Tag: former president mohamed nasheed

Hulhumale Magistrate Court suspends all trials concerning arrest of judge following High Court order

The Hulhumale Magistrate Court  has suspended all trials concerned the detention of Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed in 2012, following the High Court’s order yesterday to suspend the trial against former President Mohamed Nasheed.

Meanwhile eight High Court judges today submitted a case to the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) against the Chief Judge of the High Court.

The High Court on Sunday ordered the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court to halt President Nasheed’s trial until it determined the legitimacy of the panel of judges appointed to examine his case. The stay order signed by Judge Ahmed Shareef of the High Court 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 resumption of the trials after a Supreme Court battle between President Nasheed’s legal team and the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) over the legitimacy of Hulhumale Magistrate Court – which ended in favour of JSC after Supreme Court declared the court legitimate – Nasheed’s legal team again filed a case at the High Court requesting that it look into the legitimacy of the appointment of the three member judges panel.

The decision by the Hulhumale Magistrate Court means trials of former Defense Minister Tholthath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu, former Chief of Defence Force retired Major General Moosa Ali Jaleel, former Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) Male Area Commander retired Brigadier General Ibrahim Mohamed Didi and former MNDF Operations Director Colonel Mohamed Ziyad’s will be suspended until the High Court comes to a decision on the matter – or the Supreme Court takes over the case, as it did following the previous injunction.

An official from the magistrate court was quoted in local media as stating that the suspension of the trials came because the case that is currently being heard in the High Court is closely linked to all cases.

At the time of suspension of the trials, all defendants including Nasheed had denied the charges levied against them.

Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed was taken into military detention in January 2012, following a request made by then Home Minister Hassan Afeef to then Defense Minister Tholthath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu.

Justifying the arrest, former Home Minister Afeef claimed that the judge had taken the entire criminal justice system in his fist which posed threats to the country’s national security.

All the individuals are facing the same charge under section 81 of the Penal Code – the offence of “arbitrarily arresting and detaining an innocent person”.

Section 81 states – “It shall be an offense for any public servant by reason of the authority of office he is in to detain to arrest or detain in a manner contrary to law innocent persons. Persons guilty of this offense shall be subjected to exile or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding MVR 2,000.00”.

The Judicial Services Commission (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.

Rahman further stated that the judicial watchdog body was highly politicised, and openly attempting to eliminate former President Nasheed from contesting the presidential elections.

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,” he added.

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)

High Court orders halt to Nasheed’s trial pending decision on legitimacy of judge panel

The High Court has ordered the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court to halt former President Mohamed Nasheed’s trial until it decides on the legitimacy of the panel of judges appointed to examine his case.

Nasheed is being tried in the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court for his controversial detention of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

The High Court has previously issued an injunction halting the case following the appeal made by Nasheed’s legal team contesting the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court itself.

However, the Supreme Court took over the case from High Court and declared that the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was formed in accordance to the law.

After the trial resumed, Nasheed’s lawyers again made a request to the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court to delay the trial until the end of the scheduled presidential elections in 2013.

At the same hearing, the state prosecutors expressed no objections to the team’s request to delay the trial until the presidential elections, scheduled for September.

However, the magistrate court refused to delay the trial until the end of the elections, instead deferring the trial for a period of four weeks. The hearing was scheduled for April 4.

Nasheed’s legal team subsequently appealed the Magistrate Court’s decision not to grant a deferral until after the elections, and also filed a case regarding the legitimacy of the bench.

The High Court in the new stay order issued today and signed by 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.

The decision – if not quashed by Supreme Court – means that Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court’s scheduled hearing of the trial set to take place on April 4 will be cancelled.

An official from the Judiciary Media Unit was earlier quoted in the local media as stating that a summoning chit had been sent to Nasheed, and that the next hearing will see the confessions of witnesses presented by the prosecution.

The decision comes at a time when the Judicial Services Commission (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.

