Tag: evidence bill

MP ‘Colonel’ Nasheed blames Home Minister Jameel for evidence bill delay

Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP) MP Mohamed ‘Colonel’ Nasheed has claimed that Home Minister Mohamed Jameel’s failure to give a professional opinion on the pending Evidence Bill is the reason for the bill’s delay.

The remark by the Nolhivaram constituency MP comes at a time where both the Home Minister and Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz have expressed concern over parliament’s delaying of the essential bill.

During a debate in parliament last Wednesday, MP Nasheed claimed that the committee currently reviewing the bill had on numerous occasions requested a professional opinion from the Home Minister.

“We were forced to park the bill because [Jameel] could not spare us time. We are waiting for an opinion from him. Therefore, before opening his mouth to condemn parliament, he must look back at his own actions,” said MP Nasheed.

He contended that along with the evidence bill, other pivotal bills such as the criminal procedure code require professional opinions from the attorney general, the Supreme Court and other members of the judiciary, as well as the police and Home Ministry.

“They are not able to give time for any of this. Kulhudhufushi-South Constituency MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed has neatly carried out parliament’s end of the bargain. He initiated the drafting and other relevant work required from parliament. But, we have to face the truth that [the delay] is due to the Home Minister’s failure to give us his time,” he said.

“We have given time for him on four different occasions, but every time for some reason he calls us and cancels the appointment in the nick of time. How can the evidence bill be passed?” Nasheed questioned.

He reiterated that even though the country was run under a presidential system with separated powers of state, it does not mean that two of those powers could not collaborate in running the affairs of the state.

Police Commissioner’s concerns

Meanwhile, Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz has said it was of utmost importance that a mechanism be set which would speed up the process of obtaining witness statements before the witness is “influenced”.

In a video released on the police website following the Criminal Court’s acquittal of six suspects arrested in connection with the stabbing murder of Ali Shifan, Commissioner Riyaz stated that many people are afraid to give witness to the courts because of threats they face afterwards.

“In several countries, there are mechanisms to protect witnesses. That can only be achieved through legislation. According to our information, a draft witness protection act is currently submitted to the parliament,” he said.

He said such key bills should become law as soon as possible in order for police to continue curbing criminal activities.

“Laws should be made in such a fashion that they guarantee the safety and protection of the people. Importance should be given to that. We hope that the necessary bills are passed as soon as possible which will remove a lot of barriers we are currently facing. It would be a huge assistance,” he said.

The commissioner of police added that it was important to know the extent to which the court would go to accept circumstantial evidences and forensic evidences such as DNA.

He stressed that the constitution clearly mentioned that investigations be carried on the basis of evidence collected, but said there was no evidence act currently in place.

“DNA is one of the most authentic forms of evidence. Another is the fingerprint. Similarly, video evidence id very authentic too. We are talking about the fact that there is no legislation that dictates as to how such evidences will be accepted by the court.”

Following claims that the initial evidence bill proposed in 2009 “made no sense at all”, a new draft of the bill was proposed to Parliament’s Independent Institutions Oversight Committee on October 2012.

The bill was drafted by former Minister of Legal Reform during President Gayoom’s presidency, the current MP for Kulhudhuffushi- South, MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed.

Home Minister Jameel was not responding to calls at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Proposed crime prevention legislation may sideline human rights

MPs voted yesterday 71 to 2 in favour of convening a special sitting of parliament during its recess in May, to vote on crime prevention legislation amended to include provisions from delayed bills on criminal justice procedure, evidence law and jails and parole.

On the proposal to convene parliament next Monday during the recess, Speaker Abdulla Shahid explained that as the crime bill was completed by committee only yesterday, there was not enough time to table it in today’s agenda and vote on amendments before breaking for recess.

“And since the report sent by the Public Accounts Committee after evaluating the President’s nominee for Auditor General was received today, in order to complete the matter of these two reports that will be sent to MPs today, I ask the honourable MPs to vote as see fit on whether to hold a sitting outside the normal session under section 33(c) of the Majlis rules of procedure,” said Shahid, putting the proposal to a vote.

The bill on special measures to prevent crime, originally submitted by ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Mohamed Musthafa in April 2010, proposes restricting the right to remain silent and allowing judges to extend detention periods and protect state witnesses.

Following consultation with the National Crime Prevention Committee last week, parliamentary group leaders agreed to add provisions requested by the authorities to the draft legislation in lieu of submitting a new bill, which would have had to pass through a lengthy legislative process.

The additions to Musthafa’s bill were reportedly drafted by Independent MP for Kulhudhufushi South Mohamed Nasheed, who was Legal Reform Minister in the previous government.

Minivan News understands that the amended draft legislation contains a number of provisions that could violate or restrict constitutional rights, including the right to remain silent and a mandatory 15 day detention period.

If passed into law, police would be empowered to enter private property without a court order to arrest a person suspected of any of the crimes listed in the legislation or in case evidence is being or hidden.

Moreover, a person accused of any of the crimes in clause four of the bill could meet a lawyer in private only after 96 hours after the arrest, prior to which any such meeting would have to take place in the presence of police officers.

If a suspect is arrested at the scene of a crime with related evidence either on his person or at the place, the court could interpret the silence of the accused as an admission of guilt or association with the crime.

On extension of custody or remand detention, courts must consider the criminal record of the accused along with police intelligence and grant a minimum mandatory period of 15 days of remand detention.

In addition, refusal by the accused to disclose information on finances or assets considered as evidence shall be deemed an offence punishable by up to five years in prison.

The list of offences for which the above provisions shall apply are murder; death by assault; loss of a limb or organ due to assault; seriously injury caused by assault; participation in assault while possessing a dangerous weapon; presence at the crime while possessing a dangerous weapon; use of force or threatening to employ a dangerous weapon at a crime scene; involvement in armed robbery or mugging while possessing a weapon that could be used for murder; group involvement in armed robbery and mugging; robbery by breaking and entering or causing damage to property; armed robbery; crimes specified under Prohibition of Gang Crimes Act; kidnapping and holding a person hostage; blackmail; sexual abuse; trading and possession of more than three grams of illicit drugs; committing any of the above-listed crimes while under influence of alcohol; attempting, assisting or participation in any of the above-listed crimes.

“Special provisions”

The original bill meanwhile had also proposed restricting the right to remain silent in cases of threats of violence against persons or property, violent assault with a weapon, manslaughter and murder; drug trade and trafficking; possession of dangerous weapons in public; sexual assault involving two or more persons; and the crime of terrorism.

Article two clause (b) states that video footage of confessions made during police interrogation shall be admissible as evidence.

While article four enables the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) to seek protection for state witnesses either upon request by the witness or by the discretion of prosecutors, judges would be authorised to grant witness protection after studying detailed reasons that has to be put forward by the prosecution.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Translation errors” slow Evidence Bill

Some articles of the pending Evidence Bill “made no sense at all”, Chair of Parliament’s Independent Commissions Committee Mohamed Mujitaz said today, at a press conference in parliament.

He said the bill was sent to the committee in 2009 and that MPs in the committee had noted that there were many issues with the bill.

MPs had tried to determine what sources were cited in drafting the bill, discovering that the Malaysian Evidence Act was the original source.

”But the translation of the Act was not accurate and in a Maldivian court where they speak the Dhivehi Language, judges would not be able to reach the expected verdicts with that translation,” he said.

The bill had had been sent back to the Attorney General’s office in January, he said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)