Tag: February 7 coup Maldives

Dismissed Brigadier General Nilam files case with Human Rights Commission

Former Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) Brigadier General Ahmed Nilam has filed a case with the Human Rights Commission (HRCM) relating to his suspension and eventual dismissal from service.

A ten-month suspension followed statements made by Nilam to the Majlis government oversight committee in January last year during which he claimed the February 2012 change of government had “all the characteristics of a coup”.

Nilam told Minivan News today that his case – submitted after unsuccessful attempt to take the issue through the courts – was important for both the MNDF and for democracy.

“I strongly believe that if I stay quiet, the upholding of democracy will not be there and subordinate soldiers will continue to get unfair punishments” the 26-year veteran explained.

He maintains that his career was ended in relation to his comments to the oversight committee – constitutionally protected under parliamentary privilege – which were later publicised by committee MPs.

Saying at the time of of Nilam’s dismissal in November that he had been relieved of duty for “violating MNDF duties and disciplinary norms, repeating acts that should not be seen from an MNDF officer, revealing secret information against military regulations, diminishing the honor of the MNDF, and sowing discord in the military”, the MNDF had no further comment to make on the matter today.

Nilam – formerly head of military intelligence – explained that around a dozen other soldiers were dismissed immediately after the February transfer of power, suggesting all of these cases breached the rights enshrined in the 2008 constitution.

“I love democracy – I want this country to be a democratic Islamic country and we are evading from it during the last two years,” he said.

Depending on the outcome of the commission’s report, Nilam pledged to take his case to the the relevant international bodies.

After effects

The fallout from the chaotic events of February 2012 continue more that two years on, with former President Mohamed Nasheed claiming earlier this week that the events had set a precedent that would have lasting effects.

“The legitimate means of changing regimes has been demonstrated in 2012. The Supreme Court has demonstrated how to interpret the constitution. With that legitimacy, both ourselves and those in power, we should not rule out the possibility that another group may overthrow the government,” he told Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) supporters in Malé.

MDP MP Eva Abdulla has also called this week for Attorney General Mohamed Anil to appear before the Majlis in order to explain how his government is addressing the recommendations of the Commonwealth-backed national inquiry.

While dismissing the claims of mutiny among security forces and duress in Nasheed’s resignation, the CoNI report did recommend reform of the judiciary and security services, as well as prosecution of those security personnel found guilty of acts of brutality.

The CoNI was subsequently criticised by legal experts as being “selective”, “flawed”, and having exceeded its mandate, prompting a further parliamentary probe into the presidential transition.

Following its own investigations into the events of leading to Nasheed’s resignation, and the brutal police crackdown on his supporters the following day, the HRCM last December accused institutions of failing to implement the majority of its recommendations.

HRCM Vice President Ahmed Tholal told Minivan News today that the commission was due to release a further report into the extent to which stakeholders have complied with its advice in the coming weeks.

The commission was unable to discuss ongoing cases such as General Nilam’s, he explained.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

President Waheed met with angry protests during “bittersweet” campaign trip to Thinadhoo

President Mohamed Waheed’s maiden campaign trip to Thinadhoo in Gaaf Dhaal Atoll was met by hundreds of angry protesters who came out in opposition to the government’s heavy crackdown on the island following Waheed’s controversial ascension to power on February 7.

President Waheed has launched his presidential campaign under the slogan “forward with the nation”, after unveiling Ahmed Thasmeen Ali – leader of government-aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) – as his running mate.

Waheed is backed by what he contends is a “broad-coalition” of political parties including his own party Gaumee Iththihaadh Party (GIP), the DRP, Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) and religiously conservative Adaalath Party (AP).

At present, Waheed and Thasmeen will be standing against former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) candidate Yameen Abdul Gayoom – Gayoom’s half brother, and opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) candidate former President Mohamed Nasheed.

He is also expected to face a candidate from the government-aligned Jumhoree Party (JP), presently led by MP Gasim Ibrahim.

Following the scuffle on Thinadhoo – Waheed’s mother’s home island – the President expressed frustration over the incident on social media service Twitter, in which he blamed Nasheed and the MDP and declared that such actions “do not bear well for a free and fair election”.

Speaking to local newspaper Haveeru, Waheed’s party Gaumee Iththihaadh Party (GIP) spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza alleged a group of MDP supporters came out to protest against Waheed. Some protesters also assaulted MP Ibrahim Muthalib from the Adhaalath Party, he alleged.

Riza claimed that Muthalib was saved from the protesters after the police intervened and calmed the situation.

According to media reports, objects including water bottles were also seen thrown at Waheed.

Thinadhoo saw some of the strongest reactions to the February 8 crackdown on protesters in Male’, with government offices and police stations destroyed across the island. Islanders were also reported to have blockaded the arrival of police reinforcements for days afterwards.

Police eventually arrested 17 people and later sent the names of 108 persons involved in the demonstrations for prosecution.

Family members no longer speak to me: President Waheed

Speaking at a campaign rally on the island, Waheed conceded that several family members including those residing on the island no longer spoke with him after the controversial transfer of power on February 7, 2012.