Rahman further stated that the judicial watchdog body was highly politicised, and openly attempting to eliminate former President Nasheed from contesting the presidential elections.

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,” he added.

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.

Meanwhile, the UK’s Bar Human Rights Committee (BHRC) – that has observed the ongoing trial of the former President – in its report concluded that charges against Nasheed appeared to be a politically motivated attempt to bar the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) candidate from the 2013 presidential election.

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”.

She added that there remained a “strong argument” in the case that the prosecution of Nasheed was “not in the public interest”.

“It is a strong argument that a prosecution is not in the public interest. The currently constituted court comprises of judges who may be biased or have the appearance of bias. They should recuse themselves,” she argued at the time.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“We met Brigadier General Didi at MNDF Headquarters the night the judge was arrested”, police tell court

Two police witnesses presented to court by the prosecution against retired Brigadier General Ibrahim Mohamed Didi have said they met Didi inside the Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) Headquarters the night Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed was taken into military detention.

Ibrahim Didi is charged for the controversial military detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

Along with Didi, former President Mohamed Nasheed, his Defense Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu, former Chief of Defense Force retired Major General Moosa Ali Jaleel and Colonel Mohamed Ziyad are all facing the same charges, of arbitrarily detaining an innocent individual as stipulated in article 81 of the Penal Code.

Article 81 of the Maldives Penal Code states: “It shall be an offense for any public servant by reason of the authority of office he is in to detain to arrest or detain in a manner contrary to Law innocent persons. Persons guilty of this offense shall be subjected to exile or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding MVR 2,000.00.”

Didi however denied the charges levied against him during the first hearing of the trial, contending that he should not be facing charges as an individual for an act carried out by the then Defence Ministry.

The former Brigadier General claimed that the charges levied against him by the state were unfair and raised question over the credibility of the witnesses presented by the state against him. He also argued that the arrest was made by the Defence Minister under the direct orders of the president, and that he had no role to play in it.

During the hearing of the trial held at Hulhumale Magistrate Court on Wednesday, two witnesses, Police Sergeant Hassan Irash and Police Lance Corporal Ibrahim Hameed, told the court that they had met the former Male Area Commander at Bandaara Koshi together with a group of police officers.

Sergeant Irash claimed that he and the group of police officers including Lance Corporal Hameed went to the MNDF headquarters on the order of former Police Superintendent Mohamed Jinah. He added that Didi met the group and had asked whether they were the police.

However, Lance Corporal Hameed claimed that he did not know whose order the group of police officers were following, when they were on their way to the MNDF headquarters on the night of February 6, 2012.

State prosecutors did not disclose what they were trying to prove through the witness statements given by the two police officers.

Prior to the witness statements, Didi’s defence lawyer Ismail Wisham took a procedural point contending that the two police officers was not required to be brought before the court to give evidence.

This, he said, was because neither of the two statements given by the two officers had anything to do with the arrest of the judge and therefore, their statements did not carry any weight.

Dismissing the point, State Prosecutor Aishath Fazna Ahmed contended that the defendant’s lawyer had not objected to the list of witnesses presented to the court during the first hearing.

She also argued that debate on witness statements would take place after all the witness statements had been made in court and added that the state wished to prove certain elements through a combination of multiple witness statements.

Deciding on the matter, the panel of judges concluded that every party under the constitution was entitled to submit as much evidences as they could, and that therefore the court had decided to take evidences from the two police officers in a bid to respect that constitutional right.

The court concluded the hearings announcing that another would be scheduled on March 31 (Sunday).

Judge Abdulla Mohamed was taken into military custody in January 2012 after the former Home Minister Hassan Afeef wrote to Defense Minister Tholhath asking him arrest the judge, stating that he posed a threat to both the national security of the country and a threat to the country’s criminal justice system.

