former president mohamed nasheed – Page 19 – Minivan News

“Anti-semitism, racism, xenophobia and religious intolerance” deeply entrenched in Maldivian political discourse: Dr Shaheed

Anti-semitism, racism, xenophobia and religious intolerance “are deeply entrenched” in political parties currently opposed to the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), former Foreign Minister in both Nasheed and Gayoom’s government, Dr Ahmed Shaheed, has said.

Dr Shaheed’s comments follow reports in local media summarising US Embassy cables first published by Wikileaks in 2009, and discussed during the then-opposition parliament’s efforts to impeach the foreign minister.

In particular, the Maldivian government’s engagement with Israel was the subject of a parliamentary debate November 9, 2009, in which Shaheed narrowly avoided impeachment following a no-confidence motion.

Opposition to the Maldives’ recognition of Israel was seized by then opposition groups in December 2011 as a sign of the Nasheed government’s “anti-Islamic” policies. The previously disparate parties formed the ‘December 23 coalition’, following a large rally in Male’.

Dr Shaheed said “Growing extremism hurts the Maldives rather than anybody else, because whenever a state is unable to deliver what is in the public interest due to intimidation from others, it is the state that suffers.”

“The growth of extremism itself has numerous causes, but none of it is linked to government policy towards Israel or Palestine,” he added.

Many Maldivians firmly believe that policies pursued by Israel affect their solidarity with Arabs and other Muslims, Dr Shaheed explained.

“We care about how Israel treats the Palestinian people, because we care about the safety of the Muslim holy places under Israeli jurisdiction, and because we need to have a dialogue with Israel communicating our interests and concerns on these matters regularly,” he said.

More space for civic reasoning in Maldivian politics is needed for the Maldives to “behave like the rational nation-state, with friendship towards all, that we claim we are,” he said. “Silence may be golden but dialogue is the miracle tool of diplomacy.”

In the original cable referred to by Sun Online, Dr Shaheed told then US Ambassador Robert Blake that he believed “radical clerics ignited a reaction” among the Maldivian population and this was “a lot, but not a genuine undercurrent.”

Dr Shaheed “highlighted that former President Nasheed pledged to “renew ties” with Israel in his September 24 (2009) UN General Assembly speech,” that the Maldives Defense Minister and Minister for Natural Disasters would visit Israel later that year, and both nations “have already signed agreements on health, education, and tourism”.

Speaking to Minivan News, Dr Shaheed said he believed MDP’s rivals considered the cables “the perfect fog-machine to distract any discussion of bread and butter issues in the campaign.”

“Many in the Maldives see the Palestinian-Israeli dispute in religious terms, and religious sensitivities are played up during election time,” he added.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs meanwhile told Minivan News the Maldives is “not against Israel”.

“The Maldives’ government always supports Palestinian citizens to have their freedom and urges this in the United Nations,” said Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Muaz Ali.

“This does not mean Maldives is against Israel,” he said.

“Anti-semitism, racism, xenophobia and religious intolerance”

“Neither former President Maumoon Gayoom nor former President Mohamed Nasheed divided the world into a Dar al- Harb and a Dar al- Islam as in classical Islamic international relations theory, which is what the Salafists in the Maldives want to do,” stated Shaheed.

Shaheed explained that “anti-semitism runs deep in certain sections of Maldivian society”, highlighting as an example an article published in Dhivehi on local news website Dhi-Islam in January 2011, reporting on the agreements made between the Maldivian and Israeli government.

“Under this heinous agreement, these people have thrown the little children and the youth of the Maldives, as well as the country’s education sector and the health sector and many other matters, into the lap of the evil Zionist Israelis, who, as we have been informed through the seven heavens, will never wish anything but evil for Muslims,” the article reads.

“Jews have even historically been an evil people who have been cursed because they had killed prophets and spread corruption on earth, and that they are the biggest enemies of Muslims is proven by the teachings of the Holy Quran and forms of the core beliefs of Muslims. This agreement will impose pressures to prevent the dissemination of these teachings,” it adds.

The report claims that Jews have falsely exaggerated “incidents” of torture and killings during the Holocaust “to inculcate sympathy towards Israel in the minds of Maldivian youths; to convince the Maldivian youths that the jews are the victims of oppression and to make them blind and insensitive to the occupation of Palestine, the seizure of Muslim holy lands, and the endless oppression the jews inflict on the inhabitants of the land.”

“This agreement is high treason or the highest form treachery against the noble Islam and Maldivian identity, upon which this country is founded. It is a matter far more dangerous and grave than can be treated lightly,” said the report.

Historical Maldivian – Israeli relations

There is no document to support the claim that Maldives ever severed diplomatic relations with Israel, in Maldivian or Israeli records, explained Dr Shaheed.

Instead, what appears to have happened is a downgrading of the relationship where no Maldivian president since the early 1970s has been willing to receive an Israeli ambassador formally in his office.

The Maldives voted at the UN to accept the legitimacy of Israel, on December 17, 1991, at the request of then President George Bush, by repealing the 1975 UN resolution equating zionism with racism.

“The Maldives was not alone in changing its policies towards Israel – there were a number of Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) states doing the same thing, or had even restored full diplomatic relations,” said Dr Shaheed.

“Under Gayoom, the Maldives categorically accepted the two-state solution. All of these actions were firmly grounded in international law and state practice,” he added.

The Maldivian government discussed the question of restoring ties with Israel following the Oslo Accord agreement in 1993, which established a peace process framework to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Israel agreed to recognize Yasser Arafat as its partner in peace talks and essentially exchanged land for peace. The Palestinians in turn recognized Israel’s right to exist while also renouncing the use of terrorism and its long-held call for Israel’s destruction.

