commission “unjust”, says Nasheed

Read this article in Dhivehi

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) is “extremely concerned” over the Supreme Court’s contempt of court charges against the Elections Commission (EC), former President Mohamed Nasheed has said.

Speaking at a press conference today, Nasheed said the trial is “unjust” and is against the spirit of the constitution. He pledged to use all means to stop the case.

The Supreme Court on February 12 summoned the four members of the EC to an unannounced contempt of court trial under new ‘Suo motu’ regulations that allow the apex court to initiate trial and act as plaintiff and judge.

“If Election Commission members are removed, then there cannot be a fair election. MDP will not participate in such an election,” Nasheed told the press today.

The Supreme Court has accused the EC of contempt, claiming it had criticised the verdict which annulled the first round of presidential elections held in September 2013, as well as disobeying the court’s orders by dissolving eight political parties earlier this month.

During the second hearing in the case, EC lawyer Hussein Siraj said the commission had not received a document outlining charges and asked the five presiding judges to clarify and specify charges against the commission, but Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz asked the lawyer to respond to the charges to the extent he understood them.

The four commission members denied the charges, and expressed concern over the use of privileged testimony given at the People’s Majlis independent institutions oversight committee as evidence for contempt.

The constitution protects testimony provided at the Majlis unless it contravenes an Islamic tenet. Judge Ahmed Abdulla Didi claimed establishing justice to be an Islamic tenet and said the EC’s testimony at the People’s Majlis obstructed justice.

Nasheed said the if the MDP received a parliamentary majority it will add judges to the Supreme Court bench by amending the Judicature Act. Increasing the number of judges would “dilute harsh ideologies” on the bench, he said.

“Reforming the judiciary is essential for development and to protect Maldives’ sovereignty,” Nasheed said.

If the MDP receives a two-thirds majority, the party could impeach Supreme Court judges, he noted.

The MDP will also revise legislation governing the judicial watchdog body – the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) Act – to ensure the organisation’s decisons cannot be reviewed through the courts and to limit the powers of the JSC president.

In 2012, the Civil Court issued an injunction halting disciplinary action against Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed. Mohamed is a key figure in the events leading up to Nasheed’s ouster in February 2012.

Meanwhile, JSC members have alleged JSC President and Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed had stalled an investigation into Supreme Court Judge Ali Hameed’s sex-tape scandal.

In addition to initiating proceedings against EC members, the Supreme Court has in the past ordered police to investigate MDP-aligned private broadcaster Raajje TV over a report the station aired comparing the Maldivian justice system to that of ancient Sodom, suspended lawyers for publicly criticising the judiciary, and sought criminal charges against MPs for allegedly defaming the court.

Fair administration of justice was essential for a just society, Nasheed has said previously, pledging to complete the MDP’s ‘journey to justice’ campaign to reform the judiciary.

“Our government was toppled because we began this journey. All the obstacles we are facing is because of this reason. Nonetheless, we will not back down and, God willing, we will succeed in this task,” he said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court orders revote for Kon’dey island council

The High Court on Thursday annulled the results of the poll conducted on January 18 for the island council of Gaaf Alif Kon’dey and ordered the Elections Commission (EC) to hold a revote.

The court ruled (Dhivehi) in favour of the complainant, Ali Ibrahim, who requested annulment after an 84-year-old man from Kon’dey was found to have cast his vote in the wrong ballot box.

Moosa Easa accidentally voted in the box designated for the neighbouring Dhandhoo’s island council.

While five candidates contested for the island council, the margin between the sixth and the fifth placed candidates was a single vote.

The three judges presiding over the case – Abbas Shareef, Abdulla Hameed, and Ali Sameer – ruled that the 84-year-old citizen was deprived of his constitutional right to vote and that his vote could have affected the outcome of the election.

The EC had originally scheduled a second round of voting in Kon’dey for February 15 between the two fifth-placed candidates who were tied with 88 votes each. The candidate in sixth place had received 87 votes.

The run-off election was however postponed pending a decision by the High Court.

The EC’s legal counsel, Haneefa Khalid, argued at the last hearing of the case that the 84-year-old was duly informed that he had voted in the wrong box.

