Tag: former president mohamed nasheed

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)

DRP “moderate” alternative to divisive views of PPM, MDP: MP Mausoom

The government-aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) has claimed it can offer the only “moderate” alternative to the country’s two largest political parties ahead of this year’s elections.

DRP Parliamentary Group Leader MP Dr Abdulla Mausoom said that between the increasingly “polarised views” of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and the government-aligned Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), his party represented an alternative viewpoint for voters and politicians alike.

The comments were made amidst ongoing speculation over whether presidential candidates representing the country’s government-aligned parties will opt to stand alone in September’s elections, or seek to form a “broad” coalition ahead of polling.

Following the conclusion of the DRP’s fourth national congress on April 25, Dr Mausoom claimed that after the 30 year rule of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and the previous government of former President Mohamed Nasheed, there was a growing hunger among voters for “something else” in national politics.

He claimed that this growing desire for political alternatives in the Maldives had led to increased interest in supporting the DRP from across the country’s political spectrum.

Yet despite MP Mohamed ‘Colonel’ Nasheed opting to join the DRP from the MDP back in March, the party witnessed a high-profile defection of its own last month with the resignation of Parliamentary Speaker Abdulla Shahid.  Shahid resigned from the DRP on April 15, shortly before announcing he would be joining the MDP.

Mausoom this week maintained that a growing number of MPs, voters and rival parties members had already expressed interest in joining the party in the build up to the election.

“We are getting pledges from many people that they will join us and we believe they are analysing the current situation,” he said. “Some [rival party] MPs have expressed support for the direction in which we are moving.”

Mausoom said he believed that a growing number of MPs were showing interest in the party – particularly from the PPM, which was formed by former President Gayoom.

Having formed the DRP back in 2005, former President Gayoom left the party with a number of his supporters back in 2011 to found the PPM. The split followed an acrimonious war of words between Gayoom and the DRP’s current leader, Ahmed Thasmeen Ali.

However, on the back of divisions in the PPM following primary elections held back in March, Dr Mausoom said he believed there was disillusionment among the party’s members.  the primary saw MP Abdulla Yameen – Gayoom’s half brother – appointed as its presidential candidate in a two-way contest with Umar Naseer.

Mausoom alleged that MPs and former DRP supporters who joined the PPM on the back of “accusations” started by former President Gayoom, were now rethinking their allegiances.

“They have seen this was just a game by Gayoom to maintain power within his family,” he said. “We will see more people who moved to the PPM [from the DRP]  aware of this.”

Moving forward

Upon the conclusion of the DRP’s latest congress last month, Mausoom added that the party had filled several key posts within its council, as well as other senior roles such as appointing new deputy leaders including female MP Rozaina Adam.

Alongside implementing a new party structure, Mausoom said the other key purpose of what had been a “very productive” national congress was to draft a manifesto document outlining the party’s strategy for the upcoming presidential elections.

He added that discussions had already been held on a early draft of the party’s manifesto that had been well received by DRP members so far.

However, Mausoom said that no further details on the direction for the party would be shared at the present time.

“The plan now is to streamline the manifesto to the needs of islands communities. Once it is finalised, we will be sharing it with the media,” he said.

Having been drafted with input from members across the country, Dr Mausoom said that the manifesto would incorporate the interests of voters from islands in the outer atolls as well as those of municipal voters ahead of the election.

“We are now geared to move forward,” he said.

Coalition agreements

Among the DRP’s coalition partners currently serving within the government of President Dr Mohamed Waheed, both the religious conservative Adhaalath Party and the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) have agreed to formally stand in a coalition with the country’s current leader though his Gaumee Iththihaadh Party (GIP).

The DQP and GIP are small political parties currently facing potential dissolution for lacking the minimum requirement of 10,000 members as stipulated in the recently passed Political Parties Act.

However, uncertainty remains whether other parties in the current coalition government would look to officially join with the president ahead of elections to stand against the MDP

Speaking to Minivan News this week, the government-aligned Jumhoree Party (JP) said it would not be looking to form a coalition with any party in the first round of voting.

JP Leader business tycoon and MP Gasim Ibrahim was last month reported in local media as telling supporters at a rally in Male’ that while he would consider forming a coalition with other political parties, but was not wiling to stand as the running mate of another candidate.

However, JP Spokesperson Moosa Ramiz claimed yesterday (May 1) that the party had decided to stand alone in the first round, adding that Gasim would take advice from the party council beyond that.

On the back of this commitment, Ramiz added that the party was this week working on finalising its own manifesto for the elections and would therefore be able give further details on its campaign strategy over the next week.

The PPM – the country’s second largest party in terms of parliamentary representation – has previously said it would not rule out forming a coalition with President Dr Mohamed Waheed or any other fellow government-aligned parties ahead of the presidential elections.

PPM MP Ahmed Nihan told Minivan News last month that the party had already engaged in talks over the possibility of forming a power sharing agreement with other parties in the government of President Waheed, although no final decision had yet been taken.

Nihan said that rival political parties needed to reassess their views on power sharing after thousands of people attended a gathering held by the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) on April 19 to announce the signing of Parliamentary Speaker Abdulla Shahid.

Meanwhile, MDP candidate former President Nasheed has meanwhile claimed his party had already ruled out joining a coalition during the elections, criticising the effectiveness of power sharing in Maldives politics.

Nasheed was brought to power during the second round of the country’s first multi-party democratic elections in 2008 through a coalition of numerous parties united against former President Gayoom. These coalition parties, many of whom now serve in the government of President Waheed, all later left Nasheed’s administration.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Guesthouse potential thrusts Maldives mid-market tourism into political fray

This story was originally published on travel review site, Dhonisaurus.com

Since the inception of Maldives tourism over 40 years ago, the country has seen the development of more than 100 islands into exclusive resorts which – by focusing on secluded luxury – are almost entirely cut off from local laws and politics.

The potential for expanding mid-market tourism in the Maldives through the “niche” guesthouse segment may emerge as an early election issue after senior opposition and government figures clashed over how best the country’s inhabited islands can profit from visitors.

