Tag: February 7

CNI committed to August deadline as co-chair temporarily departs for Singapore

The revised Committee of National Inquiry (CNI) charged with investigating February’s controversial transfer of power has said it remains committed to releasing its findings later this month, despite its Singaporean co-chair returning to Singapore until August 25.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed’s member on the commission, Ahmed ‘Gahaa’ Saeed, said today that the CNI’s investigations were continuing, despite co-chair G P Selvam – a retired Singaporian Judge – having to return to his home country to work on an arbitration case.

Saeed maintained that the commission’s report was expected to be sent to authorities on August 29, before being publicly released the next day, with Selvam believed to be working on the findings during his trip. Local media, citing a source in the CNI, reported yesterday that Selvam had been out of the country on business since August 3.

Without wanting to discuss the commission’s findings so far, Saeed told Minivan News that in previous cases where Selvam had been called to Singapore, any interviews with “important”, high profile witnesses had been rescheduled to allow him to hear such testimonies.

“When working with international partners, in some cases they will have existing commitments,” he said. “However, the commission’s work is continuing. Right now, [Selvam] is also preparing the report.”

A person familiar with the CNI’s workings meanwhile told Minivan News on condition of anonymity that there was some concern that the absence of the judge’ “may constrain” the panel’s ability to investigate at full capacity.

President’s Office spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza said the government had been aware of Selvam’s plans to return to Singapore, and believed that the CNI’s work would be completed “on schedule”.

“The CNI has not requested any additional time from the government to complete its findings,” he said.

CNI deadline

Earlier this month, Selvam stated at a press conference that the CNI’s findings would not state against whom the state should press possible charges.  He contended that this was for the Prosecutor General (PG) to decide.

Days earlier, former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, said he would not accept that the toppling of former President Nasheed’s government on February 7 was a coup d’état, even if the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI)’s report came to such a conclusion.

Initially, the commission was mandated to release its findings on July 31, but CNI members stated that their final report will be delayed, after hundreds of people have come forward offering new information.

Selvam at the time said that the new date for the report’s completion would be the end of August, which was later approved by the government.

Saeed said at the time that 244 people had registered to provide information to the commission following the reforming of the CNI.

“There has been a lot of interest. We will speak to each and every single one,” he said.

The new names joined the 87 spoken to by the government’s original three member panel, taking the total number of contributors to 331.

“That’s one contributor for every 1000 of population,” Saeed remarked.

Following the remarks by the commission, President Mohamed Waheed Hassan extended the deadline by which the CNI must conclude its report into February’s transfer of power by August 30, 2012.

The first three-member CNI was appointed by President Mohamed Waheed, following a police and military mutiny and Nasheed’s resignation, in what he and his party have described as a coup d’état.

Facing pressure from the Commonwealth and civil society NGOs, the government eventually agreed to reform the commission to include a retired Singaporean judge and a representative for Nasheed.

The former CNI subsequently released a ‘timeline’ into events that took place from January 16 to February 7.

The MDP accused the commission of trying to prejudice the work of new commission, and then released its own version of events in response – the ‘Ameen- Aslam’ report based on interviews with the security services. The government described the publication of this report as a “terrorist act”.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Judge Abdulla’s human rights violated, no physical abuse: HRCM

The Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) has told local media that while Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed had “not been subject to any form of physical abuse“ during his controversial 22 day detention, attempts had been made to violate his fundamental human rights.

Haveeru today reported that HRCM President Mariyam Azra had said that its investigation had uncovered evidence that the judge, who was detained during the administration of former President Mohamed Nasheed over allegations that he posed a threat to national security, had faced attempts to remove him from his post and send him abroad.

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), who had been in government during the time of Judge Abdulla’s detention, today raised concerns over what it claimed was the “complicit irresponsibility” of the HRCM – a body it alleged was biased towards the political interests of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

Local media reports today claimed that HRCM President Azra had opted against giving the names of those involved in the alleged abuse of the judge’s human rights.  HRCM also declined to give any other details at present that could influence any potential trials after charges were filed against Nasheed and several senior figures in the Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) this week.

Azra was not responding to calls when contacted by Minivan News at time of press.

The HRCM used today’s press briefing to publicise its concerns that “efforts” had been made to “coerce” the judge to commit unspecified actions that would have contravened his human rights.