The Gayoom cabinet agreed on a three-stage restoration of ties with Israel, beginning in June 1994. The Maldivian government “agreed to recognize Israeli passports and ended the travel ban” during stage one, explained Shaheed. Shortly thereafter stage two saw trade and commercial relations were fully restored. Restoring political ties occurred during stage three, with regular meetings at senior diplomatic levels, between 1995 to 2008.

“So what President Nasheed said at the UN – and that was my formulation – was that Maldives wanted friendly relations with all states in the General Assembly,” said Dr Shaheed.

“This does not and has not prevented Maldives from criticizing actions of UN member states when they violate peremptory norms of international law, but Nasheed was not going to divide the world into the good the bad and the ugly,” he declared.

In recent years, attitudes toward Israel have greatly fluctuated with collaborative engagement by the Maldivian government being countered by some anti-semitic ‘blowback’ from elements within Maldivian society.

In February 2010, a team of experts from the Israeli Foreign Ministry are training 35 Maldivian officials in emergency preparedness, with a focus on the management of mass casualties.

Later that year, in November, the Islamic Foundation of the Maldives (IFM) called on the government to break off all diplomatic ties with Israel, a day after Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital (IGMH) announced that a team of seven Israeli doctors is due to arrive in the country to treat patients at the government hospital for a week.

The IFM reiterated calls to the Maldives government to “shun all medical aid from the Zionist regime” with a team of seven Israeli eye surgeons due to arrive in December 2012, claiming that Isreali doctors and surgeons “have become notorious for illegally harvesting organs from non-Jews around the world.”

The following month, Founders of the IFM NGO claimed that although they do not believe in “hysterical outbursts” and theories of an imminent “Jewish invasion” in the country, a week of anti-Israel protests and flag burning across Male’ has reflected “strong dissatisfaction with the government’s open attitude” to the Jewish state.

In May 2011, Ahmed Naseem became the first Maldivian Foreign Minister to visit Israel.

However, in September 2011, Deputy Leader of the Adhaalath Party Dr Mauroof Hussein has called for alarm after alleging that a delegation from an Israeli company, Teshuva Agricultural Products, was due to arrive in the Maldives to assess the country’s agricultural potential. The Israeli agricultural delegation that was supposed to arrive on Filadhoo cancelled the visit after the islanders warned that they would not let the delegation go further than the jetty.

In December 2011, Minister of Islamic Affairs Dr Abdul Majeed Abdul Bari requested parliament endorse a resolution forbidding the government to establish ties with Israel.

While in April 2012, MPs passed a resolution preventing Israeli national airline El Al from operating scheduled flights to the Maldives until Majlis’ National Security Committee completes further investigation into the matter. El Al applied to the Ministry of Civil Aviation in May 2011 requesting permission to fly to the Maldives starting in December 2011.

There was no direct flight from Israel to Maldives between 2009-2011, so the Maldives was “not able to maximize the benefits from the growing Israeli market,” Dr Shaheed remarked.

“Maldives could have significantly increased the direct income and benefits from Israeli tourism by accepting direct flights from Israel, resulting in a longer holidays and greater expenditure in Maldives while still making the holiday comparatively cheaper for the visitor,” he added.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(1)

Nasheed predicts first round win with 57 percent of popular vote

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has publicly predicted that the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) will win the presidential elections on September 7 with 57 percent of the popular vote – six percent more than the required 51 percent to secure election victory without a run-off election.

In 2008, Nasheed was sworn in as the fourth president of the country after a run-off election against his predecessor Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, who had been in power for 30 years and was Asia’s longest serving leader at the time.

Nasheed’s predictions of securing a first round election victory were dismissed as “meaningless political rhetoric” by the government-aligned Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP).

DRP Deputy Leader Ibrahim Shareef told Minivan News he did not believe there was a single party in the country capable of securing an outright win in September. He suggested that neither former President Nasheed or Maumoon Abdul Gayoom could achieve more than a 25 per cent share of the total vote with their respective parties.

Shareef added that despite recent comments by Nasheed, the former president was aware of the “ground realities” of the country’s politics.

“The Maldives is a very small country. We have seen that since the introduction of political parties, the whole population is more fragmented and polarised,” he said. “We are in a transitional stage right now where independent institutions are weak and political parties are often poorly organised.”

Shareef contended that there was seemingly very little difference in terms of belief or ideology between political parties.

“All parties have similar views, the only difference is that they seek to be the governing party,” he added.

Considering the share of national vote secured by Nasheed in the first round of the 2008 Presidential election, which eventually led to a run-off where he secured his presidency through a coalition, Shareef said he believed very little had changed in regards to his popularity nationally.

He claimed therefore that even considering the superior funding available to the Nasheed-led Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and the Gayoom-founded PPM, no candidate could secure more than a 25 percent vote.

PPM MP and spokesperson Ahmed Mahloof was not responding to calls at time of press.

Run-off victory

During the first round of the elections no candidate out of the six, including Nasheed and Gayoom, were able to secure the required 51 percent. President Gayoom came closest to the mark with 40.34 percent of the vote while Nasheed trailed in the second position with 24.91 percent of the popular vote, resulting in a run-off election.

However Nasheed, backed by the remaining candidates with the exception of Umar Naseer who later went on to become a strong Gayoom supporter – won the election in the second round beating Gayoom with 53.65 percent to 45.32 percent of the popular vote.

Nasheed, who resigned under controversial circumstances on February 7, 2012, made his prediction during a campaign rally on Hithadhoo in Laamu Atoll, during which he declared that the Elections Commission should not worry about the possibility of a run-off election.

“We will not need to go for a second round. Tune onto your radios, subscribe for cable TV and pay your cable bills, for this picture by the will of God, is being witnessed throughout the country. Hithadhoo island, Laamu Atoll and the whole country including its atolls, islands and the capital Male’ are calling for us, the MDP. They want our policies to be implemented,” he claimed.