While the present government has boasted of nearly doubling the number guesthouse business since coming to power in February last year, the country’s opposition unveiled plans to address what it called a “total disconnect” between the lucrative island resort model and local people.

‘Real Maldives’

Beyond the political rhetoric, a growing number of specialist operators have emerged trying to cater to the mid-market demand from tourists looking to experience the ‘real Maldives’ –  a side of the country often unseen due to the prevalence of the lucrative ‘one island, one resort model’.

One such group is Secret Paradise, which this year began offering tourists special packages in North Male’ Atoll and South Male’ Atoll aiming to combine the traditional tourist staples of sunbathing, water sports and diving with authentic Maldives experiences like cooking and eating with local families, or assisting at island schools.

Ruth Franklin, a senior UK business figure who helped develop Secret Paradise with a local partner, said that aside from providing a more authentic travel experience, a key selling point for the business was to provide more affordable holidays for tourists concerned the Maldives was out of their price range.

Franklin added that trying to realise the full potential for mid-market tourism was not without challenges, especially in terms of a tourist’s perception of budget.

“To many travellers, ‘budget’ means a room for US$20 or less a night in many Asian destinations. In the Maldives, budget should be interpreted in relation to the cost of a night on a resort for bed and breakfast. Guesthouses on average start at US$50 verses the cheapest resort at US$250,” she said.

Franklin identified another hurdle in the general lack of information available to tourists about life outside the country’s resorts; from the cost of transportation and the availability of local ferries – which are further limited on Fridays and public holidays – to adhering with local laws and culture on ‘inhabited’ islands. On these islands, drinking alcohol and wearing bikinis are not permitted.

“Our packages are designed to take this into account so that travellers have the option of day visits to resorts, sandbanks and picnic islands where the restrictions do not apply,” Franklin added.

Franklin said that compared to the country’s resort and even safari boat industries, the niche status of guesthouse tourism did grant the segment a unique appeal in the region.

“Independent travel will never be in my opinion as it is in Thailand for example and quite frankly I wouldn’t want it to be. My belief is that local islands should have a set number of tourist beds available that is governed by the Tourism Ministry,” she said.

“Whilst I think it is right to open up the island to tourists to allow travellers to experience local customs and traditions and to help support local economy I would not want to see islands inundated with travellers to the point that the best of the Maldives customs and traditions disappear.”

Franklin suggested that wider success for the guesthouse industry could eventually lead to growing pressure to amend laws relating to alcohol and allowing women to wear bikinis on local beaches as part of a potential trade off for greater economic viability of mid-market tourism.

“Whilst my belief is that alcohol will not and should not be available on local islands there is definitely already a keen interest by guesthouse owners to provide private beach areas for tourists,” she added. “I am not in support of this as I think those guests who stay on a local island should do so to also experience culture and tradition and as ‘guests’ should respect a country’s law and regulations.”

Compromise calls

In December last year, the author of the latest Lonely Planet travel book to focus on the Maldives told Dhonisaurus that compromise would be needed by authorities should they wish to ensure independent travel was viable for a wider number of businesses going forward.

Lonely Planet author Tom Masters said he ultimately believed that local islands could still provide independent travellers with “sufficient attractions”, even within the strictly conservative laws practices outside of the country’s resort islands.

“However, I think only a tiny proportion of potential visitors would be happy to accept such a number of restrictions on their annual holiday, and so if some degree of compromise could be reached on issues such as alcohol or sunbathing, then the number of travellers opting for island tourism over that in an expensive resort would rise enormously,” he said at the time.

“A weakling in need of love and nurturing”

Adrian Neville, a veteran of travel writing in the Maldives previously told Dhonisaurus that beyond the recent political arguments, guest-houses had played a major role in the development of the tourism industry, dating back to their foundation in 1972. However, such properties were abruptly closed for many years as of May 1, 1984.

“This was pretty much directly at the behest of the resort owners for obvious reasons and on the spurious grounds of social problems and the wrong type of tourists,” he said. “Of course, now those wrong types are just fine – now they are not ‘hippies’ but ‘independent travellers’.”

While guest-houses had been reintroduced back in 2008, Neville contended that he was not sure whether the general attitudes of resort owners in the country would have changed much, particularly in terms of supporting the fledgling industry.

“The sector is up and running, but it is a weakling in need of love and nurturing,” he said.

Neville claimed that while there was clear interest in the further development of a guest-house sector to allow independent travellers to take in the Maldives, the country’s long-term segregation of tourists from local communities may also serve to limit the potential.

“There is sufficient interest but it won’t grow quickly until the issue of separation or, most unlikely for the foreseeable future, co-habitation with different lifestyles, is resolved,” he said.

Quality standards

Tourism authorities last year noted that guesthouse demand would likely remain “quite insignificant” when compared to demand for the country’s island resorts.

However, speaking to Minivan News in March this year, Deputy Tourism Mohamed Maleeh Jamal praised the industry as a “phenomenon” that the present administration would look to continue to support.

“The industry is doing well right now in Hulhumale’ [an island situated ten minutes from the capital by speedboat]. I understand major operators are already coming out with their own brochures,” he added.

Despite pledging government support for the industry, Maleeh claimed that it would be vital to ensure that quality standards were maintained across the industry in line with the reputation built up by the Maldives resort industry over the last forty years.

“We don’t want anything unexpected to happen,” he added. With a growing number of domestic airports anticipated to be developed across the country in the coming years, Maleeh said he expected a growing number of guesthouses would be established to meet demand .

“Where there are transports hubs, there will of course be more guesthouses appearing,” he said.

However, Maleeh stressed that the success of mid-market tourism was dependent on making sure that infrastructure was in place to welcome tourists.

“In some of these islands, the infrastructure is just not there; sewerage, drinking water, garbage disposal and 24 hour electricity supplies are needed,” he said. “My main interest is that while any Maldvian can open a guest-housem can we make sure that the customers are there?”

Ahead of presidential elections scheduled for September this year, opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) candidate Mohamed Nasheed has pledged to promote and support wider guesthouse development as part of efforts to try and aid wider economic growth.