However, the EC lawyer said, Moosa Easa did not return to vote in his constituency. She added that he had not submitted a complaint either.

Asked by a judge whether Easa’s vote could have affected the outcome, Khalid said there was no guarantee that he would have voted for the sixth placed candidate.

She revealed that the EC has decided to take action against the officials responsible for the mishap in Kon’dey. An investigation into the incident was ongoing to determine how Easa was given the wrong ballot paper, she added.

Khalid also noted that one vote would not have affected the outcome of the election for the Dhaandhoo island council as the margin between candidates was higher.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Institutions crying for reforms faster than expected?

With Maldives Supreme Court serving a ‘contempt of court’ notice on all four remaining members of the nation’s Election Commission (one had quit closer to the presidential polls last year), a case can be for a review of the statutory provision pertaining to the rights, powers, and responsibilities of what in constitutional nomenclature has come to be termed as ‘independent institutions’.

While such a need has been acutely felt over the five-year infancy of the 2008 constitution that ushered in multi-party democracy, increasing differences and purported diffidence involving the Supreme Court and the Elections Commission (EC) have made a case for a review without further delay.

For a nation of its size, population, and requirements of ‘good governance’, the Maldives may have saddled itself with more ‘independent institutions’ than may have been required. In a politically-polarised society, where the presidential polls late last year witnessed a turnout of 91.41 percent and a narrow victory-margin in the second round, it is hard to claim that every member manning these constitutional institutions is ‘independent’.

Even while ‘independent institutions’ and their individual members may be impartial, it has not been uncommon for political players to make sweeping charges of partisanship, at times reiterated ad infinitum without substantive evidence. Given the small population (350,000) and the thin density/spread outside of two or three ‘urban centres’, the advent of private television news and social media have not contributed to a healthy discourse on politics and public administration.

Some of the legitimate concerns of the nation’s polity at the time of constitution-making were based on the societal desire – particularly of the new IT-era generation – to usher in ‘good governance’ as understood in industrialised and democratised nations. ‘Accountability’ thus became the watch-word for the Special Majlis entrusted with the task of statute-making.

In turn, most, if not all members of the Special Majlis were also under watch for their past deeds, either as administrators, or parliamentarians – or both – under then-incumbent President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

Final arbiter, or law-maker too?

The current urgency for fast-tracking a possible review of ‘independent institutions’ flows from the Supreme Court’s notice to EC members for contempt of court. In doing so, five of the seven Supreme Court judges, constituting a bench under Chief Justice Ahmed Hussain Faiz, have noted that EC members had been making comments “in various forums on the court’s decisions and orders that are contemptuous of the court”.

As the court reportedly told the EC counsel in the first hearing of the case on 12 February, the commission had in a way defied the judicial pronouncement for restoring the registration of ‘small parties’ with 3,000 registered members and less after the EC had de-registered eight of them, based on a parliamentary amendment that pushed up the figure to 10,000.

Law and practice in the country is clear on this count – that the Supreme Court is the ‘final arbiter’ of the constitution and laws made by parliament and its interpretations and orders on this count have to be acknowledged and acted upon. To that extent the EC may have erred, even if it were to hold that it was only enforcing a law (or, an amendment in this case) passed by Parliament. For the EC (and/or its members) to argue otherwise could frustrate the ‘constitutional scheme’ and democratic traditions.

In this case, however, the issue does not stop there. While hauling up the EC members for ‘contempt’, the Supreme Court has purportedly drawn its powers from a unilateral regulation that it had passed only days earlier. According to Minivan News, the “new regulations, titled ‘Suo Moto’ and publicised on 6 February, allow the Supreme Court to initiate trials against any organisation or individual”. It says that the “defendants must be allowed the right to defend themselves” and adds that the Supreme Court “must refer to how free and democratic countries act in such cases, in a manner that does not contradict the Constitution of the Maldives”.

Under the regulation, the full seven-judge bench of the court should hear such petitions, “unless the Supreme Court decides otherwise”. It is not clear at this stage if this is an administrative decision, to be handled by the chief justice on his own, or a judicial procedure, wherein the opinion, if not presence of all seven Judges should be sought for the chief justice to implement the majority-decision. It is also unclear why only five of the seven judges were present at the first hearing of the case.