“Candidate number one, Mohamed Nasheed of Galolhu ward Keneryge will win this election with 121,000 votes in the first round,” Nasheed declared.

Nasheed also repeated his call that no party should intend to join forces with his party if their motive for such an alignment involved a desire for wealth and political influence.

During a previous rally, Nasheed claimed that leaders of many political parties had learned “bitter lessons” over the inability to run a government by sharing cabinet positions among different parties over the last four years.

“A cabinet in which one minister belongs to this party and another belongs to that party, cannot run a government,” Nasheed claimed.

During the Laamu Atoll rally on Monday, Nasheed argued that the world was moving towards two major political ideologies and questioned the need for 13 political parties in the Maldives.

Referring to Aasandha – the Nasheed government’s universal health insurance scheme that was established in a public-private partnership with Allied Insurance – the former president claimed his the scheme had ensured social protection and the general well being of the people, despite several challenges and hardships faced during its implementation.

He warned that should the scheme collapse, the country would return to a tradition where ordinary people were required to beg at the knees of a handful of “elites” in the country.

Following controversial succession of power after Nasheed, current President Mohamed Waheed Hassan’s administration claimed the Aasandha scheme is no longer financially tenable due to unsustainable demand with the scheme’s current rate of expenditure threatened to reach Rf1 billion (US$64.8 million) on an approved budget of Rf720 million (US$46.6 million).

The incoming Chairman of the National Social Protection Agency (NSPA) and State Minister of Home Affairs Thoriq Ali Luthfee at the time claimed that the Aasandha scheme “cannot continue to operate without interventions to control the demand” alleging that the scheme was introduced “for political motives” without any proper planning.

Nasheed had at the time condemned the move citing and dismissed the government’s claim of lack of funds for Aasandha as “unacceptable.”

“More than Rf 150 million (US$10 million) has been spent on police promotions. Another Rf 150 million (US$10 million) has been spent giving MNDF [Maldives National Defense Force] officers two years of allowances in a lump sum. Another Rf 50 million (US$3.3 million) has been spent repairing the damage to police headquarters. It was the police officers who staged the coup who vandalised the place and threw chairs and computers from the building’s windows. When this money has been wasted, we cannot accept it when they say there is no money for Aasandha,” Nasheed said at the time.

The question of Nasheed’s ability to contest in the presidential elections still remains unanswered. The Prosecutor General has charged him under section 81 of the Penal Code with the offence of arresting an innocent person for his controversial detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court during the last days of his presidency – if convicted, he could be barred from contesting the election.

The trial is currently suspended following an appeal by Nasheed’s legal team contesting the legitimacy of Judicial Service Commission (JSC)’s appointment of the panel of judges to preside on the hearing.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Court commences police chief’s ‘baaghee’ defamation case against former president

The Civil Court yesterday ( April 8 ) began hearing statements in a defamation case filed by Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz against former President Mohamed Nasheed.

Riyaz is seeking MVR3.75 million (US$243,506) in damages from Nasheed, who is accused of labelling the commissioner a ‘baaghee’ (traitor) following the controversial transfer of power on February 7, 2012, which saw sections of the police and military mutiny against the former government.

Nasheed is accused of continuing to call the commissioner a ‘baaghee’ even after a Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) later concluded the government of President Dr Mohamed Waheed came to power constitutionally.

A Civil Court spokesperson confirmed to Minivan News that lawyers representing both Riyaz and Nasheed were present yesterday during the first of five hearings anticipated to determine the charges against the former president.

During the hearing, the presiding judge asked the defence to answer the allegations against Nasheed. The next hearing of the case is expected to allow Nadheed’s representatives to present a statement in his defence, according to a spokesperson for the Civil Court.

No date was set for the next hearing, the court claimed.

Riyaz’s defamation case had been scheduled to begin last year, but was later postponed upon request of the commissioner himself.

MDP MP and lawyer Mariya Ahmed Didi said the party has previously issued a statement following the postponement of the hearings, claiming that Nasheed was “anxious to proceed with the case”.

Mariya alleged that Commissioner Riyaz was hesitant to proceed with the defamation case for fear that he would not be able to prove that his standing in society or his wider reputation had suffered as a result of the former president’s comments.

“There are hundreds of witnesses just waiting to give their evidence in court. In addition, senior police and Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) officers including [former] commissioner of Police Faseeh and Defence Force chief Moosa Jaleel have testified to the relevant committee of parliament that the events of February 7 and February 8 were indeed a coup,” she claimed. “We are confident that if we get a free and fair trial we will get a judgement in our favour.”

“Undermining” commisioner’s esteem

Riyaz’s lawyers have previously accused Nasheed of undermining the esteem and respect of the police commissioner by labelling him as a “traitor.”

The legal team also argued at the time that Nasheed’s words had compromised the safety of Riyaz, requiring security at his residence to be strengthened.

Commissioner Riyaz and Police Spokesperson Chief Inspetor Hassan Haneef were not responding to calls at time of press.

Meanwhile, MVR3.75 million in damages are being sought from Nasheed by serving Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim, who has also accused the former president of damaging his reputation by labelling a traitor during a public address last year.

Newspaper ‘Haveeru’ reported at the time that following a speech by Nasheed attacking the defence minister, a group of protesters came outside Nazim’s house, “leaving Nazim’s family in fear”.

Former Youth Minister Dr Hassan Latheef, who defended Nasheed at a Civil Court hearing held in October 2012, told the presiding judge at the time that the former president denied the charges against him.

Nasheed’s legal team has previously contended that Riyaz had filed the defamation case in the civil court at a time when the police were continuously arresting people for calling them ‘baaghee’ on the streets. The same representatives also accused the country’s criminal court of continuing to provide extensions of detention periods for people arrested under the charges.

