Tag: February 7

Police arrest man on suspicion of assaulting Mariya Didi

A 26-year-old man has been arrested on suspicion of assaulting Maldivian Democratic Party MP Mariya Ahmed Didi, a year after the alleged assault took place.

Police Spokesperson Chief Inspector Hassan Haneef told local media that the man was arrested on 4 March 2013 in relation to the assault that took place on 7 February 2012.

According to local media, police have been investigating the videos of the unrest that followed the controversial change of power in February 2012.

The police have been criticised by various institutions for a failure to investigate several incidents that took place on February 7 and 8, 2012.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

New footage of Feb 7 shows Yameen, Gasim inciting demonstrators, police

Private broadcaster Raajje TV on Friday aired previously unseen footage from February 7, 2012, before the controversial resignation of former President Mohamed Nasheed.

Nasheed claimed that he resigned “under duress” after elements of the police and army joined opposition protesters and attacked the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) headquarters following a police mutiny in Republic Square.

The new footage shows government-aligned Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Abdulla Yameen and Jumhooree Party (JP) MP Gasim Ibrahim – both presidential hopefuls – address the protesting police, army officers and opposition supporters.

“The Indian government is with the Maldivian people,” Yameen announced to the assembled police and anti-government demonstrators. He was however cut short by police appealing for cooperation from the crowd.

After MNDF officers were pegged back and forced inside military headquarters following a confrontation with the mutinying police, the Republic Square – or the “green zone” where gatherings are prohibited – was overrun by opposition supporters and police officers.

The PPM parliamentary group leader reportedly arrived at the Republic Square after a meeting at the Indian High Commission.

Business tycoon and JP presidential candidate Gasim meanwhile praised mutinying police and army officers for their “sacrifice” and “jihad for the nation.”

In March 2012, Raajje TV aired video footage of political party leaders inside police headquarters before the resignation of President Nasheed. Upon receiving news of President Nasheed’s decision to resign, Gasim is heard to say that it was “fortunate that this ended without going to military rule.”

Gasim is a member of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), which has appointed the three-member panel of judges overhearing Nasheed’s trial in the Hulhumale Magistrate Court.

Meanwhile, in the more recent footage televised by Raajje TV, a police officer announces that “ [state broadcaster] MNBC has been brought under control” and that the security forces were in the process of “arresting those we have to take into custody.”

Defence Minister Colonel (Retired) Mohamed Nazim and Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz are also seen active in the area outside military headquarters, with one of the clips showing the latter carrying President Nasheed’s resignation letter.

Both ex-servicemen under former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom were civilians at the time of the transfer of power.

In other videos that emerged at the time, Nazim is seen announcing to the mutinying police and army officers that President Nasheed had been told to resign “unconditionally”.

Nazim also announced that he was “in charge of the army” and would soon appoint senior officers.

One of the previously unseen videos aired by Raajje TV further showed President Nasheed exiting the military headquarters in a car surrounded by MNDF officers and being driven the short distance to the President’s Office.

Following Nazim’s appeal to those gathered to refrain from violence, former Deputy Commissioner of Police Mohamed Rishwan is also seen addressing the crowd atop a military vehicle and appealing for cooperation and nonviolence.

Rishwan had reportedly denied any involvement in the events of February 7, 2012.

Meanwhile, in an interview with government-aligned radio station DhiFM on February 8 this year, Defence Minister Nazim claimed that President Nasheed would have been mobbed and killed if he was not escorted to the President’s Office under military protection.

“I would say in truth, given the level of hatred from the public, President Nasheed would not be in this world today if we had not taken him out and to the President’s Office under our protection. [Former President] Mohamed Ameen comes to mind. The people would have mobbed [Nasheed] just like that,” Nazim was quoted as saying in local media.

He added that video clips from the day would show “the extreme level of hatred from the public”.

Similar remarks were made by PPM Deputy Leader Umar Naseer days after the transfer of power. Naseer claimed at a PPM rally that Nasheed’s only options were to either “resign after bloodshed or resign peacefully”.

On August 30, 2012, the Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) formed by President Dr Mohamed Waheed however concluded that there was “no coup, no mutiny and no duress” in President Nasheed’s resignation.