Other questions remain. Firstly, can the court seek to punish individual members of the EC, for a ‘collective decision’ of the commission as an ‘independent institution’ under the constitution. If so, what if the court were to initiate contempt proceedings after some or all individuals had ceased to be members of the EC?

In the reverse, is there any provision for the court to ‘penalise’ a constitutional body like the EC for contempt, other than by ensuring that its judicial pronouncements are meant to be acted upon, not contested through word or deed? Where there is a conflict of positions, the court could at best seek the intervention of either the executive or the legislature, or both, to set right matters and ensure that judicial orders are enforced, in letter and spirit.

In this context, the contending parties should now acknowledge that for democratic institutions to function properly and democracy to take roots in the country, there is the urgent need for individuals and others to follow the diktats of the ‘final arbiter’ that is the Supreme Court. In a situation where the legislature were to re-enact a law that had been thrown out by the judiciary, and the executive were to assent to the same, then a constitutional deadlock would arise, with no solution possible.

Secondly, and more importantly, by empowering itself through the mechanism of ‘Suo Moto’ regulations on initiating contempt proceedings, has the court aquired for itself law-making powers, which otherwise rest exclusively with the legislature? It is more accepted for the judges to take it up with the legislature, through the good offices of the executive or the attorney general, or for parliament to legislate on contempt of court.

It is also conceivable that, while pronouncing on a piece of legislation passed by the legislature, the Supreme Court’s orders could create a new or an amended law, which may remain in force until the legislature intervenes appropriately at appropriate times. It is entirely another thing for the courts to initiate procedural regulations of the present kind, particularly when the judiciary is also a party to the legal proceedings – as the plaintiff in this case.

At least Minivan News’ reporting of the Supreme Court’s regulation does not provide for examination or evidence and documents, or cross-examination. It is not as if courts elsewhere have not initiated contempt proceedings, Suo Moto, but in most –  if not all such cases – the law for the purpose had been made by the legislature and given assent by the executive.

In some cases, either the government’s top law officer, namely the AG has been granted such powers to move a ‘contempt of court’ petition of a general or specific nature (the latter flowing from a judicial order, not enforced either by an individual or the government). In the none-too-distant past, the Supreme Court had not shown any aversion to communicating directly with the legislature, though at the latter’s initiative, though it had directed trial court judges not to appear before parliamentary committees (as it may have interfered with their judicial functions on hand, and thus be seen as ‘influencing’).

In the normal course, parliament – now in recess – is not expected to get into the act of law-making. Nor is it feasible for any legislature, new or old, to wrap up larger issues of the kind overnight. The problems regarding ‘independent institutions’ are not confined to the Supreme Court and the Election Commission.

There is an urgent and unavoidable need for a free and frank national discourse on various institutions, including the presidency and parliament, judiciary and other ‘independent institutions’, of which the EC is only one of many. In the process, there may also be a need to review the greater relevance of some institutions, and the merger of a few others, at least in the interim, to avoid/minimise duplicity of responsibilities and/or to cut down governmental costs.

For now, on the submission of the EC lawyer, the Supreme Court has adjourned the hearing of the contempt case, without assigning a new date for the next hearing, to facilitate the EC members to study the papers. It is unclear why the court could not have waited until after the parliamentary polls, as it could have helped avoid charges of the kind now being made by Nasheed and other MDP leaders.

In the interim, all institutions of the Maldivian state should consider other institutions – similar creatures of the very same constitution – as equals. For instance, the Supreme Court and the EC have specific roles, functions, and powers under the constitution. They need to constantly remind themselves that, like all other arms of the government and the creations of the constitution, they also serve and constitution. They must provide enough space for one another, and thrash out the differences and difficulties as a part of the collective nation-building exercise, which is still incomplete.

The writer is a Senior Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation

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)

MDP will reform the judiciary, pledges Nasheed

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) is seeking a parliamentary majority to reform the judiciary, former President Mohamed Nasheed said last night.

Speaking at an event in Vilimalé to launch the campaign of MDP candidate Sheikh Hussain Rasheed Ahmed, Nasheed said the Supreme Court feared that the opposition party would secure a majority in the People’s Majlis.