Minister Afeef at the time of the judge’s arrest accused him of “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist”, listing 14 cases of obstruction of police duty, including withholding warrants for up to four days, ordering police to conduct unlawful investigations and disregarding decisions by higher courts.

Didi was the Male Area Commander at the time the arrest took place.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

India should monitor developments closely: Eurasia Review

“All indications are that every effort will be made by the authorities in Maldives to prevent [former President Mohamed] Nasheed from contesting [in elections scheduled for later this year],” writes S Chandrasekharan for the Eurasia Review.

“The Maldivian President’s Spokesman Masood Imad had said that the elections will free and fair but will be ‘exclusive’ – in the sense will exclude those not meeting the legal criteria. The intention is clear- use all means constitutional or otherwise to prevent Nasheed from contesting.

Nasheed has already threatened that any verdict barring him from contesting the elections would result in a lot of people rising against the decision and trigger a very dangerous political insurgency.

From the Indian point of view the situation needs careful monitoring. It is hoped that international pressure to have a free, fair and more importantly, an ‘inclusive’ election will continue.”

Read more.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Lack of international cooperation could force MDP to militancy: MP Ali Waheed

Following high-level visits by the Commonwealth and United States Embassy this week, a Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP claimed the party will resort to militancy if the international community does not do more to help restore democracy in the Maldives.

The United States Ambassador to Sri Lanka and the Maldives, Michele J Sison arrived in the capital Male’ today (March 26). Earlier this week (March 24), the Canadian Special Envoy for the Commonwealth, Senator Hugh Segal met with the Maldives parliamentary Committee on Government Oversight.

Parliament Oversight Committee Chairperson and MDP MP Ali Waheed implored the international community to take immediate, decisive actions to help restore democracy in the Maldives.

He explained militant and radical forces – which included presidential candidates – within the Maldives were becoming more powerful.

“The current situation within the country is going from bad to worse and heading towards chaos. Everything is politicised,” Waheed said.

“Umar Naseer is militant, but the international community are promoting more diplomatic candidates like [DRP] leader  Thasmeen Ali, who is failing.

“Why can’t they see this reality? The security of the Indian Ocean region and the Maldives is threatened,” he exclaimed.

MP Waheed also claimed that the MDP will resort to behaving like the militants if the international community does not provide help to ensure free and fair elections in September.

“MDP will not give away our presidential candidate [former President Mohamed Nasheed]. We already gave the government away because of the coup.

“MDP urges diplomacy and dialogue, but will but will step toward radicalism. MDP will be like the militants if the international community does not take action. MDP will be on the ground if Nasheed is not on the ballot paper. We will fight to the last drop [of blood].

MPs are very concerned the international community will continue to only focus on diplomatic discussions, which appear to be failing, claimed MP Waheed.

“We cannot wait for more talk. Nothing is moving, it has been ‘stuck’ since the Commission of National Inquiry (CoNI) report.

“We urge them to act now. Inclusive elections are the way forward. We call on other countries to help find a solution,” MP Waheed implored.

MDP Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor further explained the MDP’s frustration to Minivan News.

“With the relative passivity of the international community on pending issues such as CoNI, action on errant forces and judicial reform, taken together with the ‘bash up’ attitude of mutineers towards MDP members, emotions are naturally bound to be heightened.

“[Therefore] the party top echelon would provide leadership, especially as it looks like the MDP shall have to go it alone towards elections,” said Ghafoor.

During the Parliament Oversight Committee’s meeting on Sunday, MPs briefed the Commonwealth’s Canadian Special Envoy, Senator Segal on the events surrounding February 2012’s controversial transfer of power, the current political situation in the Maldives, and the police services’ impunity from prosecution.

“He was very shocked,” claimed MP Waheed.

According to MP Waheed, the Commonwealth has pledged to give all the support necessary to bring back democracy and push for a solution regarding [the presidential candidacy of] Nasheed.

“We hope the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) will seriously consider these things and discuss them,” he said.