“Serious concerns”

Responding to the press briefing, the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) – of which Nasheed is the current presidential candidate – said it held “serious concerns” in the selective nature of the HRCM’s investigations.

MDP MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor today alleged that the HRCM’s investigation had now formed the basis of criminal charges filed against Nasheed.  The case was today returned to the Prosecutor General’s (PG’s) Office after the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court said it did not presently have jurisdiction to hear such a case.

In March, the Prosecutor General Ahmed Muizz told Minivan News that the completion of the Nasheed cases was being delayed whilst police reviewed certain aspects of the investigation.

Ghafoor claimed that the decision to move ahead with the charges this week raised questions about allegations of political influence on the HRCM and the information it made available to the PG’s Office.

“I believe there is a very strong link between the HRCM holding this media briefing today and Islamist factions linked to [former President] Gayoom,” he added. “This week this faction has been very active in lobbying the HRCM, the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) and even the president himself.”

Just last month, Deputy leader of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Umar Naseer has expressed his confidence that the Prosecutor General’s (PG) investigation into charges against former President Mohamed Nasheed will see his imprisonment before the scheduled elections in July 2013.

“We will make sure that the Maldivian state does this. We will not let him go; the leader who unlawfully ordered the police and military to kidnap a judge and detain him for 22 days will be brought to justice,” local paper Haveeru reported Naseer as having said.

The PPM was formed by former President Gayoom, who also serves as head of the party.

HRCM investigation

Former President Nasheed became the first Maldivian president to be summoned before the HRCM in March this year in connection to his alleged role in the controversial detention of Judge Abdulla.

Nasheed had been requested to attend a HRCM hearing filed to try and understand who was responsible for taking the decision to arrest the judge. The former president attributed the initial arrest call to his Defence Ministry, on the grounds of “protecting” national security relating to alleged ethical concerns about the judge.

The summons of the former president was the first of three cases filed at the HRCM involving Nasheed. These cases all relate to potential human rights abuses allegedly carried out both by and against Nasheed during the lead up and aftermath of a controversial transfer of power that saw President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan installed as his successor.

Representatives of Nasheed’s legal counsel at the time claimed Nasheed has used his testimony to claim that he had been informed by the Home Ministry that the judge had allegedly posed a “national threat” – prompting his eventual detention.

The MDP MP added that Nasheed then claimed that the Home Ministry had communicated with the Defence Ministry on the situation, which in turn led to the decision to arrest the judge after bodies like the Judicial Service Commission has raised alleged concerns over his ethical conduct.

“I was told Abdulla Mohamed would not comply with the police’s summons to investigate allegations [against him],” Nasheed later stated at a press conference following the meeting with the HRCM.

“The Home Minister wrote to the Defense Minister that Abdulla Mohamed’s presence in the courts was a threat to national security. And to take necessary steps. And that step, the isolation of Abdulla Mohamed, was what the [Defense] Ministry deemed necessary.”

Nasheed claimed additionally that he had sent representatives to Girifushi to check on Judge Abdulla Mohamed’s well-being during his detention, alongside allowing the HRCM to visit the judge.

The MDP has also alleged that the decision to arrest the judge was related to a number of possible misdemeanour’s that had been attributed to him dating back several years.

In November, the national court watchdog, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), was ordered to cease an investigation into Judge Abdulla Mohamed by the Civil Court under an action the judge himself instigated.

MDP spokesperson and MP  Imthiyaz Fahmy contended following Nasheed’s first HRCM summons on March 21 that it was ironic that a leader he claimed who had openly discouraged the use of torture and actively campaigned against human rights abuses, had become the country’s first former leader to have been called in front of the HRCM.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MNDF threatens legal action over “imaginary” Ameen-Aslam coup report

The Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) released a statement yesterday threatening legal action against “those who make false claims about the Maldivian military, issue reports, and act in ways that causes loss of public confidence in this institution.”

The MNDF statement follows the publication of a detailed investigative report by former ministers in the ousted Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) government: Environment Minister Mohamed Aslam and National Security Advisor Ameen Faisal (also former Defence Minister).

The Ameen-Aslam report alleged that military intelligence had learned of the then-opposition’s plan to topple the government by soliciting “about 500 police officers to protest at the Republic Square” and highlights “unlawful and criminal activity” of mutinying police officers in the events leading up to former President Mohamed Nasheed’s resignation “under duress” on February 7.