February 8

Raajje TV has also aired a video clip from the day after the transfer of presidential power following a brutal police crackdown on a walk across Male’ by supporters of the formerly ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

In the wake of the crackdown near the Maldives Monetary Authority (MMA) building near Republic Square, President Nasheed along with MPs Mariya Ahmed Didi and ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik took refuge in a shop and were dragged out by riot police.

The new footage shows President Nasheed surrounded and manhandled by the Specialist Operations (SO) officers before he manages to wriggle free and run. According to media reports on February 8, Nasheed rejoined supporters at the area and was taken to safety.

MP Yameen addressing crowd

MP Gasim addressing crowd

“MNBC has been taken under control”

President Nasheed exits MNDF headquarters

President Nasheed walks to Muleeage after resignation

Riyaz carrying resignation letter

Mutinying police and army officers calling for president’s resignation

Nasheed escapes SO officers on February 8, 2012

Nasheed rejoins supporters

Nazim demands “unconditional resignation” of President Nasheed

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

February 7 a failure of all state institutions, DRP: Umar Naseer

Prospective presidential candidate of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), Umar Naseer, has said the controversial transfer of power on February 7, 2012 happened as a result of the failure of all state institutions and the then largest opposition party, Dhivehi Rayiithunge Party (DRP).

“The HRCM (Human Rights Commission of the Maldives) had become an entity which was only good for releasing vague reports. We saw that only the PG was effective in that he did some work and made some strong, solid statements,” Umar said, speaking at a rally titled “In celebration of reclaiming the people’s government”, held by the PPM in celebration of the first anniversary of the change of power.

“The police and the MNDF had their hands tied by [former President Mohamed Nasheed], and could only do as he instructed them to. I’d describe the judges as having been kept kneeling on the ground. Even DRP’s leadership had failed at the time. This is why we had to leave them and form another party. But what I am saying is that at the time, even the opposition had failed,” Umar continued.

“As a result of the failure of all these institutions, the people came out, struggled through tear gas and rubber bullets, and finally succeeded in bringing Nasheed’s government to an end.”

DRP MP Dr Abdulla Mausoom told Minivan News that the party “did not wish to comment on baseless, empty rhetoric.”

Umar told the approximately 600 people gathered at the rally that February 7 had been a result of “the hard work done by PPM members for the three years since November 11, 2008.”

“After having scored the golden goal and winning the match on February 7, our people bore many injuries when they went back home,” Umar said.

“Our people made their way through rubber bullets. Our people were hit by rubber bullets. Our people were admitted to hospital. Some of our people broke arms and legs. Many of them were arrested,” Umar stated.

“Many said to our people: ‘You won’t be able to do this’, but our people ignored these pessimistic remarks, ignored the pain they were in, and went forward to succeed.”

Citizens, police, MNDF changed government: Umar Naseer

Naseer alleged that had Nasheed’s administration not been toppled on February 7, Nasheed would have set in place “plans he had made to completely destroy the judiciary on February 8.”

Naseer alleged that Nasheed had planned to sideline the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) and instead replace it with a self-appointed Judicial Reform Commission.

“The President’s Office has a copy of a circular that Nasheed had signed and prepared for release. This circular shows that he had made up a Judicial Reform Commission to which he had appointed Mariya [Ahmed Didi, former Chairperson and MP of MDP] as head, and other party officials who would do his bidding. He planned to have judges take oath in front of this commission instead of the JSC, and to declare that any judge who did not would no longer be allowed in our courts.”

Naseer compared the events of February 7 to other historical events in the Maldives.

“The day was similar to when the Portuguese tried to force alcohol down the throats of Maldivians. Bodu Thakurufaanu and his allies had come to Male’ and saved the country then. February 8 was about to become a day like this, but the people saved the country by toppling Nasheed on February 7,” Umar suggested.

“Even the Chief Justice was scared and apprehensive, not knowing just when Nasheed would send security forces to arrest him,” he alleged.

“The most ordinary people of this country came out and changed the government a year ago. They included police, MNDF soldiers and general citizens,” Naseer stated.

“February 7 didn’t happen due to any greatness of ours. It was a victory granted by the Almighty Allah. Of course, Allah only grants victory when some humans put in an effort, which is what we did.”