Waheed acknowledged that one of the main reasons why some of his family members had deserted him was that he was now working closely with those who had strong affiliations with former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s 30-year autocratic regime. He said noted that his detractors included his own brothers and sisters, as well as cousins and nephews.

“It feels like they are trying to say that their brother doesn’t love them that much – and that is why he is working with people who we hate,” Waheed observed.

Waheed also spoke to the islanders about how his mother was subjected to torture and inhumane treatment following her mild criticism of Gayoom’s regime.

“As you would all know, back [during Gayoom’s regime] the political environment was such that criticising the government was a big crime. My mother while watching the TV said that Gayoom had lied. After that it was a very bitter experience,” he recalled.

“The poor lady was dragged to court, people gathered around her on the streets and pulled her hair, spat on her and committed other derogatory acts at that time in Male’.”

Waheed claimed that his mother never had any involvement in local politics and admitted that none of his family members would forget how Gayoom’s regime treated his mother.

Waheed said that despite this, the circumstances following the controversial resignation of former President Nasheed required him to take over the presidency. For that reason, Waheed said he had invited all political parties in the country to join his government.

“Among these [members of political parties] included those who caused such grief to my family. It is not that I don’t know who these people are, or that I chose to work with them. What was best for the country at that moment was for me to set aside my personal vengeance and to prioritise the country before my personal emotions,” he contended.

“Some of my family members could not take that. The result was that some of them, to this date, do not speak with me. Some of them even live in this island,” he said.

“Arriving in Thinadhoo gives me a bitter-sweet taste,” he added.

February 7

Nasheed’s arrest of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed led to 22-days of continuous anti-government protests initiated by religious scholars and opposition leaders. This culminated in a police and military mutiny and the controversial stepping-down of former President Mohamed Nasheed on February 7, 2012.

Waheed – who was then vice-president – had shortly before the resignation publicly come out against Nasheed and joined the revolt, meeting key opposition party members in his residence at late hours the previous week.

Less than four hours after Nasheed resigned, Waheed took oath as the President, dismissed all Nasheed’s ministers and formed a coalition government with Nasheed’s political opponents.

Following the regime change, thousands of demonstrators came out in protest. Police retaliated with a brutal crackdown in front of international media.

The protests quickly spread across the country leading to arson attacks against government offices and the police stations.

“In essence, my statement is very small… I was forced to resign. I resigned under duress. I was threatened. If I did not resign within a stipulated period it would endanger mine and my family’s life. I understood they were going to harm a number of other citizens, party members. They were going to literally sack the town. I felt that I had no other option, other than to resign,” Nasheed told the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) that later investigated the transfer of power.

Despite the claim, the Commonwealth-backed CNI which included Waheed’s three hand-picked members, a Singaporean judge chosen by the government and a single representative from Nasheed who resigned in protest, dismissed allegations of a coup.

Subsequent legal analysis of the CNI final report by a team of high-profile Sri Lankan lawyers – including the country’s former Attorney General – accused the commission of exceeding its mandate, selectively gathering and acting upon evidence, and failing to adequately address the fundamental issue with which it was charged: determining whether former President Mohamed Nasheed resigned under duress.

Waheed has repeatedly dismissed the allegations and police have threatened to arrest anyone calling them ‘Baaghee’ (‘traitor’).

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Sacked Human Rights Minister sues Speaker Shahid for role in alleged “coup d’état”

Former SAARC Secretary General and dismissed Human Rights Minister Fathimath Dhiyana Saeed has filed a lawsuit against the Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid over his decision in February 2012 to declare the presidency vacant.

The suit also asks the court to declare illegitimate the transfer of power following former President Mohamed Nasheed’s controversial resignation.

Saeed, along with her associates, previously attempted to file a similar case at the High Court requesting it rule that former President Mohamed Nasheed’s resignation was obtained under duress.

The group of attorneys claimed that following their assessment of the events that led to the former president’s controversial resignation, several legal inconsistencies and lapses that suggested the transfer of power took place illegally.

However the High Court refused to accept the case claiming that it did not have jurisdiction to look into the matter. However, Dhiyana had at the time contended that she was of the view that High Court did have the jurisdiction.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed resigned following a 22-day continuous anti-government protest led by religious scholars and opposition leaders with the backing of mutinying police and military officers, that began in mid-January 2012. The protest flared after Nasheed’s controversial detention of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed.

Following his resignation, Nasheed claimed to have been forced to resign under duress, and declared that his government had been toppled in a bloodless coup d’etat.

According to Saeed, the new Civil Court case was a modified version of the case first rejected by the High Court. She also announced the case had been accepted by the Civil Court.

Saeed told Haveeru that it was fundamental in a democratic society for people to have the right to cast their vote. She claimed that people had elected Nasheed for a term of five years, and forcing him to prematurely submit his resignation in a coercive environment was disregarding the right for people to vote and elect their ruler.