“Having tourists on inhabited islands is not going to result in the community facing any additional detrimental effects that do not already exist. On the contrary, having tourists will empower the islanders to overcome whatever objectionable issues that they may face,” the former president claimed.

“Maldivians will have to open their eyes to outside cultures, and allow for the increase in opportunities for development. In addition to direct employment and income generated by guesthouses, it will also boost other existing island businesses.”

Despite guesthouses seemingly being in vogue as a topic for electioneering, Raki Bench, founder of the guest-houses in Maldives website last year said he was  critical of the role played by the present and former government to develop the industry.

Bench added in recent years, despite previous government commitments to provide more mid-market accommodation for visitors wanting to explore the country’s inhabited islands, further support had been lacking.

“The government has not really been helping guest-houses at all. It is a small sector, but it is showing growth within the wider tourism industry. I don’t see any promotion from authorities,” added Bench.

“I do understand why this is the case. After all what is the point in promoting an industry with a value of US$50 a night when you compare that to what resorts can make.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: From confrontation to conciliation and coalition?

With the Maldives warming up for presidential polls slated for September and the Election Commission fixing July 15 as the date for opening nominations, the climate of confrontation from the past year is slowly but surely giving way to the possibilities of new coalitions, pointing to the inevitability of conciliation and/or reconciliation now and later.

If still some political leaders will still not talk about conciliation and nor talk to one another, and instead hold grudges against one another, it has have more to do with personal hurt and/or ego than politics and political philosophies.

Independent of the political implications involved, Parliament Speaker Abdulla Shahid’s decision to join the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), after quitting the Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP), is a case in point. At the height of the ‘power-transfer’ in February last year, the MDP charged him and the Majlis with impropriety in hurrying through the ‘succession processes’ after President Mohammed Nasheed gave way to Vice-President Mohammed Waheed Hassan Manik in a surprising yet not wholly unexpected turn of events. Earlier, too, Speaker Shahid was locked in a series of procedural issues between the Executive under President Nasheed and the Majlis, where as the ‘minority party’ the MDP saw him more as an ‘opposition man’ than as an unbiased Speaker of the House.

A fortnight after Speaker Shahid’s formal announcement, no major party in the ruling coalition has demanded his resignation. Nor has any of them talked about moving a no-trust vote against him. Individual voices have been raised, but they have remained as such.

The DRP to which he had belonged until the other day and of which he was among the leading-lights, has since gone about its national congress as if nothing had happened. The party has enough worries on hand, in terms of its continued stability and future, starting with DRP Leader Thasmeen Ali contesting the presidential polls of September. Going by media reports, the national council has amended the party’s constitution, authorising the executive committee to formulate the internal laws for dissolving the DRP, if and when it so desired.

Army told to stay away

In a fitting and much-needed direction ahead of the polls, Defence Minister Ahamed Nazim has reportedly told the armed forces not to get involved in direct politics. They should stop with exercising their democratic rights as voters, and should not identify with individual political parties, the local media quoted him as telling the personnel of the Maldivian National Defence Force (MNDF). A retired colonel of the armed forces, Nazim was at the centre of the controversy attending on the MDP charges of a ‘politico-military coup’ against President Nasheed in February 2012.

Minister Nazim’s direction now should have a salutary effect on the morale of the Maldivian forces in the future, if it is taken to its logical conclusion. It could help ensure free and fair elections, which the constitution has promised every five years. More importantly, it could set the tone and tenor for the political class and the armed forces reconciling themselves to the division of the security requirements of the State between the MNDF (external security) and the Maldivian Police Service (MPS for internal security duties), when the unified National Security Service (NSS) was bifurcated for the very reason in 2006, during the relatively long run-up to the democratisation process.

The political executive not having kept its part of the deal, the MNDF and the MPS have remained extremely and excessively politicised with their top-rung getting a make-over with every change of government. Given to practices from the past and also the paucity of MPS personnel at the ground-level, successive Governments too commanded the MNDF to what essentially are policing duties, leading to a cycle of ‘mutual dependency syndrome’ and consequent controversies. The fact that the MNDF was involved in the arrest of political personalities by successive Governments even after the bifurcation, in the one-day closure of the Supreme Court, all escalating to levels in which the force and also the MPS got entangled in the ‘power-transfer episode’ of February 7, 2012, speaks volumes.

Coalition realignment

Coalition and conciliation have been the basis for the emergence of multi-party democracy in the country and its sustenance since. Elections-2008 became possible, and results became pronounced, thanks to the opposition coalition of the time, particularly in the second-round, run-off polls to the presidency, despite what otherwise may be parroted in public. The process went unacknowledged as such, but that was what it was. Despite the controversial circumstances for which the 2008 constitution had not provided for, the realignment of that coalition was a major factor in the ‘transfer of power’ in February 2012.

In the run-up to the September polls, there is a talk of further realignment. Every party is talking to every other party, or is possibly sending out feelers. Whatever the reason, senior leaders of parties which were supposed to have been after one another were known to have met over the past year of conflict, controversy and confrontation. Where some such meetings were supposed to have been private, affairs became public knowledge almost immediately, whatever the reason, whoever leaked it.

Thus, Nasheed had DRP leader Thasmeen Ali and PPM’s Abdulla Yameen, since elected as the party’s presidential nominee, calling on him on separate occasions over the past year, like Speaker Shahid would do months later. Their’s was however said to be either a courtesy call on a former President or was to discuss specific issues like deadlocks in Parliament, where the MDP is the single largest party and controls many House Committees. Yet, the ice was broken, post-February ’12.

Protagonists remain. Of the three, Maumoon Gayoom and Mohammed Nasheed were past Presidents. The third one, Mohammed Waheed Hassan Manik, is the incumbent. Waheed has since called on Maumoon, talking about a possible coalition still for the September poll, against Nasheed and his MDP. President Waheed has also been talking to ruling coalition partner and Jumhooree Party (JP) presidential candidate Gasim Ibrahim and Gayoom’s PPM rebel, Umar Naseer. He already has the religion-centric Adhaalath Party (AP) and Presidential Advisor Hassan Saeed’s Dhivehi Quamee Party (DQP) in alliance with his own Quamee Iththihaad Party (QIP), all backing him for the presidency.