Legal action against Nasheed must be hurried: Naseer

Naseer further said that the state institutions were “once again leaning back on their hind legs” and failing to take legal action against Nasheed.

“The arson attacks on February 8 were the largest of their kind in the country’s history. It must be called the ‘big flame’. That day wouldn’t have come if this government had taken strong action against Nasheed. We would have been able to save so much then,” Naseer said, criticised the current government of which PPM is also part.

“But then, our government was very new at the time. It had suddenly ascended to power and had a lot of matters to settle. Maybe that’s why they failed to take necessary action.”

Naseer then said that the institutions were once again failing to function as mandated, citing their “failure to take action against the MDP who are orchestrating street protests and yelling near houses.”

“Mohamed Nasheed still comes out onto the streets. He does as he pleases. He says what he pleases. He goes to foreign countries. He is even destroying our tourism. He is calling out for various action to be taken against us. He is able to do all this, in my view, because our institutions continue to fail us. Please don’t let this happen,” Naseer said.

“Remember that this victory is only temporary. We will only have fully succeeded when we win the 2013 elections. PPM will do all possible to ensure this,” Umar said.

“But as our party does this work, I call on all state institutions, the Attorney General, Prosecutor General, judges in all the courts, to keep in mind the ‘big flame’ incident of February 8 and take necessary action against its perpetrators,” Naseer said.

“Most importantly, I call on them to very quickly look into Nasheed’s arrest of Abdulla Ghazee [Abdulla Mohamed, Chief Judge of the Criminal Court] and to take whatever possible legal action against him soon,” Naseer said, concluding his speech.

President’s Office Spokesperson Ahmed Thaufeeq was not responding to calls at the time of press. HRCM Vice President Ahmed Tholal and Prosecutor General Ahmed Muiz were also not responding to calls, as was MDP Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor and MP Mariya Ahmed Didi.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Brigadier General Nilam suspended following testimony to Government Oversight Committee

Former head of military intelligence, Brigadier General Ahmed Nilam, has been relieved of his duties at the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF), by Defence Minister Colonel (Retired) Mohamed Nazim.

According to a statement by the Defence Ministry yesterday, General Nilam was suspended because a case involving the former head of military intelligence was under investigation.

The statement did not provide further details or specify the nature of the investigation and alleged offence.

The move follows the Brigadier General’s testimony (Dhivehi) to parliament’s Government Oversight Committee on January 9, which was made public on Wednesday after MPs on the committee voted to publicise minutes of the closed session.

During the past two weeks, the oversight committee has summoned high-ranking officers of the security services for its review of the Commission of National Inquiry’s (CNI’s) report into the transfer of presidential power on February 7, 2012.

In his testimony to the committee, Brigadier General Nilam said he was asked by Defence Minister Nazim if he believed that the transfer of power amounted to a coup or a revolution.

Nilam said he replied that, “looking at it academically, this has all the characteristics of a coup.”

“I have even looked into this and studied this along principles that academicians would consider. So I told [Nazim] that this has all the characteristics. He didn’t say anything else,” Nilam said.

Asked by pro-government Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Ahmed Nihan if he believed there was a coup d’etat, Nilam said based on his experience in military intelligence, “this has roots that go much deeper.”

Brigadier General Nilam was seen in leaked video from inside the MNDF headquarters showing a frenzied former President Nasheed ordering officers to go out and confront the mutinying police on the morning of February 7.

Responding to questions by committee members, Nilam explained that the president, defence minister and chief of defence forces were issuing orders because “the [military] lines weren’t working.”

“I was really saddened. This was not something I ever saw inside the military. There has been insubordination. There are former officers here [among MPs on the committee]. There is insubordination. But things have never happened like this in such an operation,” Nilam said at the committee.

Nilam added that he saw a president in a “very helpless” state, which was “a sad moment.”

“We are entrusted with the duty and responsibility of protecting the country’s independence and sovereignty. It is truly disturbing to see something like from [the military],” he said.

The brigadier general said he was present when current Defence Minister Nazim relayed the message for the president’s “unconditional” resignation.

He also noted that military officers banged the president’s car with their boots while he was taken to the President’s Office from the military headquarters and that current Chief of Defence Forces General Ahmed Shiyam took over as acting chief before President Nasheed officially resigned.