Prior to declaring that this right had been grossly disregarded, she argued that it was important for the court declare that President Mohamed Waheed Hassan’s ascension to presidency was illegal and that his government therefore was illegitimate.

Speaker’s role

Speaker Shahid recently defected from the government-aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) to Nasheed’s MDP and is currently actively campaigning for Nasheed’s bid for the presidency in 2013.

However Dhiyana Saeed stated that Shahid was the person under the Article 121 of the constitution who was to declare vacant of the office of president, should an incumbent president resign or vacate the office.

“It was the Speaker of Parliament who declared the office of president vacant, be it had he done it knowingly, mistakenly or unknowingly,” Saeed told Haveeru. “This doesn’t mean Shahid committed a criminal offense. It also does not mean that he partook in the events or that he made the decision [maliciously].”

She further contended that Speaker Shahid had failed to look into the circumstances surrounding Nasheed’s resignation before making the declaration.

Saeed told Minivan News on Sunday that she and the counsel have “stopped short of asking for Nasheed’s reinstatement”, claiming that she did not have “the locus standi to ask for a particular relief”.

“If the ruling comes in our favour, it might be possible for Nasheed to institute a second proceeding for reinstatement. As far as this case is concerned, our interest is in the rule of law and invoking constitutional process to uphold the legal order as stipulated by the constitution,” Saeed told Minivan News.

Dhiyana Saeed, formerly a member of current President Mohamed Waheed’s cabinet and one of the earliest critics of Nasheed’s decision to detain Judge Abdulla, has also released a personal memoir explaining her interpretation of Waheed’s ascension to power. In the memoir, Saeed alleged that Nasheed’s political rivals had conspired to assassinate him.

Saeed alleged that the controversial transfer of presidential power on February 7 was the result of a premeditated and well-orchestrated plan, and questioned the findings of the Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CNI), which had declared that there was no coup and Nasheed had resigned voluntarily.

Parliament’s Executive Oversight Committee’s review of the report revealed several concerns including omission of key evidence and witness statements.

Chair of Parliament’s Executive Oversight Committee, MP Ali Waheed, claimed the August 2012 report produced by the CNI was “flawed” based on the findings of the committee.

He added that many interviewed by the committee claimed the CNI report lacked “key information they had given [the CNI panel]” while “others claimed their information was wrongly presented”.

Parliamentary review

To support its claims, the parliamentary select committee released audio recordings of all the statements given by the witnesses. These included former police and military chiefs and officers, who claimed that Nasheed had no option but to resign.

Leaked statements to the CNI given by key witnesses of the events, including senior police and military officials, also suggested that the transfer of power took place illegitimately.

In the transcript of the statement given to CNI by MNDF Staff Sergeant Shafraz Naeem – the commander of the riot squad of the Bandara Koshi (BK) Battalion on the day – said that he also believed that Nasheed was ousted in a coup.

“In my view this was a coup. Why? I could see it from the way they handled everything, their attitude, how cool and calm all the officers were. I could tell from how cool General Shiyam was inside the MNDF. They did nothing. This is not how a uniformed officer should behave,” he told the CNI.

Meanwhile former President Nasheed told the CNI that he was forced to resign, as he believed his life was at stake on February 7 if he did not.

“In essence, my statement is very small. I was forced to resign. I resigned under duress. I was threatened. If I did not resign within a stipulated period it would endanger mine and my family’s life. I understood they were going to harm a number of other citizens, party members. They were going to literally sack the town. I felt that I had no other option, other than to resign,” he said.

On September 2012, following the release of the report, a legal analysis of the CNI’s report by a team of high-profile Sri Lankan legal professionals – including the country’s former Attorney General concluded that the report was “selective”, “flawed”, and “exceeded its mandate”.

“The report offends the fundamental tenets of natural justice, transparency and good governance, including the right to see adverse material, which undermines the salutary tenets of the Rule of Law,” observed the report.

The Sri Lankan legal team also contended that “there is evidence to demonstrate that there was in fact adequate evidence to suggest that duress (or even ‘coercion’ and/ or illegal coercion as used by CNI) is attributable to the resignation of President Nasheed.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court rejects former Human Rights Minister’s case contesting legitimacy of Waheed’s government

The High Court has rejected the case filed by the former Human Rights Minister Fathimath Dhiyana Saeed, requesting the court to rule that former President Mohamed Nasheed’s resignation was obtained under duress and the transfer of power on February 7, 2012 was illegitimate.

Rejecting the case, the court claimed it did not have jurisdiction to look into the matter.

Speaking to local newspaper Haveeru, the former SAARC Secretary General said that she and her legal team had been informed by the High Court that the case could not be looked into as it was beyond the court’s jurisdiction.

However, Saeed told Haveeru that she was of the view that High Court had the jurisdiction to look into the case.

She earlier stated that the constitution clearly mentions of the cases in which the Supreme Court can act as a first instance court but in other cases the High Court does have the jurisdiction to accept constitutional cases as a first instance court.