The MNDF statement strongly condemned and expressed concern with “those of a particular political ideology making false claims and issuing reports about the Maldivian military, inciting hatred among the beloved Maldivian people toward the military and causing loss of public confidence [in the institution].”

The military “would not hesitate to take necessary action within the bounds of law against any danger to national security,” the statement added.

President’s Office Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza told Minivan News yesterday that the inclusion in the Ameen-Aslam report of the names of police and MNDF officers accused of involvement in the alleged coup was an “act of terrorism”.

“The report is illegal and an act of terrorism. They can’t reveal the names of officers of the security forces like that and threaten their families,” he said.

Asked if the government intended to take action against either the MDP or the co-authors of the report, Abbas said “the security services will decide on the matter.”

Speaking at a press conference this morning, Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim called on MNDF officers named in the report to sue for defamation.

Nazim said the officers had the right to clear their names and protect the dignity and reputation of their families, revealing that “internal discussions” were ongoing on the issue.

“The imaginary report released recently had names of some people in it,” he said. “I have told them to go to court and challenge it.”

He added that he would make a decision whether to sue the co-authors for defamation himself after due consideration.

Nazim was named in the report as “a coup leader” tasked with recruiting MNDF senior and middle-ranking officers to the cause of toppling Nasheed’s government.

The defence ministry would provide “any assistance we can” to the officers who intend to file defamation cases, Nazim said. Defamation was decriminalised in 2009 and made a civil offence with Rf5,000 (US$324) as compensation.

The MNDF statement meanwhile contended that the report was politically-motivated, contained baseless claims and was “irresponsible” in identifying individual officers accused of planning the coup.

The report’s naming of individuals in the military “achieves nothing apart from sullying the good name, reputation, honour and dignity of innocent people,” the statement read.

Ameen Faisal and Mohamed Aslam were unavailable for comment at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP’s report into February 7 “illegal act of terrorism”: President’s Office

The government has described a report (Dhivehi) released by the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) into the controversial change of power on February 7 as an “act of terrorism”.

The MDP released its report in counter to the timeline released last week by the three-member panel of the initial Commission of National Inquiry (CNI), which it had boycotted on grounds that the panel lacked credibility and independence. Facing pressure from the Commonwealth, the government had agreed to recompose the panel to include a nominee of former President Nasheed, a retired foreign judge, and UN and Commonwealth monitors.

President’s Office Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza said that the MDP’s decision to release a report that included the names of police and MNDF officers it accused of being involved in the alleged coup was an “act of terrorism”, and called on the authorities to take action.

“The report is illegal and an act of terrorism. They can’t reveal the names of officers of the security forces like that and threaten their families,” he said, demanding criminal prosecution.

Asked about the allegations made in the report and whether the government would look into them, Riza responded: “I am saying it is illegal to release such a report, so whatever is mentioned in it is not something we are interested in looking into.”

Asked if the government intended to take action against the MDP, Abbas said “the security services will decide on the matter.”

The report was co-authored by two cabinent ministers during Nasheed’s administration: the former Minister of Housing and Environment Mohamed Aslam and former National Security Advisor Ameen Faisal.

The authors claimed that the report was composed on fact and that no information had been included that lacked a primary source.

The report was released in a ceremony held at Male’ City Council hall by the former President Mohamed Nasheed.

Speaking during the ceremony, former President Nasheed said that the authorities should look into the findings in the report, which highlights the actions of the police and Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) officials on February 7, and who should be tried in the courts of law.

He further alleged that the perpetrators behind the ‘coup’ were political figures in opposition parties during his administration.

“This report very clearly states the names of those who were involved, and the roles they have played are stated in detail. I hope that the institutions of the state will look into it,” said Nasheed

He added that the report clearly underlines that the toppling of the government was illegitimate, and announced that the MDP would launch peaceful demonstrations and protests to ensure  the findings in the report were looked into.

“The report reveals that during September 2011, the intelligence services and several other sources received information that opposition political figures had begun to collect the information of about 500 officers in the police and the military who were willing to help topple the government. So they have been planning this since last September,” alleged Nasheed.

He said that it was an obligation of the MDP to the people of the Maldives to ensure that the authorities took action on the findings of the report, even if that meant the launch of demonstrations.