“There are lot of questions here. I believe that this should be investigated thoroughly and looked into. These are very serious matters,” he said.

Under Maldivian law, Brigadier General Nilam continued, a “coup d’etat” could not be carried out without the military’s involvement as the offence is specified and prohibited in the Defence Forces Act of 2008.

Asked by the committee’s chair, MP Ali Waheed, if there was a threat to the life of President Nasheed had he not resigned, Nilam said weapons were stored because there was fear of live armour being used and that the mutinying police were armed with riot gear.

Nilam also revealed that the military did not have “any control of [presidential residence] Muleeage after 7:00am or 7:30am in the morning.”

Police and ex-servicemen entered Muleeage after 7:15am on February 7, 2012, he added.

First Lady Laila Ali and the president’s daughters were reportedly taken to a safe location in the morning.

Continuing his testimony, Brigadier General Nilam said he overheard President refuse assistance from two foreign nations before he decided to resign.

“[The President] said this is an internal matter. He answered both calls in much the same way,” he said.

Nilam added that there was possibility of bloodshed “if it dragged on” and that the president’s life was in danger.

Meanwhile, former Chief Superintendent of Police Mohamed Jinah was also relieved of his duties last week following his testimony to the oversight committee.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed’s ousting result of “planning, propaganda and a lot of work”: Umar Naseer

The resignation of former President Mohamed Nasheed on February 7, 2012 was the result of “planning, propaganda and a lot of work”, interim deputy leader of the government-aligned Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Umar Naseer has claimed.

Introducing candidates from “Team Umar” at a rally last week ahead of the PPM’s first congress this weekend, Naseer urged supporters to vote for members of his team as they had “produced results” through street activism against the formerly ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) administration.

“A lot of people told us that Mohamed Nasheed’s government cannot be toppled from the street. I said while contesting for DRP’s [Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party’s] deputy leader that I was coming to this post to topple Mohamed Nasheed’s government from the street. We have proven and shown that,” he said.

“You should not think that February 7 happened automatically,” he continued. “It did not happen like that. It was the result of planning, propaganda and a lot of work by some people. It did not happen automatically.”

While former President Nasheed insists that he was forced to resign “under duress” following a police mutiny and loss of command and control over the military, a Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) found that the transfer of power to then-Vice President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik was constitutional.

Speaking at last week’s rally, Umar Naseer said members of his team led protests for 22 consecutive nights and played an important role in backing up mutinying police officers in the early hours of February 7.

In an interview with Australian journalist Mark Davis for the SBS Dateline television programme in February 2012, Naseer claimed he was at a “command center” on the night of February 6 directing protests by the then-opposition.

“On the protesters’ side, we were informing and educating the police and army through our speeches and television programs,” Naseer said.

Asked by Davis if the opposition had made any other inducements, such as promises that they and their families would be “looked after” if they switched sides, Naseer said “there were.”

He added that the former president could have been beaten by a mob if he had emerged from the military headquarters without agreeing to resign.

At the first PPM rally following the controversial transfer of presidential power, Umar Naseer said he told former President Nasheed to resign “or else you might lose your life.”

Naseer claimed that the former president’s choices were to either resign peacefully or “resign after bloodshed.”

“While the operation [protest] was going on that night, I was at the commanding center. I was talking to Nasheed’s close aides. I told them to surrender; otherwise [he] might lose life. I told them that repeatedly. But, firstly, they responded arrogantly saying they do not have to surrender [because] such a circumstance has arrived,” Umar claimed.

But around 8:30am the next morning, Umar claimed that Nasheed called him saying that he wanted to resign. Nasheed said that he would not participate in any political activities hereafter, Umar added.

“Nasheed called and said that he is prepared to resign. He requested arrangements to be made for him and his family to leave for somewhere else. I told him that it will be arranged and to prepare for resignation,” Umar claimed.

Following media coverage of those remarks, Umar however released a statement claiming he did not imply that President Nasheed’s life was threatened by police and Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF).

During the unrest, Umar said that he spoke to Former Defence Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu and told him that their lives were in danger because of the large number of protesters in Republic Square.

“I said his life could be in danger because of the large number of people gathered there [Republican Square] and it seemed that police, MNDF did not have the capacity to control the crowd – not even us,” Umar said.