Speaking to media previously, member of Saeed’s legal team Ishraq Thaufeeg said that following legal review of the circumstances, the team had noticed several legal inconsistencies and lapses that suggested the transfer of power took place illegally.

He also said the  public still questioned the legitimacy of President Mohamed Waheed Hassan’s government, and that therefore it was important that a court of law decides on the matter.

Dhiyana Saeed, formerly a member of current President Mohamed Waheed’s cabinet and one of the earliest critics of Nasheed’s decision to detain Judge Abdulla, has also released a personal memoir explaining her interpretation of Waheed’s ascension to power. In the memoir, former SAARC Secretary General alleged that Nasheed’s political rivals had conspired to assassinate him.

Saeed alleged that the controversial transfer of presidential power on February 7 was the result of a premeditated and well-orchestrated plan, and questioned the findings of the Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CNI), which had declared that there was no coup and Nasheed had resigned voluntarily.

Parliament’s Executive Oversight Committee’s review of the report revealed several concerns including omission of key evidence and witness statements.

Chair of Parliament’s Executive Oversight Committee, MP Ali Waheed, claimed the August 2012 report produced by the CNI was “flawed” based on the findings of the committee.

He added that many interviewed by the committee claimed the CNI report lacked “key information they had given [the CNI panel]” while “others claimed their information was wrongly presented”.

To support its claims, the parliamentary select committee released audio recordings of all the statements given by the witnesses. These included former police and military chiefs and officers, who claimed that Nasheed had no option but to resign.

Leaked statements to the CNI given by key witnesses of the events, including senior police and military officials, also suggested that the transfer of power took place illegitimately.

In the transcript of the statement given to CNI by MNDF Staff Sergeant Shafraz Naeem – the commander of the riot squad of the Bandara Koshi (BK) Battalion on the day – said that he also believed that Nasheed was ousted in a coup.

“In my view this was a coup. Why? I could see it from the way they handled everything, their attitude, how cool and calm all the officers were. I could tell from how cool General Shiyam was inside the MNDF. They did nothing. This is not how a uniformed officer should behave,” he told the CNI.

Meanwhile former President Nasheed told the CNI that he was forced to resign, as he believed his life was at stake on February 7 if he did not.

“In essence, my statement is very small. I was forced to resign. I resigned under duress. I was threatened. If I did not resign within a stipulated period it would endanger mine and my family’s life. I understood they were going to harm a number of other citizens, party members. They were going to literally sack the town. I felt that I had no other option, other than to resign,” he said.

On September 2012, following the release of the report, a legal analysis of the CNI’s report by a team of high-profile Sri Lankan legal professionals – including the country’s former Attorney General concluded that the report was “selective”, “flawed”, and “exceeded its mandate”.

“The report offends the fundamental tenets of natural justice, transparency and good governance, including the right to see adverse material, which undermines the salutary tenets of the Rule of Law,” observed the report.

The Sri Lankan legal team also contended that “there is evidence to demonstrate that there was in fact adequate evidence to suggest that duress (or even ‘coercion’ and/ or illegal coercion as used by CNI) is attributable to the resignation of President Nasheed.”

Saeed was not responding to calls at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Government claims “remarkable success” in democracy, good governance and rule of law

The President’s Office has claimed the government has achieved “remarkable success” during its first year in power.

February 7, 2013, marked the one year anniversary of the government of President Mohamed Waheed Hassan, following his controversial ascension to power.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed suddenly resigned on February 7 last year, following 22 days of continuous anti-government protests sparked after the Chief Judge of Criminal Court was placed under military detention.  The demonstrations were later backed by mutinying sections of the police and military.

Within a few hours following the chaos, Nasheed’s then Vice President Waheed – to whom the opposition had pledged their allegiance weeks before – assumed power and formed a “unity government” with the protesting politicians.

In a publication (Dhivehi) released on the President’s Office website last Thursday, under the title ‘One year for the National Unity Government’, the office highlighted its achievements in 10 different areas. These included: democracy and good governance, upholding of law, building a safe society, economic development, employment opportunities, education, health, fight against drugs, transport system and housing development.

Democracy and good governance

Under democracy and good governance, the President’s office claimed that the Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CNI)’s report on the transfer of power had defeated the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s claims challenging the legitimacy of the government.

Following the transfer of power, the opposition MDP had claimed that former President Nasheed’s government was toppled in a bloodless coup d’état and that his resignation was obtained under duress.

The CNI was formed to look into the circumstances surrounding the transfer of power.  The Commonwealth-led national inquiry panel in its report concluded that the transfer of power that took place on February 7, 2012 was legitimate.

“A national unity government was formed, a roadmap of how the government would be run was established on February 16, 2012, and successfully ran the government for one year,” the pamphlet stated.

However, during Parliament’s Executive Oversight Committee (EOC)’s reviewing of the CNI report, senior police and military officials during Nasheed’s administration – including former Chief of Defense Force retired Major General Moosa Ali Jaleel and former Commissioner of Police Ahmed Faseeh – disputed that their evidence was included in the report, and told the parliamentary committee that Nasheed had no choice but to resign, suggesting that his resignation was obtained under duress.