Gasim and Thasmeen Ali, leader of the DRP, founded by Gayoom before he split away and launched the PPM had once projected themselves as partners. There are also reports from time to time that the MDP has been sending out feelers or receiving them to and from partners in the ruling coalition. For them, Gayoom not contesting the primary even while retaining the party presidency and Yameen becoming the PPM’s presidential nominee should blunt some of their misdirected angst from the past, near and far.

The MDP is the single largest party, both in Parliament and outside now, going by the numbers. The recent cross-over by Speaker Shahid and a few others has added to the party’s parliamentary strength. MDP leaders claim that it is a reflection of the public mood ahead of the presidential polls. Candidate Nasheed has declared since that the party would not opt for a coalition as it was unworkable under the Maldivian constitutional scheme, which provided for Executive Presidency.

Party leaders attribute Nasheed’s declaration to the MDP’s confidence in being able to win the presidential polls by itself. Critics remain. They say, there are no takers for a coalition with the MDP after the 2008 experience, and that the MDP was making a virtue of a necessity. Yet, through the past year there have been occasion in which the MDP, and some of the leading partners in the ruling coalition like the PPM and the DRP, voting together on crucial pieces of legislation, reflecting the need and possibilities of ‘bipartisanship’, which is an inherent, yet unpronounced element of the Executive Presidency scheme.

End to ‘negative politics’

It is but natural for any nation that has continued with and under the same political leadership for three long decades, and a history of sorts before it, to suffer the effects of ‘anti-incumbency’ afflicting the regime. The 2008 Constitution and the presidential polls were the cause and effect of the anti-incumbency finding a democratic expression, leading to the most controversial of ‘transfers of power’ that the nation had anticipated or others had gone through. There is no reason why 2013 could not be a repeat of 2008, pushing 2012 to the background and permanently so, at least as far as the process are concerned and independent of the results, which rests with the people of the country.

If Elections-2008 were thus won and lost on ‘negative votes’, it may not be any different in 2013. In most democracies the world over, ‘anti-incumbency’ rather than the ‘promised moon’ has been at the bottom election-driven power-transfers. In some of those nations, palpable in the Third World than in the First, internal dynamics of individual political parties have been driven by their inherent belief in ‘anti-incumbency’ – and not their ‘positive’ politics, policies and programmes – putting them (back) in power.

So complete has been the belief that some leaders in some of the parties would rather fight to keep the party leadership with them, ready to be catapulted to power by the externality of anti-incumbency against the ruler of the day. This throws up the problem of the newly-elected not having thought of working out and working with a ‘positive programme’ to endear him and his party to the people at large, who thus end up crying ‘anti-incumbency’ before long.

Democratic over-heating

It is under these circumstances that post-poll governments in these democracies have often been driven to stick to their electoral promises which are mostly confined to ‘exposing’ those that they had replaced and bringing them to justice for whatever offence that they might have been said to have committed while in power and abusing that power. This ‘eye-for-an-eye’ merry-go-round, if it could be called so, has only made every one blind to the power that they have come to enjoy and enforce, rather by default than any other way.

This alone has had the potential to defeat the people’s faith in democracy, as they get to feel little or no positive contributions and consequences of democracy touching their everyday life. Despite hopes to the contrary at birth, Maldives has proved to be no exception. However, in this case, over the past five years of democratic over-heating Maldives has proved that popular democracy has come to stay. So has coalition politics, in power and/or out of it.

‘Coalition-compulsions’, a new phrase that Maldives and Maldivian polity will have to come to terms with even while practising it already, would imply that all stake-holders should be ready for future cross-over by individual parties and their individual leaders and should not say or do things that they might regret on a later date. In a nation where the total registered membership of all political parties does not add up to half the electorate, it is saying a lot.

It is a message to the political parties that they need conciliation processes and reconciliation procedures in their own larger and future interest than their short-lived present, which the first five years of democracy has proved to each one of them, individually and collectively. If at a critical stage in the nation’s history, Presidents Gayoom and Nasheed could ensure a smooth power-transfer through a promise of give-and-take in 2008, there is no reason why the un-kept promises as perceived by various stake-holders cannot be revisited in the run-up to the second presidential polls under the multi-party democracy scheme.

There is thus a need for finding institutional solutions for ending mutual conflict and consequent confrontation that the nation can ill-afford in times such as these — when political stability is threatened alongside by economic downslide. It can blame the economy on the external world. Political problems are a Maldivian making just as the transition to democracy was a boon earlier. Both have had the ‘Made in Maldives’ brand sealed all over them.

The writer is a Senior Fellow at Observer Research Foundation

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Maldives divided by “Islamic” and “anti-Islamic”: former President Gayoom

President of the Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) and former president, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, has claimed the Maldives now dominated by people belonging to the “Islamic” ideology and those belonging to the “anti-Islamic” ideology.

Gayoom’s remarks come shortly after public outrage over former President Mohamed Nasheed’s allegedly “laadheenee”(secular) remarks made during the speech he gave at the University of Copenhagen on the subject of the economics of climate change.

During his address, Nasheed stated the Maldivian population had largely rejected Islamic extremism, and, in a veiled reference to the Adhaalath Party, noted that “the Islamists were never a credible electoral threat.”

Following the speech, the religious conservative Adhaalath Party (AP) and Gayoom’s own party PPM issued statements condemning the remarks Nasheed had made.

Subsequently, a protest was launched by a group of hundreds – thought largely to represent supporters of the government-aligned AP – who in certain cases called to “hang Nasheed to death”.

AP last month publicly pledged its support to President Waheed by announcing plans to form a coalition with his Gaumee Iththihaadh Party (GIP) ahead of elections scheduled for September this year.

Anti-Islamic, anti-national

During a dinner held at Nasandhura Palace Hotel on Monday (April 29) night, Gayoom claimed that those belonging to the laadheenee ideology operated as a foreign organisation to change the country, and that Maldivians needed to decide on where they stood.  The comments were made at a dinner to honour the services of his Gayoom’s daughter Yumna Maumoon, who had resigned from the secretary general position of the PPM.