“We thank the Canadian government and asked the Senator to pass along a letter to the Prime Minister. We requested he meet us and really keep an eye on the situation here,” he added.

The US Embassy stated the visit by Ambassador Sison today was routine.

“The Ambassador is in Maldives as part of our normal bilateral relationship. She will meet with government, military, and civil society leaders,” said embassy official Christopher Elms.

International commitments to reform

The Commonwealth has played a key role in terms of the international community’s stance towards the Maldives, particularly following the controversial transfer of power in February in which the present government came to office.

Commonwealth Secretary General’s Special Envoy to the Maldives, Sir Don McKinnon, visited the Maldives in January 2013.

“A key objective of Sir Donald’s visit will be to discuss efforts to strengthen democratic institutions and processes in Maldives, and how the Commonwealth can further assist in this regard,” said Commonwealth Secretary General Kamalesh Sharma in a statement.

McKinnon’s visit followed the publication of a report in August 2012 by the Commonwealth-backed CoNI into the controversial transfer of power on February 7 2012. The report concluded that there was no mutiny by police or the military, and that former President Mohamed Nasheed’s resignation was not made under duress.

During McKinnon’s visit the MDP accused the Commonwealth Secretariat of being complicit in a “systematic government cover-up designed to subdue testimonies from key witnesses to the coup d’etat”.

In December 2012, the Commonwealth said it would work with the Maldivian government to push ahead with strengthening and reforming “key public institutions” as it reiterated calls for “inclusive and credible” presidential elections to be held next year.

In a statement issued December 7, Commonwealth Secretary General Kamalesh Sharma said the intergovernmental organisation would continue to work with international partners and Maldivian authorities on a programme of reform and “practical collaboration”.

Meanwhile, the US delegation that visited the Maldives in February this year gave no “definitive answer” to political issues raised by former President Mohamed Nasheed, the MDP has said.

Nasheed informed the delegates that the present government had failed to act upon the recommendations made in the Commission of National Inquiry (CoNI) report, claiming there had been a “lack of effort” to reform the judiciary.

However, MDP Spokesman Ghafoor said the US delegation were unable to answer the issues raised by Nasheed, and that their interest was focused on the implementation of free and fair elections later this year.

In April 2012, the US government pledged US$500,000 (Rf7.7 million) for an elections programme to assist Maldivian institutions in ensuring a free and fair presidential election.

The European Union (EU) declared this March that it would be “difficult” to consider the Maldives’ upcoming presidential elections credible unless former President Mohamed Nasheed is allowed to contest.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has highlighted “free, fair and credible” elections as the “best course” for overcoming political uncertainty in the Maldives.

In a statement issued this March, Singh – referring to last year’s controversial transfer of power – noted that “there have been unfortunate problems in the Maldives after the February 2012 event.”

The Elections Commission of India (ECI) and the Elections Commission of the Maldives (EC) agreed on a roadmap for cooperation this March that includes jointly developing an assistance project to enable free and fair elections later this year.

During the protests that erupted during Nasheed’s stay in the Indian High Commission this February, the UK issued a statement calling for “inclusive” presidential elections as well as calm and restraint.

“During FCO Minister Alistair Burt’s recent visit to Maldives, he said it was vital that the country move decisively towards free, fair and inclusive Presidential elections. He also stressed the importance of all parties being able to participate in elections with the candidate of their choice. It is important for all parties to avoid taking action which could lead to doubt over the integrity of the electoral process and contribute to continuing instability,” the UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office stated.

At the time, the UN Secretary General’s office stated that it was “monitoring the developments with concern”, and urged “all political actors to exercise restraint, renew their commitment to the constitution and work toward creating conducive conditions for fair, peaceful and inclusive elections.”

“All parties contesting the September 7 presidential elections should be able to field the candidates of their choice in accordance with the rule of law and the constitution,” the UN stated.