“I fully believe that President [Nasheed] resigned under duress,” Faseeh told the committee at the time.

Recalling the events, former Commissioner Faseeh told the committee he had done everything he could to control the situation but said there came a point when the officers had openly mutinied and disobeyed his orders.

The former military intelligence head also alleged that Nasheed’s resignation and transfer of power involved unlawful elements and had all the hallmarks of a coup d’état.

“Academically speaking, the events on February 7 fulfilled all the essentials of a coup. It involved all the features of a coup that are widely accepted around the world. Some of the elements take place before the toppling of a president. Others take place spontaneously,” Brigadier General Ahmed Nilam said. He was subsequently suspended.

President Waheed’s former Human Rights Minister Fathimath Dhiyana Saeed, in her personal memoir on the controversial transfer of power, alleged that Waheed had a role in the controversial toppling of Nasheed.  She also claimed that the then vice-president had prior knowledge of what would possibly happen in February.

Battle against CMAG

The President’s Office in the publication also detailed the decision of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) to remove “the Maldives from its formal agenda” after it was put there following the controversial transfer of power.

In September 2012, following the findings of the CNI, the Commonwealth’s human rights and democracy arm removed the Maldives from its formal agenda and placed it under “Matters of Interest to CMAG”.

The government also claimed it had reduced the number of political appointees below that of former President Mohamed Nasheed’s administration, which resulted in savings of MVR 2 million (US$ 129,701.68) per month.

“Efforts were carried out to broaden the role of the civil service and strengthen the functionality of the government,” it stated.

“To close down all doors to corruption, [the government] for the first time in history, established and enacted a code of conduct for political appointees during their course of employment,” it added.

Under democracy and good governance, the publication also highlighted that the Maldives had won the position of vice chairmanship of United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council and the vice chairmanship of the annual assembly of International Renewable Energy Institute (IREI), to be held this year.

Upholding of law

The government highlighted its success on upholding the rule law, claimed that it had established a free state broadcasting service by handing over Television Maldives (TVM) and Voice of Maldives (VOM) radio station to the Maldives Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) – formerly the Maldives National Broadcasting Corporation (MNBC) one and Raajje Radio – thereby running the government without a government-funded media.

Video footage taken during the storming of MNBC on February 7,2012 revealed that a mutinying police officer used a firearm to break down the gates of the station headquarters in capital Male’,  allowing dozens of police and military forces (MNDF) as well as some civilians in plain clothes to forcefully take over the station – approximately two hours before former president Mohamed Nasheed resigned from office.

The publication also stated that the government had abolished the National Administration Offices and had transferred its responsibilities to the local councils.

“The lands that were withheld by the central government were given to local councils in a transparent and responsible manner,” it read.

In July 2012, President Waheed’s government announced that it would be taking over “some responsibilities” assigned to the elected Male’ City Council (MCC).

A press statement released by the President’s Office at the time said the decision had been taken on the advice of cabinet to take back some services that are currently provided by the MCC.

The statement read: “Despite the legal system of the country [dictating] that several services given from the government to the public are delegated to local councils under the Decentralization Act, the decision of the President with the consultation of the cabinet, comes at a time where several of these local councils are failing to provide these services”.

Establishing a peaceful society

The government, under the heading, “establishing of a peaceful society”, claimed it had eradicated violence and established law and order within society.

“License given to cafes, shops and boutiques to operate 24 hours a day were revoked and more police were added to patrol duty which brought down crime rate,” the report claimed.

It also claimed that 60 police stations carried out more than 1000 operations to seek out law breakers, and during the course 215 out of 437 prisoners released by the former government’s rehabilitation and training program “Second Chance” were arrested at crime scenes and sent back to jail.

Despite these claims, the year 2012 recorded a significant rise in murder cases including a veteran lawyer and a member of parliament.

Murders in 2012 included: Member of Parliament Dr Afrasheem Ali murdered at his residence, lawyer Ahmed Najeeb found murdered and mutilated in a house, Lance Corporal Adam Haleem murdered while on his way to duty, Hassan Aboobakuru, 65 years, murdered in Manafaru Island, Abdulla Muheeth  mistakenly killed by a gang, 16 year old  Mohamed Arham found murdered inside the park behind Kulliyathul Dhirasathul Islamiyya, and a Bangladeshi expatriate worker found murdered in a building in Male.

“Prison space was increased,” the government said, adding “No prisoner was pardoned as per the power vested in the president under the Clemency Act.”

Presidents Office Spokespersons Ahmed ‘Topy’ Thaufeeq and Masood Imad were not responding at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Executive Oversight Committee summons former intelligence heads

Parliament’s Executive Oversight Committee has summoned the former intelligence heads of both the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) and the Maldives Police Service (MPS) as part of an inquiry into the controversial transfer of power in February 2012.

Brigadier General Ahmed Nilam and former Superintendent Mohamed ‘MC’ Hameed were separately summoned today to attend the closed door meetings.