“We feared from our hearts that if the civilians [protesters] had entered the MNDF headquarters by using any means, Nashed, Tholhath and MNDF and police inside the building [at the time] would have been at danger.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Former military, police intelligence chiefs claim Nasheed had no choice but to resign

The former Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) chiefs have claimed that former President Mohamed Nasheed had no choice but to resign on February 7, 2012, following a police and military mutiny.

The allegations were made public after meeting minutes of Parliament’s Executive Oversight committee were published in the parliament’s website.

The committee is currently conducting an inquiry into the controversial transfer of power that took place. It has so far interviewed senior military officers, police officers and senior officials of both the current and former government.

Among the interviewees were  former Chief of Defence Force (retired) Major General Moosa Ali Jaleel, former Commissioner of Police Ahmed Faseeh, and former MNDF Male’ Area Commander (retired) Brigadier General Ibrahim Mohamed Didi.

Others interviewed included former intelligence heads of the MNDF and police: Brigadier General Ahmed Nilam and Superintendent Mohamed ‘MC’ Hameed.

On February 7 2012, a continuous 22 day protest led by then opposition politicians, religious scholars and later joined by mutinying military and police officers, led to the sudden resignation of President Nasheed. The protests were fueled following Nasheed’s controversial detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed.

The ousted President subsequently alleged he was forced out of office in a coup d’état.  However, this claim was challenged in report by the Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CNI), which found the transfer of power legitimate and constitutional.

“No other way for Nasheed” – former Chief of Defence Force Moosa Ali Jaleel

Chief of Defense Force Moosa Ali Jaleel told the committee that the circumstances leading up to the resignation of former President gave rise to the fact that resignation was obtained by “illegal coercion”.

“I fully believe that President [Nasheed] resigned under duress,” he said.

Jaleel refused to describe the transfer of power as coup, stating that this should be decided by the court. However, he claimed that the transfer of power only took place because it involved assistance from the military.

“What I am saying is that the military was there when about 15,000 protesters gathered during protests of August 12-13 2004, but the government did not topple. There was a armed attack by the Tamil Tigers on November 3, 1988, and the government did not topple. But on February 7, 2012, during a protest of 2500, the government was toppled. I am referring to the statistics,” he said.

He added that the circumstances and the violent environment around the MNDF headquarters meant that “there was no other way for President Nasheed [than to resign].”

“The control of the MNDF Headquarters was not with the president, but it was exactly the way the Defense Minister wanted,” he alleged.

Jaleel added that no president could be sure of his safety when those officers who were supposed to look after his security began to call for his resignation. He would know his power no longer exists and his command no longer followed, added Jaleel.

“It is a coup” – former military intelligence head Ahmed Nilam

Former MNDF intelligence chief Brigadier General Ahmed Nilam echoed Jaleel’s remarks. Asked whether the toppling of Nasheed was a coup or a revolution, he claimed it was a coup.

“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,” he said.

Nilam said he studied the events after the incident took place, which fitted an academic’s definition of a coup. However, Nilam also highlighted that it was up to a court to legally determine whether it had been a coup or not.

Asked if he had given the same details to the CNI, Nilam said he did given the same statement to the commission but it had not been reflected in its result.

He also reiterated that had not for the military assistance in the toppling of the government, there would have been no coup and Nasheed would not have been forced to resign.

“Police officers disobeyed their orders” – former Commissioner of Police

In his statement to the committee, Commissioner of Police Ahmed Faseeh alleged that police officers who gathered in Republican Square on February 7 had disobeyed orders and their actions were grossly inconsistent with the Police Act, as well as professional standards established within the police.

Recalling the events, Faseeh said that he had done everything he could to control the situation but said there came a point where the officers had openly mutinied and disobeyed his orders.

“The actions of the police officers that night were unlawful. I am not a lawyer, so I can’t go into the details. But a lot of unlawful activities were carried out by the police,” he claimed.

However, Faseeh said that he did not know whether Nasheed had resigned under duress because he had not been present with him in  the MNDF headquarters.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Footage leaked of museum vandals destroying pre-Islamic artifacts

Private broadcaster Raajje TV has aired leaked security camera footage showing a group of men vandalising pre-Islamic artifacts in the national museum on February 7, 2012.