Many of these prominent international actors initially supported the legitimacy of President Waheed Hassan Manik’s government following the controversial transfer of power February 7, 2012.

The CoNI report that followed six months later was welcomed at the time by the United Nations, Commonwealth, and United States.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court Judge asked me to file case against Nasheed, alleges sacked Human Rights Minister

Sacked Human Rights Minister Fathimath Dhiyana Saeed has sent a letter to Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain requesting that he investigate a Supreme Court judge, whom she alleged requested that she file a case against former President Mohamed Nasheed in a bid to prevent him from running for presidency in the 2013 presidential elections.

The former SAARC Secretary General’s claims follow the High Court’s rejection of a petition filed by her and a team of lawyers, requesting the court look into the legality behind the controversial transfer of power that took place in February 2012.

The High Court rejected the case on the grounds that it did not have jurisdiction to look into the matter. Saeed was later quoted in the media saying that she would file the case at the Supreme Court.

Speaking to local newspaper Haveeru on Monday, Saeed said that although her intention was to file the case at the Supreme Court, it was highly unlikely that justice would be served at the court.

This, she claimed, was due to the fact that her case had a strong connection with former President Nasheed’s alleged illegally obtained resignation, and that a judge on the Supreme Court bench had expressed to her that he had personal scores to settle with Nasheed.

According to Saeed, the said judge had personally instructed her on what cases she should file against the former President. Saeed alleged the instructions were given at a meeting held in the judge’s house at his request following Nasheed’s resignation.

Supreme Court Judge issues instructions to file cases should be filed against Nasheed

Among the suggestions allegedly given by the judge included filing a case concerning Nasheed’s decision to remove eight members appointed to parliament by former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, prior to the ratification of the constitution.

In March 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that the removal of the eight presidential appointees in late 2008 by incoming President Mohamed Nasheed – who replaced the eight with his own appointees – was unconstitutional and ordered the state to compensate the MPs for salaries and allowances due for the remainder of the last parliamentary session.

Following the ruling, the state was ordered to pay approximately MVR 500,000 (US$32,425) for each of the eight Gayoom appointed MPs, totalling up to MVR 4 million (US$ 311,284.05).

Another suggestion included refiling a case filed by Jumhoree Party (JP) Youth Wing Leader Moosa Anwar in 2008 against Nasheed. This case claimed that Nasheed was convicted and sentenced for theft – a ‘Hadd’ offence under Sharia’ law – in similar bid to bar his candidacy in 2008 Presidential elections.

However, the Supreme Court on October 2008 declared that Nasheed was eligible to contest the election and that Nasheed was not sentenced on a Hadd offence.

Saeed declined to reveal the name of the judge but said he was “involved” in the Supreme Court’s decision to declare the legitimacy of the controversially-formed Hulhumale Magistrate Court.

In December 2012, the Supreme Court declared that the Hulhumale Magistrate Court – created by the Judicial Services Commission – was legitimate and could operate as a court of law.

The court’s legitimacy was declared by a majority of four out of the seven member Supreme Court bench.

Judges Abdulla Saeed, Ali Hameed Abdulla, Adam Mohamed Abdulla and Dr Ahmed Abdulla Didi voted in favour of the court’s legitimacy, while Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz, Judge Abdulla Areef and Judge Mu’uthazim Adnan had dissenting views. Judge Adam Mohamed – also president of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), responsible for creating the court and appointing the judges in the Nasheed trial – cast the deciding vote.

Saeed on Monday claimed she was yet to receive response from the Chief Justice regarding the complaint.

“I have no knowledge as to whether that case is either considered or whether it is being looked into,” she said.

Saeed claimed that the specific judge must refrain from hearing any case linking with former President Mohamed Nasheed’s resignation and transfer of power in 2012, including the case she intends to file at the court.

“Judges should refrain from personal interests and bias; his rulings should be impartial. So, when a judge specifically speaks of preventing a specific person from getting elected to president, that means that he is biased,” Saeed said. “That is grossly inconsistent with the principles of justice.”