“They have summoned the Elections Commission there and are intimidating [commission members] for one purpose. They know the extent to which Supreme Court judges and other judges are tied to various politicians. They do not want the judiciary to be reformed because they want to remain in their posts, enjoy their undue advantages and keep engaging in corrupt activities for eternity,” Nasheed said.

No other party apart from the MDP would even talk about judicial reform, he added.

“What we will do with a parliament majority is reform the judiciary, reform the Supreme Court, reform the Judicial Service Commission,” he continued.

“You have to believe that none of our political opponents could say that they will reform the judiciary. They like it the way it is. What judges are doing is good [for them], too.”

Other parties and politicians turn a blind eye to injustice and the shortcomings of the judiciary as it served their interests, Nasheed contended.

Fair administration of justice was essential for a just society, Nasheed continued, pledging to complete the MDP’s ‘journey to justice’ campaign to reform the judiciary.

“Our government was toppled because we began this journey. All the obstacles we are facing is because of this reason. Nonetheless, we will not back down and, God willing, we will succeed in this task,” he said.

The former president also called on Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain to stop the apex court’s alleged efforts to “intimidate” members of the EC.

Nasheed concluded by expressing his hope that the upcoming parliamentary elections scheduled for March 22 would be free, fair and transparent.

Contempt of court

Nasheed’s remarks followed the Supreme Court summoning EC members on Wednesday to a surprise trial on charges of contempt of court.

The apex court contended that the EC had criticised the judgment which annulled the first round of presidential election held in September 2013, and disobeyed a Supreme Court order by dissolving eight political parties earlier this month.

The commission members were summoned under new ‘Sumoto’ or ‘Suo motu’ regulations that allow the Supreme Court to initiate hearings and act as both plaintiff and judge in a trial.

In addition to initiating proceedings against EC members, the apex court has in the past ordered police to investigate MDP-aligned private broadcaster Raajje TV over a report the station aired comparing the Maldivian justice system to that of ancient Sodom, suspended lawyers for publicly criticising the judiciary, and sought criminal charges against MPs for allegedly defaming the court.

In late January, the Supreme Court suspended former Attorney General Husnu Suood pending a police investigation, claiming that his criticism of the court’s decisions constituted contempt of court.

Suood told Minivan News that he believed the suspension was related to the sex tape scandal of Supreme Court Justice Ali Hameed. Suood was a member of the committee investigating Hameed’s alleged appearance in the leaked tapes.

The former AG was also barred from the apex court last year while he was representing the EC.

In a comprehensive report on the Maldivian judiciary released in May 2013, United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Lawyers and Judges, Gabriela Knaul, expressed concern over “the case of a lawyer who had been indefinitely suspended by the Supreme Court for allegedly criticising one of its judgements in public”.

“Such a suspension leaves no avenue for appeal and review and it represents a violation of the rights of the lawyer. The Special Rapporteur is also concerned about reports regarding threats of contempt of court used to muzzle the freedom of expression of lawyers,” the report stated.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court uses Majlis testimony in EC contempt trial

Elections Commission (EC) testimony given during a People’s Majlis committee has been used in today’s Supreme Court trial to implicate the four commission members for contempt of court and disobedience to order.

The Supreme Court is prosecuting the EC under new ‘Sumoto’ or ‘Suo motu’ regulations that allow the apex court to initiate hearings and act as both plaintiff and judge in a trial.

Article 90 of the constitution says no person will be subject to any inquiry, arrest, detention, or prosecution with respect to anything said in the People’s Majlis or any of its committees if such a statement is not contrary to tenet of Islam.

But, claiming establishing justice to be a tenet of Islam, Supreme Court Judge Ahmed Abdulla Didi today said the EC’s testimony at the independent commissions oversight committee obstructed justice and could be used in a court.

EC President Fuwad Thowfeek has denied the charges against the commission: “Testimony provided at the People’s Majlis committee was not given to hold the court in contempt, but to be held accountable to the EC’s actions – these testimonies are privileged information.”

The Supreme Court has said that no party has the authority to question or criticise its decisions as per Article 145 (c) of the constitution which states that the Supreme Court shall be the final authority on the interpretation of the constitution, the law, or any other matter dealt with by a court of law.