Further charges

Nasheed is also currently in the process of being tried on charges that he illegally detained a senior judge during the end of his presidency.

However, all trials concerning the judge’s detention were suspended earlier this month pending a High Court ruling on the legitimacy of the bench of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court conducting Nasheed’s case.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Hoax photo of Nasheed meeting Artur Brothers circulated by State Defence Minister turns into meme

A photograph widely distributed by local media outlets depicting former President Mohamed Nasheed and his Special Envoy Ibrahim Hussain Zaki meeting the infamous Armenian ‘Artur Brothers’ has turned out to be a hoax.

The Armenian brothers – linked with drug trafficking, money laundering, raids on media outlets and other serious crimes in Kenya – were recently photographed with current Minster of Tourism Ahmed Adheeb and Defence Minister Ahmed Nazim during the Piston Motor Racing Challenge, organised by the Maldivian National Defence Force (MNDF).

The two ministers initially denied any involvement with the brothers or their apparent business interests in the Maldives, however a letter from the Tourism Ministry to immigration authorities requesting a residency visa for Margaryan and Sargsyan Artur, dated January 27 and signed by Adheeb, was subsequently leaked on social media.

Zaidul Khaleel, General Manager of the Club Faru resort which is operated by the state-owned Maldives Tourism Development Corporation (MTDC), has also reportedly been sacked after he was found to have paid the brothers’ US$6000 bill.

Meanwhile, on Sunday a photo depicting former President Nasheed and Special Envoy and former SAARC Secretary General Ibrahim Hussain Zaki apparently meeting Artur Sargsyan was leaked on social media and widely republished by local media.

Local media outlet Channel News Maldives (CNM) reported that the photograph was originally leaked by the former Immigration Controller and current State Minister for Defence, Ilyas Hussain.

However the photograph turned out to be an edited photo taken during a formal reception for US Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg, held at the former Presidential residence of Muleaage in January 2011, with Sargsyan Artur’s head carefully photo-shopped onto Steinberg.

According to CNM, Ilyas at the time confirmed to the media outlet that the photo of Nasheed with Artur Sargsyan was real and authentic.

Speaking to Minivan News, Ilyas Hussain stated that he no longer wished to comment on the matter.

Following the publication of the leaked photo, a member of President Waheed’s Gaumee Ithihaad Party (GIP) told Minivan News that Waheed had prepared a press conference following the release of the edited photo, but later called it off after the photo was discovered to be a hoax.

Minivan News was unable to confirm the claim as President’s Office Spokesperson Masood Imad was not responding at time of press.

The photo has since gone viral across Maldivian social media and has been widely photoshopped to depict Nasheed meeting a wide variety of celebrities and fictional characters.

The meme has blossomed to include Nasheed encountering deceased Chairman of Apple Inc, Steve Jobs, Albert Einstein, Justin Beiber, Professional Wrestler/Rapper/Actor John Cena, the Pope, popular antagonist of the Star Wars franchise Darth Vader, fictional lead character in the Sacha Baron Cohen comedy ‘Dictator’ Admiral General Haffaz Aladeen, DC Comics superhero Batman, Rowan Atkinson’s UK comedy icon Mr Bean, and ‘Big Bird’ from US children’s television show Sesame Street.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

JSC rejects complaint by High Court judges against Chief Judge Ahmed Shareef

The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has rejected the case submitted by eight members of the High Court against Chief Judge Ahmed Shareef over his suspension of former President Mohamed Nasheed’s trial in the Hulhumale Magistrate Court.

Last Wednesday eight of the High Court’s nine-member bench filed the case claiming that the chief judge had issued the stay order without registering the case, had failed to assign a case number to the case, and had not discussed the matter with the other judges.

The judges also accused the chief judge of taking the matter into his own hands by not discussing the matter with them before issuing the order.

A spokesperson from the JSC confirmed to Minivan News at the time that the commission had received a “letter” from the eight judges regarding Judge Shareef.

A High Court official denied the allegations made by the judges, stating that the case concerning the stay order was registered at the court the previous week and that the former President’s legal team had paid the charges the following day. He also added that the order was issued after the court had received the payment.

During a meeting held on Thursday the JSC decided to not look into the case, claiming that a conflict of interest existed in the commission probing the matter, as it had appointed the three member judges panel to the Hulhumale Magistrate Court. The court is currently hearing all trials concerning the arrest of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed.

The members of the judicial watchdog also came to the conclusion that the case filed by the eight judges included issues concerning High Court procedure, which it claimed could only be looked into after the Supreme Court made a decision regarding the matter.

Six of the 10-member commission were reportedly against looking into the case while only one member was voted in favour, according to local media.

The High Court Chief Judge issued the injunction after the Hulhumale Magistrate Court rejected a request by former President Nasheed’s legal team to defer his trial until the end of the scheduled presidential elections, despite no objection from the state prosecutors.

The former president – who stands charged of unlawfully detaining the Chief Judge of Criminal Court during his last days in power in January 2012 – appealed the decision at the High Court while also contesting that the JSC had appointed the panel of judges to the magistrate court arbitrarily.

Following the appeal, the High Court granted a stay order ordering the magistrate court to halt Nasheed’s trial until it decided on the legitimacy of the panel of judges appointed to examine his case. The stay order was signed by Chief Judge Ahmed Shareef, and stated that the court was of the view that Nasheed’s ongoing trial must come to a halt until the legitimacy of the bench was established.

Concerns

Following the filing of the case at the JSC against Chief Judge Ahmed Shareef, member of former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team Hassan Latheef has expressed his concern as to whether JSC would look into the matter impartially and transparently.

Speaking during an opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) rally held on Wednesday evening, Latheef – who was the minister for human resources, youth and sports during Nasheed’ presidency – argued that the decision by the Chief Judge of High Court regarding the stay order was made in accordance with the High Court’s normal procedures.