Nilam was summoned first at 12:00pm, with Hameed addressing the committee at 1:00pm.

According to local media, chair of the committee, opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ali Waheed, said that the decision had been taken to hold the meeting behind closed doors to ensure any potentially sensitive intelligence information remained confidential.

The select committee last month agreed, with bipartisan support, to summon Nilam, Hameed and former SAARC Secretary General Fathimath Dhiyana Saeed.

The committee at the time decided that all three individuals would be summoned to parliament separately on January 9.  According to the local media, Saeed was to be summoned at 11:00am today, but requested that her hearing be postponed over personal issues.

Saeed is being summoned over a personal memoir released to the media last month.  The contents of the memoir included allegations that certain figures behind protests leading to the controversial transfer of power on February 7 had also planned to assassinate former President Mohamed Nasheed.

Failure to come to an understanding over issuance of a legal order

Meanwhile, the committee today failed to reach an agreement over issuing a legal order requiring President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik to provide evidence gathered by the Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CNI).

The CNI was charged to review the circumstances behind the change of government, concluding that the transfer of power took place constitutionally despite the MDP’s claims of a coup d’état.

The parliamentary committee had called for a vote amongst its members over whether to issue a legal order to obtain statements given to CNI by senior Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) figures and officials of the former government.  However, the vote failed to secure a required committee majority of 6 members to be passed.

Although backed by all five MDP members on the committee, the vote was short of a sixth and decisive supporter with government-aligned Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Ahmed Nihan Hassan Manik voting against the motion. His fellow party member MP Ahmed Shareef abstained from the vote.

The statements that the committee had intended to obtain from the government included the accounts given to the CNI of former Defense Minister Tholthath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu, former Home Minister Hassan Afeef and former Chief of Defense Force retired Major General Moosa Ali Jaleel.  The testimonies of former Male’ Area Commander retired Brigadier General Ibrahim Mohamed Didi and former Commissioner of Police Ahmed Faseeh would also have been requested among others.

The committee had previously sent a letter to President Waheed requesting for him to provide it members with the stated documents.  The request was denied.

Some sitting members of the committee at the time expressed their dismay with the president’s response, arguing that the only option left for the committee was to issue a legal order.

However, in order to issue a legal order, the matter should be approved by an absolute majority of at least six committee members.

Following the failure to obtain a legal order today, MDP Spokesperson MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor questioned the government’s decision not to supply the information.

“There is absolutely no way as per the constitution where the executive can hide its actions from the parliament. The constitution has given the parliament immense powers in terms of government accountability to the extent that the government cannot even take a loan without parliament’s consent,” he said.

Ghafoor added that while the MDP held a parliamentary majority, it was aiming to conduct the inquiry with bipartisan support.

“We don’t want to make this a political issue. This is a national issue. We are trying to confirm the legitimacy of an installed government. Party politics is not what we are interested in,” he added.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

LGA blamed for hindering City Council’s mandate

The Local Government Authority (LGA) has been blamed by Male’ City Council for failing to cooperate with the council in providing services to the people.

In a statement made by the council, it alleged that legally obligated plans are currently pending due to LGA failing to heed requests for technical expertise for the work of the City Council.

The Council also highlighted that LGA had failed to provide information and extend cooperation needed to draft plans for the development of the capital Male.

“Male City Council has failed to provide the services to the people as the resources and funds needed haven’t been received from the relevant authorities.

“In addition, each and every responsibility being looked at in an investigative manner by LGA and relevant State institutions is unnecessary,” a City Council statement said.

The statement alleged that following the regime change on February 7, political influence has found its way into the new LGA board, creating a major obstacle to the council’s mandate.

The LGA have also been accused by City Council of launching investigations into every request made for the assistance of the authority.

The decentralisation system could collapse if the LGA failed to extend cooperation and assistance to the councils, City Council warns.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Ports Workers Union accuse MPL of employee “rights violations” for political activism

The Maldives Ports Workers Union (MPWU) has accused the Maldives Ports Ltd (MPL) of violating employee rights, alleging the state-owned company has unfairly dismissed four employees due to their political activism.

In a letter on July 12 to MPL CEO Mahdi Imad, Chairperson of the MPWU Ibrahim Khaleel said: “Although the constitution guarantees freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, it is now common within MPL to stop employees from expressing certain political views, and violate the Employment Act by unfairly dismissing employees and transferring employees to different departments without prior warning or explanation of any offense committed.”

Speaking to Minivan News, Khaleel said the company mainly targeted employees who supported the ousted Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

“They send people with cameras to MDP protests to check which MPL employees take part in the protests,” Khaleel said. The MDP has taken to the streets for the 11th consecutive day demanding fresh polls, alleging President Mohamed Nasheed was ousted in a coup d’état on February 7.

In addition to the four employees who have been dismissed, 30 have been suspended and 10 have been transferred from their position at the Malé port to Thilafushi Island port, Khaleel said.

In his letter, Khaleel called on the MPL to “respect an employee’s right to exercise freedoms granted in the constitution and by participating in political activities in his or her free time” and asked the company to withdraw blocks on “social media including facebook, twitter and gmail.”