The former President, who ruled the Maldives unopposed for six consecutive five-year presidential terms, claimed many people believed the country had two political ideologies.

Gayoom added that in his view, these two ideologies were that of those who stood up for Islam and the nation and those who did not.

“These are the two options left on our table. We need to choose from one of these ideologies. We are, by the will of Allah, those who uphold the nation and Islam. PPM represents the aspirations of a nationalistic Islamic state. It is also the same aspirations represented by those who support PPM,” Gayoom said. “Those who are at the other end are anti-national and anti-Islamic people. They are attempting to install their own views among us, trying to transform us into the West.”

Gayoom further alleged that those standing by the anti-Islamic ideology wanted to destroy the independence and sovereignty of the Maldivian people, and “put the country in control of an anti-Islamic organisation”.

“We really need to understand and comprehend this fact. We have to carry out a lot of hard work to prove that our nation comes first, for the sake of this country, for the sake of our beloved people,” he stressed.

Gayoom contended that should the people of the Maldives fail to defend the country from anti-Islamic forces, it would mean the slowly beginning of “imported cultures” that the country was unfamiliar with.

“They will try to bring in another culture. A culture that we are not familiar with, a culture that represents anti-national, anti-religious beliefs and ideologies,” he added.

During his speech, Gayoom also emphasised the importance of ensuring that his half brother Yameen Abdul Gayoom was elected president in September.

Criticism

Both Gayoom’s PPM and the religious conservative Adhaalath Party have attacked Nasheed for his remarks in Denmark.

The Adhaalath Party claimed that Nasheed had misled the Danish audience on extremism in the Maldives.

“Nasheed misled them about the party he fears and envies most, the Adhaalath Party. Nasheed knows very well that the Adhaalath Party is not a party that has no power and influence, unlike what he said in Denmark,” read the party’s statement.

The party accused Nasheed of “placing idols” in Maldivian lands – a reference to the SAARC monuments gifted to the country by other South Asian nations during the 2011 SAARC Summit hosted in Addu Atoll – and of “giving our assets to foreigners” – a reference to the concession agreement to manage and upgrade the international airport granted to Indian firm GMR.

In his address, the former President acknowledged that there was “a lot of xenophobia, Islamic rhetoric and intolerance going on in the Maldives”, and noted the destruction of 12-century Buddhist statues, manuscripts, and other evidence of the Maldives’ pre-Islamic history.

“The vast majority of our society very tolerant people. If all this Islamist rhetoric is removed from official discourse, there will be a much more liberal society. I assure you the rhetoric will be removed from official discourse,” he said.

The Adhaalath Party meanwhile expressed astonishment “that there are a few Maldivians joining [Nasheed] in his work to get another chance to brainwash the Maldivian people. God willing Mohamed Nasheed will not be able to come to power ever again,” the party said.

“Nasheed shamed the nation”: PPM

The PPM similarly condemned Nasheed, claiming his remarks about Islam would disgrace the Maldives in front of other Islamic states.

The party further claimed that it was totally unacceptable for a Muslim to claim that there lay a need for an alternative Quran and the Hadith.

“A former president of a 100 percent Islamic nation speaking in such a fashion, abusing the religion of Islam and mocking Prophet Muhammed is a derogatory act that brings disgrace to the country in front of other Islamic nations,” read the statement.

The PPM alleged that Nasheed during his time as the president had spoken against certain principles of Islam in the bid to appease non-Muslims, such as allowing SAARC nations to gift monuments to the Maldives.

“Bringing a person like Nasheed back to power will be the worst decision people of this country will make, as it will be a huge blow struck against the nation and Islam,” the PPM contended.

Sold out Islam to bring about a coup, says Nasheed

In response to the remarks made by his political rivals, Nasheed addressing a rally held in the island of Bilehdhoo in Faafu Atoll on Sunday night,  claimed that politicians who disguised themselves as religious scholars had “sold out Islam” to topple his democratic government on February 2012.

“There is no greater sin in Islam than to orchestrate a coup,” Nasheed claimed.

“Wearing hats of sheikhs and religious scholars, they have committed a huge sin, an act which is absolutely haram. Today, this country has a haram government. Being a 100 percent Muslim country, we must not let them continue carrying out this haram act in front of our eyes. God willing, we will win this presidential election in one round,” he added.

During his speech, Nasheed spoke of the rhetoric used by political parties had against his administration prior to the contentious transfer of power in February 2012.

“In their ploy to topple our government, they spoke of two things. One is that it was for the sake of religion. In this context, one issue they raised was that the management of Ghiyasudheen School [in Male’] included foreigners. Meanwhile, we can clearly see that even here the principal is a foreigner, the teachers are foreigners.”

“After having preached this against Ghiyasudheen School, today it is the children of these religious scholars who are enrolled to study in that school. [Adhaalath Party MP] Muhthalib’s child goes to that school. The Supreme Court Judges’ children also go to that school. All the religious scholars have their children enrolled in this school, and this is because it is a school where the educational standards are very high,” Nasheed said.

“They toppled our government because we were establishing that school, and yet today their children are enrolled there,” he claimed.

“Maldivians have never accepted that religious scholars should get entangled in worldly political matters. They are pious, righteous people who should be advising people like us on religious matters. It will not do when today they themselves are coming out and drafting laws to govern massage parlours,” Nasheed said.

“All of this is clear to us Maldivians now: a coup d’etat was brought about in the Maldives, and this coup was orchestrated by selling out the religion of Islam.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC asks High Court to expedite case concerning legitimacy of bench in Nasheed trial

The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has requested the court expedite the case filed by the defense counsel of former President Mohamed Nasheed, challenging the legitimacy of the three-member bench appointed to his case.

The JSC made the request in a letter sent to the court last week. Lawyers representing the JSC previously requested the High Court dismiss the case, contending that the High Court did not have the jurisdiction to preside on the matter.