Latheef claimed that based on the documents published at the high court website, out of the 15 stay orders issued in 2012 by the High Court in 2012, 10 stay orders had been signed by just one High Court judge.

“The Hulhumale Magistrate Court which is hearing the case of President Nasheed was ordered to be suspended by High Court in according to its usual practice in such cases. The case was registered at the High Court and even before there were instances were stay orders had been issued that had only one signature,” Latheef said.

Latheef also dismissed the claims that the case had not been registered at the court.

“We filed the case on March 31. The stay order was issued the afternoon of the following day, after we had even paid the charges for filing the case in the court,” he contended. “Another question is who will look into the case impartially – all the other judges have filed this case at the JSC against Chief Judge Shareef. Eight judges are on one side while the chief judge is on the other side. These are new issues which have come out of the case.”

He noted that this was the first time in Maldivian legal history where an entire panel of judges had teamed up against the chief judge following a decision on a case.

JSC under heavy scrutiny

The JSC has come under heavy scrutiny over its appointment of the panel of the judges to Hulhumale Magistrate Court to hear cases concerning the arrest of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed – which several lawyers and members of the 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.

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.

Other critics included United Nations Special Rapporteur (UNSR) on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, who also said the appointment 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.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Rising extremism could threaten Maldives’ tourism industry: report

Religious conservatism and extremist violence have been increasing in the Maldives over the past decade, while incidents of Maldivians joining overseas jihadist groups are becoming more common, according to a report published in the Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) Sentinel, a publication based out of the West Point military academy in the US.

The article entitled The Threat from Rising Extremism in the Maldives, observes that growing religious extremism and political uncertainty could result in more violence and negatively affect the nation’s tourism industry, which would be “devastating” to the Maldives.

“This has coincided with a number of violent attacks on liberal activists and other citizens who have expressed outspoken support for moderate religious practices,” the report notes.

If current trends continue “extremist incidents may rise, with violence targeted against the country’s more liberal citizens,” it states.

According to the report, five key factors have contributed to the growing extremism and violence:

the encouragement of “more hard line Islamist elements in the country” during the 30 year autocratic rule of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom;
political uncertainty;
an increasing number of people seeking education in foreign madrasas;
grassroots radicalisation through civil society and political parties;
escalating extremist incidents of violence and involvement with jihadist groups.

“The country has already suffered one terrorist attack targeting foreign tourists, and a number of Maldivians have traveled to Pakistan’s tribal areas to receive jihadist training. Moreover, evidence exists that jihadists tried to form a terrorist group in the country in 2007-2008,” the report states.

The study recommends that Maldivian political and religious developments be followed closely.

Encouraging of hard line Islamic elements

Islam was introduced to the Maldives in the 12th century and subsequent religious practices have been the “moderate, more liberal form of the religion”.

“Yet, during Gayoom’s three decade autocratic rule, the Egyptian-trained religious scholar enacted a number of measures that, at least inadvertently, encouraged more hard line Islamist elements in the country,” the report concluded.

“From imposing a ban on Christian missionary radio to apprehending migrant service providers for allegedly preaching and practicing their own religion, Gayoom’s regime initiated an era of state-backed religious intolerance and radicalisation in the Maldives.”

The Protection of Religious Unity Act, passed in 1994, mandated that no other religion but Islam could be practiced.

In 1996, Gayoom constituted the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs, renamed the Ministry of Islamic Affairs in 2008, to preside over religious affairs in the Maldives.

“This body of clerics pressured the government to carry out moral and cultural policing of alleged “anti-Islamic activities”,” the report states.

For example, in 2008 the Ministry requested police “ban nightclubs and discotheques for New Year’s Eve celebrations because they were contrary to Islam”.

“By the end of Gayoom’s time in office in 2008, the dress code for women had grown increasingly conservative, and more and more men grew out their beards,” the report states.

Women now dress more conservatively with fewer brightly colored clothes. Instead they “increasingly wear black robes and headscarves and on more conservative islands such as Himandhoo, women wear black abayas and face veils,” it added.

Political uncertainty

The democratic transition “gave a greater voice to religious conservatives and those calling for the rigid implementation of Shari`a (Islamic law) in the Maldives,” states the report. “This became especially evident following the implementation of political reforms and the transition to multi-party democracy in 2008.”

The first democratic presidential elections in the Maldives were held in 2008, with Mohamed Nasheed defeating Gayoom in the second round with 54 percent of the votes.

However, the Nasheed administration was accused of defiling Islam by “promoting Western ideals and culture and restricted the spread of more austere Islamic practices,” the article notes.

This resulted in the December 2011 “Defend Islam” protests led by opposition political parties, religious groups, civil society organisations and thousands of supporters in the country’s capital, Male’.

These protests “unleashed a chain of events that culminated in a bloodless coup on February 7, 2012 that toppled the Maldives’ first democratically-elected government,” declared the study.

Appeal of education in foreign madrasas

Education in foreign madrasas has also contributed to growing extremism within the Maldives, with students “unwittingly attending more radical madrasas” and preaching these views upon their return.

“The offer of free education in madrasas in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia is widely acknowledged as a core means of radicalising Maldivians locally, with well-meaning parents sending their children off on scholarships to ‘study Islam’,” the report states.

Following the 2007 terrorist attack in Male’s Sultan Park, “Gayoom himself warned of this problem”.

“Maldivians are influenced by what is happening in the world. They go to Pakistan, study in madrasas and come back with extreme religious ideas,” the report quoted Gayoom as saying.

Grassroots radicalisation

“The contemporary Maldivian political environment favors radical and political Islam taking root in Maldivian society, especially when political parties and civil society increasingly take refuge in religion,” the report states, citing Maldivian academic Dr Azra Naseem.