Around 35 exhibits were destroyed when  half a dozen men stormed into the museum amid the political chaos of February 7, after former President Mohamed Nasheed resigned under controversial circumstances during a police and army mutiny.

The footage shows a group of men entering the museum, knocking over glass cases and smashing Buddhist-era statues.

Local daily Haveeru reported today that it had learned the men were “religious extremists” who belonged to a local group.

In May 2012, police forwarded cases against four suspects involved in the vandalism to the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO). Police at the time declined to reveal any information regarding the identity of the four suspects.

Officials at the PGO were unable to confirm today if the cases had been filed at the Criminal Court.

According to museum director Ali Waheed, the vandals destroyed “99 percent” of the evidence of the Maldives’ pre-Islamic history prior to the 12th century, including a 1.5-foot-wide representation of the Buddha’s head – one of the most historically significant pieces at the museum.

An official at the museum told Minivan News following the incident that the group “deliberately targeted the Buddhist relics and ruins of monasteries exhibited in the pre-Islamic collection, destroying most items beyond repair.”

“This is not like a glass we use at home that can be replaced by buying a new one from a shop. These are originals from our ancestors’ time. These cannot be replaced ever again,” the official said.

In September 2012, the United States government donated US$ 20,000 (MVR 308,400) to help restore and repair the damaged artifacts.

The vandalism was reminiscent of the Taliban’s demolition of the great carved Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan in early 2001 and raised fears that extremists were gaining ground in the Maldives, the New York Times reported in February.

AFP meanwhile reported former President Nasheed as saying that the vandals included Islamist hardliners who had attacked the museum because they believed some of the statues inside were “idolatrous”.

In the weeks leading up to the transfer of presidential power on February 7, former President Nasheed’s administration was accused by a coalition of religious NGOs and opposition parties of weakening Islam in the Maldives under the influence of “Jews and Christian priests.”

On December 23, 2011, the opposition alliance held a massive rally in the capital Male’ to “defend Islam” from Nasheed’s allegedly liberal policies and securalisation agenda.

In November 2011, monuments gifted by the South Asian countries to the Maldives ahead of the 17th summit of South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC), hosted in Addu City, were denounced as idolatrous and vandalised.

Removal of the contentious monuments was one of the five demands of the December 23 coalition, who also demanded that the government prohibit Israeli airlines from operating in the Maldives, shut down brothels doubling as massage parlours, reverse policies to allow sale of alcohol in city hotels and condemn United Nations Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay for her suggestion that flogging be abolished as a punishment for extra-marital sex.

After coming to power, the ruling coalition withdrew the demands in the People’s Majlis.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Chair of Parliament’s Executive Oversight Committee claims CNI report “flawed” based on the findings “so far”

The Chair of Parliament’s Executive Oversight Committee, MP Ali Waheed, has claimed the August 2012 report produced by the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) was “flawed” based on the findings of the committee “so far”.

The Commonwealth-backed report investigated the circumstances surrounding the controversial transfer of power in February 2012.

MP Waheed, of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), made the claim in a press conference held by the parliament select committee in the early hours of Saturday.

Waheed said many interviewed by the committee claimed the CNI report lacked “key information they had given [the CNI panel]”.

“Some have even claimed their information was wrongly presented,” he said, but declined to reveal the identity of those who made the claim.

The committee previously requested President Mohamed Waheed Hassan to hand over statements of key figures of the former government and military officials given to CNI. The request was rejected and a bid by the committee to issue a legal order demanding the information failed when a vote was put to the members.

MP Waheed on Saturday described the president’s refusal to share the information as a “blessing in disguise”.

“Some people who attended the committee [meeting] have told us that key information they gave was missing from the CNI report, and said they did not accept its findings,” he said.

The opposition-controlled committee is conducting a parliamentary inquiry on the controversial transfer of power, while also reviewing the CNI report.

A 22 day continuous anti-government protest led by then opposition figures, religious scholars and mutinying police and military officials, following the controversial detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed, led to the sudden resignation of then-President Mohamed Nasheed. Nasheed and his party later alleged he was forced out of office in a coup d’etat.

However in August 2012 the CNI formed by incoming President Mohamed Waheed Hassan and backed by the Commonwealth released a report declaring the transfer of power was legitimate.