Speaking during the ceremony, Interim Chairperson of MDP, MP Moosa ‘Reeko’ Manik said now that the report very clearly stated that the MDP government was toppled in a coup, and the MDP would not remain silent on the matter.

People deserve to know the truth: authors

One of the two co-authors of the report, Mohamed Aslam, stated that people across the country were talking about the transfer of power on February 7 and that “people deserved to know the truth”

He claimed that the reason behind releasing the report was to let the people know what really happened after the initial three member panel of the CNI has attempted to mislead the people about the happenings of the events, by releasing a timeline that lacked truth.

Aslam said that the timeline issued by the CNI lacked several key facts, which he alleged had been deliberately omitted.

“We found that the toppling of the government was  the results of days of planning and discussions by several people,” he said.

Aslam alleged that those involved in planning the coup included several political figures, some media outlets, certain religious scholars and business tycoons in the country.

“They used the some police officers and MNDF officers to execute their plan,” he said.

Aslam also alleged that while Nasheed was inside the MNDF barracks, the rebelling officers tried to make Nasheed and the generals loyal to him believe that they had no control over the military, with units resorting to brutal violence outside the barracks committing several criminal offences inside police headquarters.

“Those involved in the coup believe that these events were carried out by a lot of people, and that they are protected by a large group of people, and therefore are safe. That is not going to be possible. This is not the same Maldives as years ago,” he told.

Aslam further claimed that some of the police and military officials who were against the coup were willing to give evidence in a court if deemed necessary.

Co-author of the report, Ameen Faisal said they collected information from several police officers of different ranks, and thanked the officers for their cooperation in formulating the report.

He expressed hope that those officers would also reveal the truth to the new CNI formed with the support of the Commonwealth, and followed fellow co-author Aslam in alleging that the timeline released by the initial three member panel of the CNI “lacked a lot of information”.

The report claimed that the genesis of the coup began during a meeting held in September 2011, between a dismissed MNDF warrant officer (grade 1), a retired brigadier general, a retired deputy police commissioner and some of the council members of former President Gayoom’s Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), allegedly in an apartment owned by PPM Council Member Ahmed ‘Maaz’ Saleem.

“We always planned on toppling Nasheed’s government” – Umar Naseer

PPM Interim Vice President Umar Naseer has meanwhile admitted to local media that he had always been planning to topple Nasheed’s government since the new President was sworn in on November 11, 2008, following the country’s first democratic multiparty elections.

“From 12 November 2008, we were planning on a way to bring down Nasheed’s government. We talked to anybody who we felt was necessary. We talked on the podiums, the media. But we attempted to do that within the norms of the constitution,” He told local newspaper Haveeru.

He also said that at the end of the day, they had succeed in ousting Nasheed “within the boundaries of the constitution”.

Responding to the report, Naseer further said that the “biggest problem” of Nasheed’s administration was that he had been giving illegal orders to the security forces of the country, and that the opposition parties were giving the security officers the message to not to obey those orders.

“When Nasheed locked up the Supreme Court using the police, I said that it was an illegal order. I said that arresting Abdulla Yameen and Gasim Ibrahim was carried out through an illegal order. The police have the right to not obey to illegal orders under the constitution. That is a new right entitled in the green constitution [the new constitution ratified on August 2008],” he said.

“All I did was tell the police and the MNDF that there was this right entitled in the constitution,” Naseer said.

According to Haveeru, Naseer also admitted that accusations in the report that he had attempted to hold a large demonstration right after the conclusion of the “Save Islam’ rally on December 23 2011, were true.

“They did not want that [to hold demonstrations]. But even that night, we would have toppled Nasheed’s government from the street ‘constitutionally’,” he said.

Naseer in an interview given to the SBS dateline program “Mutiny in Maldives” in February explained in English what happened from the perspective of the opposition demonstrators on February 7.

“We had a small command centre where we do all the protests. I command from the centre and give instructions to my people. On the protesters’ side, we were informing and educating the police and army through our speeches and television programs,” Naseer told at the time.

Asked by journalist Mark 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”.

“We called on the army and police and said that if a person was fired from his position because of their refusal to follow an unlawful order, the opposition would take care of them,” Naseer said.

“I had told Nasheed to resign, and that I was afraid for his life – because if Nasheed came out of the headquarters, people might beat him on the streets,” Naseer said.

Minivan News tried contacting Naseer, but he did not respond at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)