In 2010, new regulations prohibited “talking about religions other than Islam in Maldives, and propagating such religions through the use of any kind of medium.” The Ministry of Islamic Affairs published this legislation under the Protection of Religious Unity Act of 1994.

However, the report found that the “major force behind more austere religious practices in the Maldives is the Adhaalath (Justice) Party (AP), which has controlled the Ministry of Islamic Affairs, with Sheikh Shaheem Ali Saeed as its current minister”.

Given that the AP supports strict implementation of Shari’a Law, the party has “outspokenly argued that music and singing are haram (forbidden) and called for an end to the sale of alcohol at the country’s hundreds of luxury resorts,” said the report.

In February 2013, Saeed warned that “various Christian organisations and missionaries are strongly involved and active in our society because they want to ‘wipe out’ Islam from the Maldives”. He subsequently started a campaign against Christians and “Freemasons”, the report stated.

Two non-government organisations (NGOs), Jamiyyathu Salaf (JS) and the Islamic Foundation of Maldives (IFM), are considered religiously conservative Salafists who “work with the country’s political parties to further the cause of Islamism in the Maldives,” the report stated.

Extremist incidents

Extremists have directly targeted Maldivian liberal intellectuals, writers and activists, the study notes.

“On January 3, 2011, assailants attempted to kill Aishath Velezinee, an activist fighting for the independence of the country’s justice system, by stabbing her in the back in broad daylight,” said the report.

Velezinee is a whistleblower that in 2010 identified members of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) who were “conspiring with key political figures to hijack the judiciary and bring down the country’s first democratically-elected government,” the report added.

The study found that the Ministry of Islamic Affairs was “at least indirectly encouraged extremism” by initiating “crackdowns” on media outlets for anti-Islamic content.

The blog of prominent free speech and religious freedom campaigner, Khilath ‘Hilath’ Rasheed, was blocked in 2011. A month afterward, Rasheed’s skull was fractured when 10 men attacked him with stones during a peaceful rally he organised in Male’.

Rasheed was arrested a few days after the incident and jailed for 24 days for participating in the rally.

In June 2012, Rasheed was nearly killed “after extremists cut his throat open with a box cutter”.

“After the attempt on his life, Rasheed named three political leaders—Islamic Affairs Minister Mohamed Shaheem Ali Saeed, Adhaalath Party President Imran Abdulla and Jumhooree Party lawmaker Ibrahim Muttalib Shaheem – as being indirectly responsible for the attempt on his life,” the report states.

Later in 2012, the moderate religious scholar and lawmaker, Afrasheem Ali, was stabbed to death at his home in Male’. He was considered an Islamic moderate who was “outspoken in his controversial positions,” reads the report.

In February 2013, “a reporter for the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)-aligned Raajje TV station, Ibrahim ‘Aswad’ Waheed, was beaten unconscious with an iron bar while riding on a motorcycle near the artificial beach area of Male’,” the study added.

Previously, during the 2011 South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), protesters “intolerant toward other religious and cultural symbols” damaged monuments gifted to the Maldives by Pakistan, Bhutan, Sri Lanka.

Islamic radicals on February 7 2012 also vandalised archaeological artifacts in the National Museum that were mostly ancient Hindu and Buddhist relics, destroying 99 percent of the evidence of Maldivian pre-Islamic history.

Jihadists

“In April 2006, a Maldivian national, Ali Jaleel, and a small group of jihadists from the Maldives attempted to travel to Pakistan to train for violent jihad in Afghanistan or Iraq,” the report reads.

While his first attempt was unsuccessful, Jaleel did eventually travel to Pakistan and “launched a suicide attack at the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) headquarters in Lahore in May 2009.”

In September 2007, Islamic extremists committed a terrorist attack in the Maldives aimed at the tourism industry.

A bomb exploded in Male’s Sultan Park and wounded 12 foreigners. The three men arrested and later jailed for the bombing confessed that their goal was to “target, attack and injure non-Muslims to fulfill jihad,” states the report.

A month following the bombing, the investigation led to Darul-Khair mosque on Himandhoo Island. However, “some 90 masked and helmeted members of the mosque confronted police, wielding wooden planks and refusing to let the police enter,” said the report.

Although the Maldivian army eventually established control, “The stand-off resulted in a number of injuries, and one police officer had his fingers cut off.” In November, a video of the mosque confrontation was posted on the al-Qa’ida-linked alEkhlaas web forum by a group called Ansar al-Mujahidin with the message “your brothers in the Maldives are calling you,” the report states.

Evidence suggests that three Maldivian jihadists planned to establish a terrorist group in the country around 2007-2008 and send members for military training in Pakistan.

“At least one of these individuals did in fact travel to Pakistan, as Yoosuf Izadhy was arrested in Pakistan’s South Waziristan Agency in March 2009, along with eight other Maldivians,” states the report.

In 2009, then-President Nasheed warned that “Maldivian people are being recruited by Taliban and they are fighting in Pakistan,” quotes the report.

“Despite its reputation as an idyllic paradise popular among Western tourists, political and religious developments in the Maldives should be monitored closely,” the report concludes.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

First time entire panel of judges have ganged up on a chief judge after a verdict: Nasheed’s lawyer

Member of former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team Hassan Latheef has expressed concern over the case filed against the Chief Judge of High Court, Ahmed Shareef.

The judges filed the case with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) over the High Court’s decision to issue a stay order on the Hulhumale Magistrate Court’s trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed.

Nasheed’s legal team had appealed the decision by the Hulhumale Magistrate Court rejecting their request to delay the trial of the former President until the end of the presidential election on September 2013, in which Nasheed is contesting on behalf of opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP). The team also contested the legitimacy of the panel of the judges appointed to hear the case.

Nasheed is currently being tried in the Hulhumale Magistrate Court for his controversial detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed during the last days of his presidency.