The JSC appointed the three member panel consisting of Judges Shujau Usman, Abdul Nasir Abdul Raheem and Hussain Mazeed to hear the former president Nasheed’s criminal trial – concerning criminal charges levied against him over the controversial detention Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

However, following the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Hulhumale-based court was legitimate and could operate as a court of law – dismissing Nasheed’s contention that court was formed extra-legally – the former president’s legal team subsequently filed a case at High Court contesting the legitimacy of the bench appointed to hear the case.

Upon accepting the case, the High Court issued a stay order on Hulhumale Magistrate Court to suspend all criminal trials concerning the arrest of the judge, pending a ruling on the legitimacy of the court bench.

Speaking to local media on Monday, JSC Media Official Hassan Zaheen said the commission sent the letter last week.

“We are the respondents of the case and in that capacity, we requested the High Court to speed up the case,” Zaheen told local newspaper Haveeru.

Zaheen claimed the request made to the High Court was “not a new practice” and that the commission had previously made similar requests.

Meanwhile Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has alleged that the JSC sent the letter to High Court in a bid to influence the outcome of the trial.

In a press statement released by the party, the MDP claimed the JSC had instructed the court to immediately make a ruling on the matter.

“If the JSC, as the respondent in the case, felt the case was being delayed, there is nothing wrong in asking the court to expedite the case. However, the MDP believes this is an attempt to influence the outcome of the case, as the JSC is sending its legal arguments in writing rather than speaking about them in the court room,” read the statement.

The MDP condemned the decision and alleged that the state’s judicial watch-dog was acting beyond its constitutional mandate.

The JSC has come under heavy scrutiny over its appointment of the panel of the judges – which several lawyers and members of JSC itself have claimed exceeded the JSC’s mandate.

Among the JSC’s critics include JSC member Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman – the member appointed from among the public.  Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman previously claimed the JSC had arbitrarily appointed three magistrates from courts across the Maldives to Nasheed’s case after dismissing the three names first submitted to the commission by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

“Moosa Naseem (from the Hulhumale’ Court) initially submitted names of three magistrates, including himself. This means that he had taken responsibility for overseeing this case. Now once a judge assumes responsibility for a case, the JSC does not have the power to remove him from the case,” Sheikh Rahman explained. “However, the JSC did remove him from the case, and appointed three other magistrates of their choice.”

Sheikh Rahman stated that the commission had referred to Articles 48 to 51 of the Judge’s Act as justification.

“But then I note here that the JSC breached Article 48 itself. They did not gather any information as per this article. They stated that it was due to the large amount of paperwork that needs to be researched that they are appointing a panel. However, this is not reason enough to appoint a bench,” he said.

Meanwhile, Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid – who is also a member of the JSC – stated that he believed that the judicial watchdog had acted unconstitutionally in assigning magistrates to a particular case.

“In deciding upon the bench, the JSC did follow its rules of procedures. As in, it was voted upon in an official meeting and six of the seven members in attendance voted on the matter. The seventh member being the chair, does not vote in matters,” Shahid explained. “However, whether it is within the commission’s mandate to appoint a panel of judges in this manner is an issue which raised doubt in the minds of more than one of my fellow members,”

Other critics of the JSC include United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, who also argued that the appointment of the judges bench was carried out arbitrarily.

“Being totally technical, it seems to me that the set-up, the appointment of judges to the case, has been set up in an arbitrary manner outside the parameters laid out in the laws,” Knaul said, responding to questions from media after delivering her statement in February.

Speaking to Minivan News previously, Kirsty Brimelow QC, one of three UK-based experts on former President Nasheed’s legal team, contended that the prosecution of his case before the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court fell “below international standards for fair trial procedure”.

JSC Media Official Hassan Zaheen was not responding to calls at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Candidates to file for presidential election on July 15: Elections Commission

Candidates for the upcoming presidential elections scheduled for September 7 will be invited to file their candidacy with the Elections Commission (EC) from July 15, the commission has stated.

Along with opposition leader former President Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), leaders of several political parties currently aligned with the current government of President Mohamed Waheed Hassan – including the incumbent – have publicly announced they will be competing for the office.

Leader of the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) Ahmed Thasmeen Ali, Leader of the Jumhoree Party (JP) and business tycoon MP Gasim Ibrahim and Parliamentary Group Leader of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), MP Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom – who won the party’s controversial presidential primary beating rival Umar Naseer – have publicly announced their bids for the presidency.

Speaking Minivan News on Sunday, President of the EC Fuad Thaufeeq said that the opening of the candidacies was not a “new announcement” as the constitution required the commission to announce the presidential election 120 days prior to the end of the current presidential term, which expires in November 2013. Therefore, he said the opportunity to file for formal candidacy needed to be opened on July 15.

“From July 15, all prospective candidates will get a 10-day period to file their candidacy with us. This period will include public holidays as well. So the due date to file candidacy will be July 24,” he said.

According to Thaufeeq, the commission has begun preparations for the presidential poll and is currently working on finalising “regulations” concerning the election which he claimed would be completed within a week’s time.

During the period in which the commission opened the regulation for public commenting, the EC president said it had received significant support from major political parties including the MDP, PPM and DRP.

Apart from the political parties, Thaufeeq also said that local NGO Transparency Maldives had also given very “constructive comments” on the draft regulation.

Transparency recently published a comprehensive pre-election assessment, highlighting vote-buying, political polarisation, and credibility as critical challenges for the 2013 elections.

The election was set to take place “against a context of uncertainty, crises of political legitimacy and unprecedented levels of political polarisation,” the NGO noted.

The Elections Commission has meanwhile revealed that this year’s presidential elections – which will be the country’s second multiparty presidential poll since the formation of political parties in 2005 – will see 31,000 new voters casting their vote.

According to the statistics from the commission, the total number of eligible voters for the election stands at 240,302 – 31,008 more than the number of eligible voters in the 2008 presidential elections (209,294).

The commission in March also opened registration for voters who are currently not residing on the island where they are initially registered to vote, in a bid to increase voter turnout for the 2013 election.

According to the statistics published at the commission’s website, voter turnout for the first round of the 2008 Presidential Elections stood at 85.38 percent with a slight rise in the second round of polling, at 85.58 percent.