In response, Imad in a letter on July 16 accused the MPWU of dividing employees and promoting the interests of a certain political party and threatened to take action against the union.

“We have received reports that the union is attempting to divide employees and promote the interests of a certain political party. Hence, I order and advice you not to do so. If this happens in the future, we will have to take action against you,” he said.

Further, access to social-networking sites had been blocked because they “often propagate un-Islamic, sinful activities and propagate the interests of Jews,” Imad said.

Khaleel denied Imad’s allegations, stating that “When MDP was in power, we had a lot of difficulty in registering the union. The MPL management at the time wrote a letter to the Home Ministry requesting that they deny our registration. We are not a political organization, we work for employee rights.”

The MPWU has been contact with other ports workers unions in the region to discuss steps to take next, Khaleel said.

In May, porters working at MPL went on strike after the management confiscated their TV for “watching too much Raajje TV.” Government aligned parties have accused Rajje TV of being aligned with the MDP.

Minivan News also documented the suspension of seven staff at MPL in April. The company claims staff were suspended for violating “norms of good behavior” outlined in the code of conduct, but staff told Minivan News they had been suspended for taking part in MDP protests.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Former Commission of National Inquiry panel releases timeline “for public opinion”

The former three-member panel of the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) has released a ‘timeline’ of events it claims took place from the period of January 16 to February 7, for the stated purpose of “finding public opinion”.

The composition of the panel has since been revised to include a representative of former President Mohamed Nasheed and a retired Singaporean judge, as well as international monitors from both the Commonwealth and UN.

The 282-point Dhivehi document does not feature any input from the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), who contested the panel’s impartiality prior to the re-composition. The report begins its findings on the day police attempted to summon Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, to the day the controversial transfer of power took place. The panel conducted interviews with assorted non-MDP participants, however the report does not source its findings.

The night of February 6

The timeline suggests the initial ‘turning point’ of the unrest began on the night of February 6, after the supporters of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) arrived at the artificial beach in Male’ where supporters of the coalition of then-opposition parties had already been protesting, calling for the release of Judge Abdulla and for the constitution to be upheld.

The timeline states that the Specialist Operation (SO) officers of the police had stationed themselves in Heniveru Stadium, in preparation to prevent any violence that may have taken place if supporters from both sides clashed.

The report stated that police intervened after they received information that the situation was deteriorating from two police officers who were there to assess the situation.

It states that police intervention calmed the situation and cordoned a security line between the two protesting parties, after forcing them further behind the sides of the area they had been protesting.

The three member panel alleged that Minister of Home Affairs Hassan Afeef ordered Commissioner of Police Ahmed Faseeh to withdraw police officers who had been stationed on the site. The Commissioner sent two officers to assess the situation, who reported back stating that the situation had deteriorated, which the Commissioner relayed to the Minister.

The Minister repeated the order but the Commissioner of Police refused to comply, stating that the situation could get worse if the police withdrew their forces.

According to the report, after the commissioner refused, President Nasheed himself called the commissioner and ordered him to withdraw police from the scene.

Faseeh then reportedly sent the Deputy Commissioner of Police to assess the situation, and he too relayed the situation was worsening.

The report claimed that the president called the commissioner a second time and ordered him to withdraw police from the area, stating that he “could not trust the police”.

After this order, the report said that the commissioner personally took the decision to contact the Male’ Area Commander of the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF), asking that the MNDF intervene as the police were withdrawing.

The statement read that the tactical officer of the SO opposed the idea of withdrawing police from the area, stating that both the protesting parties had weapons that could be used for violence, including wooden sticks and metal rods.

The SO police present in the area refused to withdraw without the MNDF arriving to take over their position, the timeline claimed.

The panel also claimed that a resignation letter was drafted by the police commissioner and was left on his table, as “the commissioner did not believe that the withdrawal of the police was the right decision.”

After the MNDF took over the area, the panel claimed that President Nasheed called the Male’ area commander and ordered him to withdraw MNDF officers from the area, giving him assurances that the MDP supporters would not resort to any kind of violence.

However, the statement read that when MNDF withdrew their officers from the area, violent confrontations began and there “bottles and objects” thrown by both protesting parties, which led the MNDF to intervene again.

February 7

The statement claimed that some of the SO police officers who had been in the Artifical Beach area then went to the MDP protest camp and vandalised the premises, and attacked some of the MDP supporters inside.

An MNDF SWAT team arrived after the SO police officers left premises, “to guard the area”, the panel stated.

The statement read that, as the usual routine of the police is to fall in at the Republican Square after protests ended; the police officers retreated and convened to the area.

The panel said that initially the MNDF attempted to arrest the police officers who by then had begun to gather in Republic Square, adjacent to police and military headquarters. However the MNDF reportedly decided to negotiate with the police officers as the military was outnumbered and police had similar equipment to the MNDF officers.