Following the appeal, the High Court ordered the magistrate court to halt the former president’s trial until it determined the legitimacy of the panel of judges appointed to examine his case. The Hulhumale Magistrate Court subsequently suspended all trials concerning the arrest of judge.

Last Wednesday, eight judges of the High Court’s nine-member bench filed a case against Chief Judge of the High Court Ahmed Shareef at the JSC challenging the decision and claiming that the chief judge had issued the order arbitrarily.

A spokesperson from the JSC confirmed to Minivan News that the commission had received a “letter” from eight judges of High Court regarding Judge Shareef. However, he declined to provide any details of the case.

However, a High Court media official denied the allegations made by the judges, stating that the case concerning the stay order was registered at the court on Sunday and the former President’s legal team had paid the charges the next day. The media official added that the order was issued after the court had received the payment.

High Court judges who filed the case against Chief Judge Shareef claimed he had issued the stay order without registering the case, did not assign a case number to the case, and had not discussed the matter with the other judges.

They also claimed that usual practice at the court was to discuss the matter with other judges, although stay orders were ultimately issued by a single judge.

Latheef also dismissed the claims that the case had not been registered at the court.

“We filed the case on March 31. The stay order was issued the afternoon of the following day, after we had even paid the charges for filing the case in the court,” he contended.

The former minister said it was very concerning to see all the judges of High Court teaming up against the chief judge and taking the matter to the JSC following the decision.

The JSC is mandated with the oversight, appointment and discipline of judges, and was also responsible for both creating the Hulhumale Magistrate Court, and controversially appointing the panel of judges overseeing the Nasheed trial.

The JSC’s membership includes several of Nasheed’s direct political opponents, including rival presidential candidate Gasim Ibrahim.

Latheef alleged that two out of the eight High Court Judges who had filed the case against the chief judge had also acted in a similar manner, but no complaint had been filed.

He also questioned the motive behind the filing of the case at the JSC – which is mandated with oversight of appointing judges and looking into their disciplinary issues – arguing that the JSC was the one of respondents in the appeal case.

Owing to the fact that the case of the chief judge is being looked into by the JSC who is a party to the case, Latheef cast doubt as to whether justice would be served in the court case.

“Another question is who will look into the case impartially – all the other judges have filed this case at the JSC against Chief Judge Shareef. Eight judges are on one side while the chief judge is on the other side. These are new issues which have come out of the case,” Latheef said.

He noted that this was the first time in Maldivian legal history where an entire panel of judges had teamed up against the chief judge following a decision on a case.

He also questioned as to why the High Court judges had not rebelled against an order issued by a single judge, invalidating a Civil Court order halting a police raid on the MDP protest camp in May 2012.

On May 31, 2012 the Civil Court ordered to halt to the dismantling of the Usfasgandu site by the security forces, after police had obtained a search warrant from the Criminal Court on the grounds that the MDP had been using the area as a hub for criminal activity and black magic.

However, the High Court the following day – which happened to be a Friday and not a government working day – overturned the Civil Court order. The order was similarly issued by a single High Court judge.

Latheef criticised the court’s inconsistency and alleged the courts were giving selective justice depending on who had filed the case.

The JSC has come under heavy scrutiny over its appointment of the panel of the judges to Hulhumale Magistrate Court to hear cases concerning arrest of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed – which several lawyers and members of JSC itself have claimed exceeded the JSC’s mandate.

Other critics included United Nations Special Rapporteur (UNSR) on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, who also said the appointment was carried out arbitrarily.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

MDP dismisses prospect of power-sharing coalition

Senior figures of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) including former President Mohamed Nasheed have said that sharing cabinet positions among different political parties will not result in an efficient government in the Maldives.

The party’s stand on coalitions come at a time where President Mohamed Waheed’s Gaumee Iththihaadh Party (GIP) and other smaller political parties have claimed that the September 7 elections can only be won through a broad coalition of political parties.

Last week, President Waheed announced plans to form a coalition between his party and the religious conservative Adhaalath Party (AP), ahead of the presidential elections.

Meanwhile President Waheed’s Special Advisor Dr Hassan Saeed’s Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) has also announced its plans to join Waheed’s GIP and back for the president’s re-election.

The three parties are among the eight political parties currently comprising of an informal coalition backing President Waheed’s government, following his controversial ascension to power on February 7, 2012 after the sudden resignation of President Nasheed.

Coalitions result in weak governments: Nasheed

Speaking during a party gathering of his own party MDP on Tuesday evening, President Nasheed stated that leaders of political parties had learned “bitter lessons” surrounding the inability to run a government by sharing cabinet positions among different political parties over the last four years.

“A cabinet in which one minister belongs to this party and another belongs to that party, cannot run a government,” he said.

Nasheed said he could not understand the relationship between national development and political coalition, reflecting on the coalition of parties currently involved with President Waheed, which he described as not a real cabinet but rather a mixture of individuals with different political ideologies.

Highlighting the developments that took place his post-resignation, the former President said the UN had urged his party MDP to join the government of President Waheed, but the MDP refused to the offer because it did not see how development could be brought to the country at a table with people who lacked commitment in coming to common terms.

“I want the people of this country to remember that, when there is word of coalition, it means of forming a weak government,” said the former president.

Nasheed defeated former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom in the second round of the 2008 election under the “Wathan Edhey Gothah” coalition. The MDP steadily shed its coalition partners during its term in office, falling out with the DQP, business tycoon Gasim Ibrahim’s Jumhoree Party (JP), the Adhaalath Party and President Waheed’s GIP.

The Wathan Edhey Gothah Alliance was short lived and almost all parties left the government within the first two years. Gasim Ibrahim left the government within 21 days while the DQP left within the first four months.