The President is elected through a universal suffrage ballot where a candidate must obtain a minimum margin of 50 percent plus 1 vote to secure an election victory. Should any of the candidate contesting in the election failed to get the required number of votes, a run-off election is held after a 20-day period contested by the two candidates with the largest share of votes, to decide the winner.

Former President and the opposition MDP’s presidential candidate Mohamed Nasheed predicted that he would win the election in the first round while the remaining government-aligned candidates have maintained the winner of the elections will be decided in a run-off election, where losing parties form coalitions with either of the two remaining candidates.

Despite the claim, the opposition MDP have claimed that they do not plan to go into a power-sharing coalition with parties, elaborating that coalition governments were incompatible with the country’s presidential system of governance.

Nasheed – who was elected as the President in 2008 with the backing of then-coalition of parties “Wathan Edhey Gothah Iththihaadh” which fell apart within the first year of his presidency – previously claimed that he along with all political leaders of the country had tasted the “bitter lesson” of incompatibility of coalition governments and described that the idea of coalition governments contrasted with the spirit of the constitution.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Coalition governments incompatible with presidential system, contends former President Nasheed

A coalition government with cabinet posts divided among parties is not compatible with the presidential system envisioned in the Maldivian constitution, former President Mohamed Nasheed reiterated during campaign rallies at Fuvahmulah and Addu City this weekend.

Addressing large crowds in the two southernmost atolls, the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) presidential candidate accused mogul politicians of forming political parties only to offer its members “on a platter” to negotiate coalition agreements.

“[They say] my party will enter a coalition with your party if I can get this many seats in cabinet, that many judges, as well as a large warehouse and two resorts,” Nasheed said in Fuvahmulah on Thursday night (April 25), adding that “business” deals were made between leaders while party members remained “oblivious.”

Nasheed had previously characterised the cabinet of President Dr Mohamed Waheed as less of a team committed to shared goals than a group of individuals with divided loyalties and disparate ideologies often working at cross-purposes.

Both the Maldives’ own experience of ruling coalitions as well as lessons from “human experience” have established the conditions whereby such alliances could govern effectively without becoming unstable, Nasheed observed.

“In a presidential system, dividing the cabinet into four or five parts is not something we could do under any circumstances, [and] it is not something permitted by the Maldivian constitution either,” Nasheed said in Fuvahmulah.

According to the constitution, Nasheed continued, cabinet ministers are appointed by the president and are sworn to serve at his pleasure.

The constitution does not permit cabinet ministers to take orders from their parties instead of the president, Nasheed added.

Coalition governments therefore went against “the spirit of the constitution,” said Nasheed, and could not function under a presidential system.

Nasheed repeated the criticism of power sharing coalitions in his speech the following night (April 26) in Hithadhoo, Addy City.

The incentive for the proposed “broad coalition” to compete against the MDP was the hoped-for rewards of government posts and the country’s resources, such as uninhabited islands, to be divided among coalition partners, Nasheed contended.

Power sharing agreement

Nasheed’s remarks came while parties in the ruling coalition led by President Dr Mohamed Waheed are reportedly engaged in discussions over power sharing agreements.

However, in addition to President Waheed’s Gaumee Ihthihad Party (GIP), all major government-aligned parties have fielded presidential candidates, including MP Abdulla Yameen from the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), MP Gasim Ibrahim from the Jumhooree Party (JP) and MP Ahmed Thasmeen Ali from the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP).

Smaller parties such as the religious conservative Adhaalath Party and the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) – led by Special Adviser to the President Dr Hassan Saeed – have entered into a coalition with Dr Waheed’s GIP.

While business magnate Gasim Ibrahim is reportedly in talks with Dr Waheed over a potential power sharing agreement, the JP presidential candidate has said he would not consider becoming the running mate of any other candidate.

At its recently-concluded fourth congress, DRP Leader Thasmeen meanwhile dismissed the possibility of a coalition with either the PPM or MDP.

The PPM was formed in 2011 by DRP founder, former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, following months of factional squabbling and an acrimonious war of words between the PPM figurehead and his successor at DRP.

MDP rally in Addu City

PPM MP Ahmed Nihan told Minivan News last week that parties in the ruling coalition needed to reassess their views on power sharing after thousands of people attended a MDP rally on April 19 to celebrate the signing of Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid.

In his speech at the MDP rally in Addu City last night (April 26), Shahid meanwhile said that 1,300 people have signed for the party during the past week.

Speaking at his first MDP rally on April 19, Shahid pledged to carry out a recruitment drive across the country to bolster the party’s membership strength ahead of the September presidential election.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil society groups slam government for “failure to ensure conducive environment for elections”

Prominent NGOs have released a joint human rights brief accusing the Maldivian government of failing to create conditions conducive to free and fair elections, ahead of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) meeting to be held in London this Friday.

The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN) reported that with less than six months before the presidential elections “there are clear signs indicating that the coalition government in power since February 2012 has so far failed to set the conditions for free and fair elections in which ‘all parties and leaders are able freely to conduct election campaigns’.”

“The most critical matter in this regard is the continued interference of the executive on other branches of power, as manifested by the trial of several opposition members to prevent the opposition from running in the upcoming elections,” the brief reads.

Authorities have both failed to ensure a ‘free and fair’ atmosphere with respect to freedom of information or freedom to assembly, as well as made no efforts to inform and educate voters on electoral rights and responsibilities, the report claims.

FIDH and MDN highlight that promoting and protecting human rights has suffered from a “substantial lack of progress” and that a “culture of impunity for perpetrators of past human rights violations” has been institutionalised.

While “human rights abuses reduced drastically” following former President Mohamed Nasheed’s election in 2008, past and present police brutality, torture and impunity have gone unaddressed, states the brief.

Institutions such as the Police Integrity Commission (PIC), the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM), and a Presidential Commission – created in 2009 and disbanded in 2012 – failed to investigate and address human rights abuses, including torture committed by the police services, given their limited mandates.

“The coalition government established in February 2012 has been accused of a wide range of human rights violations, from violent repression of street protests, arbitrary arrests, sexual harassment of female protesters, torture, harassment of pro-opposition media, to legal and physical harassment of members of the opposition,” states the brief.