The Supreme Court has accused the EC of contempt, claiming it had criticised the verdict which annulled the first round of presidential elections held in September 2013, as well as disobeying a Supreme Court order by dissolving eight political parties earlier this month.

Surprise Trial

The four members of the EC were summoned to an unannounced trial on Wednesday. After being given case documents just minutes before the trial began, the commission was granted an opportunity to respond today.

Case documents included newspaper articles and testimonies provided at the Majlis, but did not include any documents outlining specific charges. The charge sheet was handed to the commission only minutes before today’s trial began.

At today’s hearing, EC lawyer Hussein Siraj asked the Supreme Court to specify charges, arguing that the commission could only respond if the court clarified which statement made – at which location, time, and date – amounted to contempt of court.

Siraj also asked the court to specify which of the commission’s actions constituted a disobedience to which order.

Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz then asked Siraj to respond to the charges to the extent that he understood them.

After a short break, all four members returned to the court room and separately denied the charges.

At today’s hearing, judges accused the EC of administrative failures and irresponsibility. They said the EC does not have the authority to raise doubts regarding the court’s decisions or to complain over the practicality of the electoral guideline.

Judge Abdulla Saeed also questioned whether the EC was now a legal entity, claiming the constitution stipulated that the committee must hold five members instead of four. The fifth member of the commission – ‘Ogaru’ Ibrahim Waheed – resigned in October 2013, citing health complications.

Four of the five judges who presided over today’s hearing are the four judges who voted to annul the election in October and strip two MPs of their Majlis membership in November. Among these four is Ali Hameed who has been implicated in a series of sex tapes last year.

EC response

Denying charges, Fuwad said any response given to questions posed by MPs in the People’s Majlis is privileged information. The EC is constitutionally bound to answer such questions, he said.

Vice President Ahmed Fayaz said there were only two things Muslims cannot challenge – the Qur’an and Prophet Mohamed’s Sunnah. Fayaz said he had not disobeyed the Supreme Court’s decisions, but had spoken to the media regarding the implications or outcomes of the court’s verdicts.

Meanwhile, Ali Mohamed Manik said the commission must answer questions posed by the media in order to be accountable to the public and said he was ready to swear on Allah’s name that he had not disobeyed a Supreme Court order.

Member Mohamed Farooq said he had never spoken to the media at a press conference because he had seen many individuals being prosecuted for speaking the truth before

“There are people ready to sacrifice themselves for democracy and freedom. I am not one of them,” he said.

However, he said he was obliged to provide truthful testimony at the People’s Majlis and that such a testimony must be held within the four walls of the parliament.

Contempt of court

Judge Didi said that labelling the Supreme Court’s electoral guideline to be onerous or suggesting a Supreme Court verdict should not be obeyed amounted to contempt of court.

Didi said the Supreme Court had in its possession a letter sent by the EC to the Attorney General (AG) “complaining” of the difficulties in implementing the court’s guidelines, and asking for advice on whether to abide by them.

Judge Ali Hameed said the EC had no authority to seek a second opinion on a Supreme Court verdict.

Judge Abdulla Saeed said the Supreme Court’s verdict could not be questioned, as it is the last word on any issue.  He said the Supreme Court’s verdicts are similar to a law passed by the People’s Majlis and members of the public cannot disobey or complain about the law.

The letter to the AG questioned the Supreme Court’s mandate in issuing a guideline, Saeed said. The guideline was imposed to uphold the constitution and enhance the electoral process, he claimed.

Fuwad said the EC had asked the AG for advice with good intentions and maintained the commission had always abided by the Supreme Court’s decisions. He pointed out laws are subject to review and argued Supreme Court decisions can be revised.

Saeed also censured the EC’s criticism of the evidence used by the Supreme Court to annul the verdict. In response, Fuwad said there were “glaring irregularities” in the police forensic report used to invalidate the election.

Analysis of the report showed that voters listed as dead were in fact alive and voters listed as minors were in fact eligible. But Saeed said the Supreme Court had also relied on witness statements in issuing the verdict.

The UN has dismissed the police forensic report after conducting an expert review with UN Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs Oscar Fernandez-Taranco stating that the election was inclusive and met international standards.