As part of its present inquiry, the parliament’s committee has summoned former intelligence heads of the police and the Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF), including Superintendent Mohamed ‘MC’ Hameed and Brigadier General Ahmed Nilam.

Last Friday the committee summoned former SAARC Secretary General and Human Rights Minister Dhiyana Saeed, former Commissioner of Police Ahmed Faseeh and former Police Superintendent Mohamed Jinah. It has also announced that two international experts will take part in assisting the inquiry for a period of two weeks.

“Huge crime against the state”

According to Waheed the parliamentary inquiry was “revealing” information suggesting a “huge crime against the state” involving individuals, leaders of political parties and senior figures within the police and the military.

“From what we have found out, the committee has come to the conclusion that the events very much involved the stakes of two pivotal figures. They are President Nasheed and President Waheed. This I say because the events involved people who were loyal to both Nasheed and Waheed,” he said.

He also admitted the names of several people have been floated within the committee who needed to be questioned in the course of the inquiry, including the former president and his successor. Others included former Home Minister Hassan Afeef, former Defense Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu and key senior officials of Nasheed’s administration.

MP Waheed also reiterated that a lot of people had been hesitant to speak to the CNI as it was formed by President Waheed’s government and included senior figures of the events of February 7. Some of those people cabinet positions, Waheed said.

“In light of what we have come to know, a lot of people were eager to raise their concern and share information regarding the [controversial transfer of power], but they were not sure of the right person to should share their concerns with,” he said.

A similar notion was put forward by Dhiyana Saeed in her personal memoir, in which she wrote of a plot by Nasheed’s political opponents to assassinate him.

“I desperately needed to consult someone but who? … I couldn’t go to my associates on this side because now I didn’t know whose hands were tainted and whose hands weren’t. The politics was so bitter, so deeply divided and so polarized that if I happened to confide in the wrong person I thought what I had to say would be reported to the wrong people and covered-up,” she wrote, in her memoir.

Meanwhile, Waheed noted security concerns raised by those who appeared before the committee, claiming they were “at risk” for sharing such confidential information.

“Some individuals who have given witness to the committee have raised concerns over their security and requested security. The committee has debated the matter and already informed the speaker [of its views],” he said.

“I don’t deny the fact that we may need to summon more people in the coming days. Some of the names of people we plan to summon may not be even mentioned in CNI report,” he said.

Asked of former SAARC Secretary General and Human Rights Minister Dhiyana Saeed’s allegations of assassination attempts against Nasheed, Waheed said the committee would look into the allegations.

“The committee will very seriously look into the concerns raised by Dhiyana of a plotted assassination of former President Mohamed Nasheed,” he said.

“Inquiry is not politically motivated” – MP Ali Waheed

Challenged as to the credibility of the report, given that the committee had an opposition majority, Waheed said that they had decided to look into the matter not based on any “political motives”, and that the inquiry was solely based upon “national interest”.

“The committee’s findings will not produce politicised results. We are summoning key stakeholders including those in senior positions in the government.  The findings will not be based on the word of one just one person. We will not include any allegation against anyone without verifying it,” he said.

He added that the inquiry was not about the two former presidents or about President Waheed.

“This is not about the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) or the MDP. This is not an inquiry carried out by putting key political actors in a single chart and drawing conclusions for political benefit.”

He also affirmed that no unverified claims would be included in the report.

“[The report] will be based on information given by key people in positions of the state, who by the constitution are obliged to give true information,” he said.

Waheed also expressed confidence the report will unveil the truth of what happened on February last year, and said the committee was even willing to go to a public debate with those who wished to challenge its findings.

Presidents Office Spokesperson Masood Imad was not responding at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament committee to seek international expertise for CNI report review

Parliament’s Executive Oversight Committee is seeking international experts to help oversee a review of the Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) report.

Committee Chair Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ali Waheed said during a press conference yesterday (January 9) that efforts were being made to bring international experts in the fields of law and public inquiries to the Maldives for a review of the CNI report. The process is expected to take a minimum of two weeks.

The CNI report, which was released back in August 2012, looked into the circumstances surrounding the controversial transfer of power in February the same year. The report concluded that the change of government had been constitutional.

The government today dismissed the review as being politically motivated, while also rubbishing allegations that President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik had violated the constitution by not providing information from the CNI’s investigation to parliament.