“Since the HRCM made public its reports on these allegations in August 2012, no action has been taken for investigation or redress,” the brief continues.

Systematic omissions have been identified in the the Commission of National Inquiry (CoNI) “serious enough to raise fundamental questions about the accuracy of the report’s conclusions.” Furthermore, recommendations made by the CoNI on August 30, 2012 regarding human rights abuses, torture, and impunity “were immediately dismissed by senior government officials; this could only encourage the security forces to disregard the rule of law and commit further human rights abuses in impunity,” the brief reads.

“Uncertainties” have caused a “new phase of slowdown” in the country’s legal reform process as well.

“Women have suffered and still suffer from the absence of a strong legal framework… and women’s rights remain at risk of being curbed by religious parties influencing the governing coalition and pushing for the full implementation of Sharia,” the report states.

Rising tensions regarding interpretations of Islam is “particularly an area of concern” given the “fundamental views being introduced by the Adalath party and some religious groups, mainly those that are being linked with Shari’a and harsh punishments,” claims the brief.

“Bearing in mind that there is absolutely no public trust in the judiciary to have the capacity to deliver justice under these circumstances, those critical of these [religious] interpretations have faced violent consequences,” reads the brief. “To date, there are no reports of an investigation or any on-going effort to find the perpetrators of these crimes [of murder and attempted murder].”

Following Nasheed’s claim he was deposed in a coup d’état, the Commonwealth suspended the Maldives from the CMAG, and said it had decided to place the Maldives on its formal agenda in February 2012 because of “questions that remain about the precise circumstances of the change of government, as well as the fragility of the situation in the Maldives.”

In September 2012, CMAG decided the Maldives would remain on the agenda under the item “Matters of Interest to CMAG”, however its suspension from the international body’s democracy and human rights arm has now been revoked.

CMAG recommendations

FIDH and MDN emphasised that the newly reformed CMAG mandate includes “situations that might be regarded as constituting a serious or persistent violation of Commonwealth values”, and the “systematic denial of political space, such as through detention of political leaders or restriction of freedom of association, assembly or expression.”

“These situations have continuously characterised the political environment of the Maldives especially since the change of power of 7 February 2012.”

FIDH and MDN provided CMAG with five key recommendations in regard to the deteriorating human rights situation in the Maldives.

They compelled CMAG to raise concerns regarding human rights violations in the Maldives, especially allegations of police brutality and torture, and request government authorities take all necessary measures to prevent violence, respect the due process of law and prevent arbitrary arrests.

A review of CMAG’s position on CoNI report should be conducted, especially in reference to “later developments”.

CMAG should also advocate for the preservation and consolidation of democratic achievements and take all necessary steps to guarantee the conditions for free, fair and inclusive elections in September 2013.

Providing technical assistance to the Maldives’ government is recommended. This is necessary to strengthen the rule of law and support the development of public institutions, in particular the judiciary, as well as independent commissions such as the HRCM, the PIC, and the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).

Finally, provide support to civil society organizations to raise public awareness about the role of public institutions and the importance of separation of powers, develop human rights education programs, and play a key role monitoring democratic and independent institution building.

Maldivian government recommendations

FIDH and MDN also provided the Maldivian government with a list of 11 recommendations to improve the country’s human rights failures.

This includes strengthening independent commissions, such as the PIC, JSC, and HRCM, in accordance with CoNI report recommendations. Reforming the judiciary should also be prioritized.

The physical and psychological integrity of human rights defenders, journalists and members of the opposition must be also guaranteed in all circumstances.

Initiating a national campaign to address past human rights violations (1978-2008), including “accountability for perpetrators, acknowledgement, truth-telling mechanisms, reparations, and legal and institutional reforms to prevent occurrence of new violations” is recommended.

“Such mechanisms would also act as a deterrent to prevent any future form of harassment, intimidation, arbitrary arrest or ill-treatment by State security personnel,” the brief states.

Additionally, the Majlis (parliament) should “urgently enact” pending legislation, ensure civil society is consulted, and that the bills “fully conform with international human rights commitments and obligations of the Maldives.” Furthermore, the death penalty should not be enshrined in those texts.

FIDH and MDN also recommend the government fulfill its various international commitments. This includes investigating allegations of torture, adopting implementing legislation for the International Criminal Court statute, as well as guaranteeing the human rights and protections enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Additionally, the scope of the Maldives’ reservation to Article 16 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) – which aims to eliminate discrimination in all matters relating to marriage and family relations, and ensures gender equality – should be significantly reduced.

Adhering to the recommendations of various UN Special Rapporteur’s, which have addressed some of the systemic problems within the judicial system and various human rights issues, is also recommended. As is arranging future Rapporteur’s missions regarding transitional justice and additional human rights challenges.

Government reaction

Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Dhunya Maumoon told local media yesterday (April 23) that Foreign Affairs Minister Dr Abdul Samad Abdullah had left for London April 22 to participate in the CMAG meeting.

Maumoon highlighted that this marks the first occasion the Maldives has been invited to a CMAG meeting since its removal from the agenda.

“The opportunity for the Maldivian Foreign Minister to participate in a CMAG meeting was a great achievement, and one which resulted from the efforts by President Waheed’s government in cooperation with the Commonwealth,” said Maumoon.

“Now Maldives will have the opportunity to partake in discussions at CMAG. But the Maldives delegation will not be present when the group discusses the Maldives,” she added.

Maumoon also reiterated the government’s position that the Maldives should not have been on CMAG’s agenda and that “the move was prompted by a lack of understanding of the true events that transpired in the Maldives.”

“Some countries” had realized this error and accused Nasheed of influencing CMAG members, Maumoon claimed.

While Maumoon admitted “there was always a fear of instability in Maldives due to the rather infant democracy in the country,” she also highlighted that “international partners have acknowledged the positive strides the country has made brought about in a relatively peaceful manner.”

In April 2012, Maldives’ permanent representative to the EU Ali Hussein Didi criticised the Commonwealth’s involvement in the Maldives, telling the European Parliament that the Commonwealth’s Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) lacked a clear mandate to place the Maldives on its agenda.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)