Speaking during the rally, Nasheed said it was an uphill task to run a stable government with political parties of different views, and stressed that political stability was pivotal for development and attracting foreign investment.

Common political ideology not political positions

Chairperson of the MDP MP Moosa ‘Reeko’ Manik echoed similar sentiments claiming that the MDP could not work with political parties which demanded political positions first hand.

However, Moosa said the MDP would welcome colleagues who had sincerity and commitment to an MDP-led government’s policies.

“There is no place in the MDP for those who come to us and demand a package of four cabinet positions, 12 judges, three warehouses and the Maldives Monetary Authority (MMA). But it doesn’t mean all doors are closed for those parties interested in working under a common political ideology,” Manik said.

Meanwhile, Deputy Parliamentary Group Leader of MDP, MP Ali Waheed, argued that coalitions would not work in presidential systems such as in the Maldives.

“We don’t need to divide government portfolios among political parties. Even MDP should not do that by saying that it is an MDP alliance. That is not how we can run the country. Youth Minister from a different sect, the Finance Minister in a different sect, the Islamic Minister in a different sect and the Economic Minister keeps his eyes closed. Is that a cabinet? You cannot call that a cabinet,” said Ali Waheed.

Ali Waheed argued that cabinet ministers should hold common views with the President in charge, and should follow the president’s plans and policies.

Elect one political ideology, not a mixture

Speaking to Minivan News, MDP spokesperson MP Imthiyaz ‘Inthi’ Fahmy said coalitions do not work in a proper presidential system and that it would be better for the country to have a single political party with a single political ideology to govern the country rather than a group of parties with different views on issues.

He also contended that sometimes a coalition may limit proper representation of people where a smaller political party is given larger political portfolios in the government.

“For example with this government, the Adhaalath Party does not have even a single seat in parliament nor does it control any local council. But they are given several cabinet portfolios, so it is not actually representing the people,” he said.

Fahmy contended that if the country was to see fast development and a stable economy it needed to adopt a stable government.

“If people are electing a government, they should vote for a single ideology. Especially in presidential systems it does not work like that because the government is not formed from the parliament,” he added.

Meanwhile speaking to Minivan News previously, Deputy Parliamentary Group Leader of government aligned Dhivehi Rayythunge Party (DRP) MP Abdulla Mausoom said the word coalition was “not very meaningful in the Maldives”.

Mausoom at the time suggested that legislation would be required to enforce coalition arrangements before they could become a serious feature of Maldivian politics. DRP had previously argued that the current alliance of political parties in support of President Waheed as a national-unity government rather than a coalition.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

High Court judges file case against Chief Judge over suspension of Nasheed trial

Eight judges of the High Court’s nine-member bench have filed a case with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) against Chief Judge of the High Court Ahmed Shareef , for suspending the Hulhumale Magistrate Court’s trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed without allegedly registering the case in court.

The High Court on Monday ordered the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court to suspend former President Mohamed Nasheed’s trial until it determined the legitimacy of the panel of judges appointed to examine his case. The stay order, signed by Chief Judge Ahmed Shareef, stated that the court was of the view that Nasheed’s ongoing trial must come to a halt until the legitimacy of the bench was established.

Following the decision, the Hulhumale-based magistrate court suspended all trials concerning the detention of Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed in 2012.

According to local media reports, the High Court judges who filed the case against Chief Judge Shareef claimed he had issued the stay order without registering the case, did not assign a case number to the case, and had not discussed the matter with the other judges.

They claimed that usual practice at the court was to discuss the matter with other judges, although stay orders were ultimately issued by a single judge.

This is the second such case filed against Judge Shareef by the other members of the bench.

However, speaking to local media, a High Court media official denied the allegations made by the judges, stating that the case concerning the stay order was registered at the court on Sunday and the former President’s legal team had paid the charges the next day. The media official added that the order was issued after the court had received the payment.

He also said that the usual practice was that a person was asked to pay the charges only after the court decided to accept a case, and that therefore the order was issued after the court had registered the case.

Last year in June, seven High Court Judges lodged a case against Judge Shareef regarding similar conduct in which the seven judges accused him of tampering with decisions made by the majority of the High Court bench.

Other claims by the seven judges included assigning cases to judges arbitrarily, discriminating between judges in assigning cases and of not correcting these issues despite repeated requests.

The case is still pending in the JSC and Minivan News understands that no action has been taken against Judge Shareef so far.

In July 2012, the High Court ordered police to investigate claims made to the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC), that Chief Judge Shareef had met officials from Malaysian mobile security solutions provider Nexbis – who was given contract to develop a border control system for the department of Immigration – in Bangkok.

Judge Shareef had returned home from a conference in Singapore after spending a week in Bangkok, where he was alleged to have met Nexbis representatives.

However, Nexbis denied that any such meeting took place, and filed a case in a bid to stop the ACC from publicly sharing information on the investigation while the matter was in court, and seeking an apology for the damage to its reputation.

Asking police to investigate the allegations made to the ACC, the High Court meanwhile stressed in a statement that “no individual Judge can simply influence a decision of the Court, as all cases in the High Court are presided by a minimum of three judges and a ruling is only made by the majority of a particular bench.”

The accusations sent to the ACC were an “extremely irresponsible act with intentions to deceive and manipulate the truth,” the Court’s statement read.

Meanwhile, local media outlet Sun Online claimed that Judge Ahmed Shareef’s name was also included in the Judicial Reform Commission – a commission formed by presidential decree, which opponents of former President Mohamed Nasheed alleged that was to be formed to remove the existing lower courts and reappoint the judges.

However, the commission was never formed after President Nasheed suddenly and controversially resigned on February 7, 2012 which he maintains was forced.

Despite the new case filed against Judge Ahmed Shareef, no decision has been made to revoke the stay order issued by the High Court.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)