Meanwhile, the Commonwealth Observer Group who monitored all rounds of the presidential election said the Supreme Court guideline “appeared to undermine the authority of the Election Commission, were inconsistent with or contrary to electoral law, and were at odds with the Constitution,”

Dissolution of political parties

The EC is also being charged with violating a January 9 Supreme Court order, which invalidated an EC order to smaller political parties requiring them to raise their membership to 10,000.

The EC had sent the letter as per Article 27 of the Political Party Act that states that it must give political parties a three-month deadline to increase party membership to 10,000.

The Supreme Court on January 9, however, ruled that the letter was invalid as the apex court had in September struck down Article 11 of the act, which states that a political party must have 10,000 members for registration. The Supreme Court then stated that the EC must consider minimum requirement for membership to be 3,000 members as per previous political party regulations.

The Supreme Court today said any article referring to 10,000 members was no longer functional with the invalidation of Article 11.

Judge Adam Mohamed repeatedly questioned the EC over whether any court order or verdict allowed them to dissolve any party with less than 3000 members.

EC members argued the Supreme Court had not expressly forbidden the dissolution of political parties with membership less than 3,000 in any verdict or order, arguing that the Political Party Act afforded the EC the authority to dissolve political parties.

Manik said the EC had not dissolved any party with membership higher than 3,000. Some parties among the eight dissolved did not even have 500 or 600 members, and had not submitted audit or annual reports and were a financial drain on the state’s resources, he said.

Manik also pointed out none of the annulled parties had complained over the commission’s decision.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Registration for People’s Majlis vote to open on February 18

The Elections Commission (EC) will open up voter registration for the People’s Majlis elections this Tuesday (February 18).

All eligible voters who wish to vote in a location other than their permanent address must register to vote – regardless of whether they had already changed voting location for the January 18 local council election.

Registration deadline is February 28. Parliamentary polls are scheduled for March 22.

Voters will be required to put their fingerprints on registration forms as per the Supreme Court’s electoral guideline.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP wins seven out of 10 seats in second round of council elections

Read this article in Dhivehi

Candidates from the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) have won seven out of the 10 seats in play during yesterday’s second round of voting in the local council elections, according to preliminary results from the Elections Commission (EC).

Run-off elections took place between candidates for three island councils tied in last place with the same number of votes, whilst a revote was held in the island of Miladhoo in Noonu atoll.

The results of the January 18 poll in Miladhoo were annulled after it emerged that disappearing ink was used at the polling booth.

In addition to the island council races, a rescheduled vote was held for two atoll council seats from the Gaaf Alif Villigili constituency.

The poll was postponed by the EC to afford a candidate adequate time to campaign after his disqualification by the commission was overturned by the Supreme Court. The candidate in question had however withdrawn his candidacy following the EC’s decision to delay the poll.

Two candidates each from the MDP and the ruling Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) contested the two Villigili atoll council seats.

The two winners were PPM candidate Saudhulla Rasheed with 1,227 votes, followed by MDP candidate Mohamed Haleel with 1,124 votes.

The opposition party won a majority of seats in the Gaaf Alif Atoll council.

In Baa Fehendhoo, MDP candidate Aminath Fazeena narrowly defeated government-aligned Jumhooree Party candidate Fathmath Nuzla with 79 votes and 75 votes respectively. With the victory, the opposition party secured a majority of the Fehendhoo island council.

In Haa Alif Muraidhoo, two MDP candidates who had received the same number of votes faced off for the island council seat. Asrar Abdulla won the run-off poll with 268 votes.

A pair of MDP candidates contested in Raa Maakurath as well with Saudhulla Mohamed beating Abdulla Azeez for the last island council seat.

Of ten candidates standing in the revote for the five-member Miladhoo island council, three MDP candidates – Ibrahim Areef, Abubakur Ali, and Hassan Moosa – received the highest number of votes followed by PPM candidate Abdul Muttalib Abdul Samad in fourth place.

Two PPM candidates – Mohamed Ali and Fathmath Mohamed – were tied in fifth place with 428 votes.

While a run-off election was also due to take place yesterday in Gaaf Alif Kodey, the poll was postponed pending a High Court ruling on an ongoing election-related case.

The newly-elected councillors are due to be sworn in on February 26.