Ali Waheed has claimed that the purpose of seeking international expertise was to ensure the autonomy and credibility of the parliamentary inquiry for both local and international actors. He added that parliament secretariat would make the announcement for applicants to fill the two positions at a later date.

The press conference was held right after the committee summoned the two former intelligence heads of both Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) and Maldives Police Services as part of the parliamentary inquiry.

Ali Waheed was not responding to calls at the time of press. However, he was reported in local media as describing yesterday’s meeting as one of the most “extraordinary, concerning and fearful” experience in his parliamentary career.

“The information the committee got from the [intelligence heads] surprised me. New questions have come up over what took place last year,” he said. “The former intelligence heads wept at today’s committee meeting.”

Impartiality

When questioned about the impartiality of the committee, which has a majority representation of MDP members, Waheed claimed that the committee has previously been mostly made up of former opposition parties under the former administration.

He added that the committee at the time, under an opposition majority, had taken major decisions against the former government such as endorsing the bench of the Supreme Court during former President Nasheed’s administration.

“If the Maldivian Supreme Court is deemed legitimate, than regardless of who controls the majority of the committee, its decisions would be binding as well. This committee will do everything it can to maintain its credibility and autonomy,” he told local media. “I hope that committee members and members who give evidence to the committee will also think about that. I want this inquiry to take place transparently.”

Constitutional claims

Five members of the Executive Oversight Committee today passed a motion stating that President Waheed had disregarded Article 99 of the Constitution.

Article 99 states that the [Parliament] or any of its committees has the power to – (a) summon any person to appear before it to give evidence under oath, or to produce documents. Any person who is questioned by the [Parliament] as provided for in this Article shall answer to the best of his knowledge and ability; (b) require any person or institution to report to it; (c) receive petitions, representations or submissions from interested persons or institutions.

When contacted today, Media Secretary of Presidents Office Masood Imad declined to comment, stating that he “was very busy”.

He requested Minivan News to ask the committee members as to what constitutional clause President Waheed was alleged to have violated by not providing the information to parliament.

Masood said yesterday that the statements given to CNI were not in public domain and therefore it would be President Waheed who would make a decision on the matter.

“That is a property of [CNI], but now that commission has been dissolved. So now whether to make the documents available in the public domain is solely up to President Waheed to decide,” he said at the time. “The commission was formed to release a report on the findings. The report is now available, that means it will have what is mentioned in the statements.”

President’s Office Spokesperson, Ahmed ‘Topy’ Thaufeeq also dismissed the committee’s motion claiming that it was a “political” decision.

In an interview given to Channel News Maldives today, Thaufeeq said that the new government has never tried to exert undue influence over the parliament.

“President Waheed has never even once violated the constitution. He is using the powers that have been vested to him by the constitution. He has never gone beyond his jurisdiction. Yesterday, the decision was made by a committee that had the majority of opposition MDP. That is a political decision,” he was quoted as saying.

Thaufeeq went on to accuse the People’s Majlis of trying to influence the day to day running of the government.

“Government reluctance”

Executive Oversight Committee member and MDP MP Ahmed Easa responded that any information from the executive power must be given to the parliament unless it concerns the national security of the state or involves critical confidential information.

“Any document the parliament requests must be given from the government unless its concerns the national security or critical confidential information,” he said. “Even if the information concerns national security interests, there are procedures in which it can be shared. So far government has not said that those documents fit into the said criterion.”

He also claimed that there were no legitimate grounds for President Waheed to ignore the request from parliament without giving proper reasoning. According to Easa, the action “clearly violated the constitution”.

The Kendhikulhudhoo constituency MP admitted that committee would face “huge challenges” in reviewing the findings of the CNI Report without obtaining the information of which the report was based on.

“For an example, CNI has clearly mentioned that there are issues within the country’s judiciary. However, it has not gone into details. So how can we find about the mentioned issues within the judiciary without obtaining the information on which such a conclusion was based upon. We need to find out based on what information had the CNI come to such a conclusion,” he explained.

“They are crying out loud saying that the findings in the CNI report was the truth. If so what we are saying is that the truth must have been obtained from credible true information. Why are they hesitating to share that information with us?”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)