According to the report, police told the MNDF officers who were sent to negotiate with them that would begin following orders again after they were given assurances that they would not be ordered to carry out any unlawful orders, and that no action be taken against any of the officers regarding their involvement.

“The MNDF officers assured them that the MNDF would not confront police officers in the area,” the panel claimed.

During the negotiations, the panel claimed that police requested to meet the commissioner of police. The MNDF officials proposed officers go into the MNDF headquarters to to meet the commissioner, but police said they wanted to meet the commissioner inside police headquarters.

It was decided that the commissioner would meet meet in Iskandhar Koshi, an MNDF barracks on the other side of Male’, to the police officers initially agreed. However, police rejected the idea after the MNDF insisted the police go without their weapons and riot gear.

President’s arrival to Republic Square and his resignation

The panel claimed that in the early morning of February 7, between 5:00am to 6:00am, President Nasheed informed the commissioner that he wanted to meet the police officers who were at Republican Square.

It further claimed that the President also ordered the commissioner to meet the police officers in Republic Square, however the commissioner left military headquarters and entered police headquarters without meeting police gathered outside the building.

Before meeting the police, Nasheed asked one of the MNDF commanders whether he had any reservations over arresting the protesting police officers, to which the commander reportedly replied that he did.

The President then reportedly told the commander that it would be better if he stayed at home for the time being, however two other commanders also told the President that they had reservations and left.

The panel claimed that Nasheed then told the police officers that they had “done something wrong” and requested they hand themselves over to the MNDF. Police refused the order.

According the panel, Nasheed then returned to military headquarters and ordered the MNDF officers inside the barracks to go outside and arrest the officers who had disobeyed him.

At this point, some of the MNDF officers left the barracks and joined the police officers protesting.

While Nasheed was inside the MNDF base, the panel claimed that the President’s secretariat informed cabinet members that there would be a cabinet meeting, but failed to inform Vice President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan as two key staff of the VP’s secretariat had not reported to work.

The panel also claimed that the then-President of the MDP, Dr Ibrahim Didi, called Nasheed and discussed how to resolve the ongoing unrest. Nasheed reportedly asked for Didi’s help in releasing a joint statement by the president and leaders of the opposition parties.

It said that Didi had then contacted opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali and Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) Parliamentary Group Leader, Abdulla Yameen, however both of them declined to help unless Nasheed personally requested they do so.

Dr Didi then informed Nasheed of this response, who told him to make a decision after discussing the matter with MDP Parliamentary Group Leader MP Ibrahim Mohamed Solih and former Chairperson of the Party, MP Mariya Ahmed Didi.

The panel alleged that Dr Didi tried contacting MP Mariya Ahmed Didi, who did not respond, and then contacted MP Ibrahim Mohamed Solih, who said he would get back to Dr Didi after consulting on the issue with Nasheed.

After the reply from MP Solih was delayed, Didi reportedly called Nasheed back, and was told that the High Commissioner of India, Dnyaneshwar M Mulay, would contact him.

According to the panel, Mulay contacted Dr Didi and asked him to come to the High Commission. When Dr Didi arrived to the High Commission, the opposition Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) Parliamentary Group leader Yameen was already there.

According to the panel, as Dr Didi, Mulay and Yameen were discussing how to resolve the crisis, MP Solih called Yameen and informed him that Nasheed was going to resign.

Didi then reportedly contacted Nasheed and asked to him to give the phone to Yameen.

According to the panel, Nasheed informed Yameen that he was going to resign and asked him to ensure the safety of his family, to which Yameen replied that he would do everything to ensure the safety of Nasheed’s family.

The meeting adjourned after the president informed them that he would resign.

New MNDF commander

Meanwhile, according to the panel, two civilians: resigned police officer Abdulla Riyaz (the new Police Commissioner) and dismissed MNDF officer Ahmed Nazim (now the Defence Minister), entered the MNDF headquarters reportedly on the invitation of the Minister of Defence and National Security, Tholath Ibrahim.

After discussions with Nasheed in the MNDF barracks, Nazim came out to the crowd and revealed that he had asked Nasheed to resign unconditionally before 1:30pm that afternoon, along with the commissioner of police and his deputies.

According to the panel, Nazim told the crowd that his demands were “non-negotiable”.

The protesters were then informed that Nasheed would resign, and would announce this in the President’s Office.

According to the panel, Nasheed wrote the resignation letter inside the President’s Office, and then announced it on state television – which by this stage had been stormed by a second group of police and protesters.

CNI statement “lacks legitimacy

The MDP – now in opposition – said it would not formally comment on the statement prior to the release of an official statement.

However, an MDP official told Minivan News that the party did not consider the timeline “substantial”, and said it “lacked legitimacy”.

The party was “not even interested” in the timeline because the investigation would start from scratch under the new composition.

”The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) has asked the government to change the composition of the commission and the government has agreed to it. I think the current co-chair of the commission thinks that his work is over,” the party official said.

The premature release of the timeline “for public comment” was “not a good thing”, he added.

The CNI claimed that if anyone wished to propose amendments to the timeline, they should submit amendments before June 21.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)