Seat haul

Some 2,463 candidates contested in the January 18 elections for 1,100 seats – 951 island council seats, 132 atoll council seats, and 17 city council seats – in the country’s second local government elections under the landmark Decentralisation Act of 2010.

Yesterday’s victories for the MDP brings its seat haul to 465 in total, including eight out of 11 seats in the Malé City Council and all six seats in the Addu City Council. The party fielded 901 candidates.

The governing Progressive Coalition – consisting of the PPM, JP, and Maldives Development Alliance – fielded 934 candidates and has now won a combined total of 459 seats.

With the three seats it won in yesterday’s polls, the PPM has taken 280 seats, followed by the JP with 123 seats and the MDA with 56 seats.

The Adhaalath Party fielded 83 candidates and secured 45 seats while, of the 543 independent candidates, 133 were elected.

The religious conservative party campaigned independently of the government coalition as it was not an official coalition partner with a formal agreement.

The Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) meanwhile fielded two candidates and won one council seat.

In the first local council elections that took place in February 2011, the then-main opposition DRP won a clear majority of seats while the MDP claimed it won the popular vote.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Week in review: February 9 – 15

The Supreme Court’s running battle with the Elections Commission resurfaced this week, with a trial for contempt of court – including the dissolving of political parties – being sprung on commission members.

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) slammed the case as an attempt at intimidation prior to the Majlis elections, with Mohamed Nasheed suggesting that an election boycott would do less harm to democracy than participating in a fraudulent poll.

As campaigning for the March elections began in earnest, the MDP criticised the current government’s development plans, while the ruling coalition questioned the opposition’s commitment to separated branches of government.

Estranged coalition member the Adhaalath Party, meanwhile, continued its plan to field candidates in direct competition with its supposed allies, much to the chagrin of Jumhooree Party leader Gasim Ibrahim.

As the government approached 100 days in charge, ambitious plans to double the current pension pot through “innovative” investments were announced, while plans to enhance the role of Islam in society took further shape.

Plans to increase Islamic education are likely to hindered slightly, however, after the Teacher Association revealed its plan for strike action should the government not heed requests for reform. Elsewhere, court employees refusing unpaid overtime were suspended.

The development of Kulhudhuffushi airport appeared a step closer this week, with environmental regulations altered in order to allow dredging of the island’s mangrove.

Local NGO Ecocare continues to view the project as unconstitutional and economically unviable.

The cabinet’s promised discussion on the implementation of the death penalty took place this week, with ministers urging President Abdulla Yameen to establish regulation for execution procedures.

The confession of the country’s most recent recipient of the sentence, Hussein Humam was used as key evidence in the continuing Criminal Court case against his alleged accomplice in the murder of Dr Afrasheem Ali.

The recent recipient of an 18 year sentence for drug trafficking, Ibrahim Shafaz ‘Shafa’ Abdul Razzaq, this week appealed his sentence from Sri Lanka after being allowed to leave the country on medical grounds last week.

Questions regarding the Criminal Court’s own actions were also asked this week as it continued to refuse new cases sent by the the Prosecutor General’s Office, despite requests from the Supreme Court. The new PG will now start the job with a backlog of over 500 cases.

Members of the Majlis national security committee were informed by the Asia Pacific Group of the country’s obligation to enact anti-laundering legislation, while the parliamentary privileges group summoned police to give information on the investigation into the Alhan Fahmy stabbing.

Former Police Integrity Commission Chair Shahindha Ismail this week accused both the Majlis and the police watchdog of “intentional negligence” in investigating the chaos that followed the controversial transfer of presidential power two years ago.

Rising numbers of tourists in Malé led the council to issue a suggestion to all local hoteliers that visitors be made aware of appropriate dress codes in inhabited areas.

The latest figures from the Maldives Monetary Authority revealed that tourist arrivals has risen by 17 percent in 2013, though this was not sufficient to prevent Air Asia X suspending its Maldives services.

Finally, the Maldives slipped further down RSF’s Press Freedom Index, dropping to 107th in the list. Elsewhere in the media, DhiTV and it’s sister station DhiFM Plus were asked to stop broadcasting upside down pictures of Elections Commissioner Fuwad Thowfeek.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)