Speaking to local TV station Raajje TV on Monday evening, Saeed claimed that she only decided to talk about the matter after what happened with the case concerning the legitimacy of Hulhumale Magistrate Court.

“After realising how unfair it is for a judge like that to sit in the bench and decide the case regarding Hulhumale Magistrate Court, which is so closely related to Nasheed’s trial, I decided to speak out in public. Otherwise, I would have taken this to grave, and never mention it,” Saeed told the local TV station.

The judge who wanted to settle scores with me should be found and removed: President Nasheed

Following Saeed’s allegations, former President Mohamed Nasheed said that Judicial Service Commission (JSC) should find the judge which Saeed was speaking of, and remove him from the Supreme Court bench.

During a campaign rally held at Henveiru ward of Male City, Nasheed said that it was pointless for Chief Justice to talk of the judiciary while having knowledge of such discrepancies within the courts.

“The [Chief Justice] must look into this. A judge sitting in his court room is asking a lawyer to file a case against a President. When he is given a letter regarding such discrepancy, he should look into it. It is important that the JSC find who this judge is and dismiss him. He is not fit to be a judge,” Nasheed said.

Nasheed further said that Maldivian laws do not allow biased judges to sit in courts, and repeated his call for judicial reform.

“Neither the law nor the public wants a judge who often picks sides, distances himself and deliberately disregards the rules of justice in settling matters to remain as a judge in the court room,” he said.

The “noble Jihad”

However, on Sunday both Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain and JSC President Adam Mohamed both claimed that “nobody can meddle with the Supreme Court”.

Both the Supreme Court judges contended that nobody could change the Supreme Court bench or remove a Supreme Court judge unless the position became vacant as per the law.

“By the will of Allah, the Supreme Court bench will prevail as long as the Maldives remains a democracy. The bench cannot be changed. A change to the Supreme Court bench can only be brought if a judge’s position becomes vacant,” Justice Faiz said at the time.

Meanwhile Adam Mohamed also called on state institutions to refrain from interfering with the work done by the courts or do anything that could “impact the fairness and impartiality” of the JSC.

“I call upon you not to forget the fact that you are carrying out a very noble jihad in the name of Allah in delivering justice to the people,” he told the judges.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed’s travel request denied by Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court

The Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court has denied former President Mohamed Nasheed’s request to travel abroad for a family wedding.

According to a statement from the former President’s Office, Nasheed had requested to leave the Maldives from March 27 to March 31.

The request was denied by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, which stated that it was too close to President Nasheed’s next scheduled trial date on April 4.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Supreme Court bench will prevail as long as Maldives remains a democracy”: Chief Justice

Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain has said the current seven-member bench of the Supreme Court cannot be abolished and will continue to remain as the highest court of the country as long as the Maldives remains a democracy.

The Chief Justice’s remarks come at a time where the Supreme Court has come under heavy criticism from the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

Last week following two controversial rulings issued by the court, the MDP’s National Council passed a motion calling on its parliamentary group to seek to abolish the existing Supreme Court bench and replace it with a new panel of judges, including foreign judges.

The party subsequently launched peaceful street protests last Friday against the court rulings. Protesters led by former President Mohamed Nasheed also called on the Supreme Court to refrain from undermining parliament and its decisions.

Speaking during a ceremony held at the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) on Sunday to swear in five new Magistrate Court Judges, Justice Faiz Hussain contended that the only way a judge from the Supreme Court could be removed was if the judge’s position became vacant.

“By the will of Allah, the Supreme Court bench will prevail as long as the Maldives remains a democracy. The bench cannot be changed. A change to the Supreme Court bench can only be brought if a judge’s position becomes vacant,” he said.

The Chief Justice also called upon all the judges to not to fear what the “people from other institutions” say, and advised the judges to not let their emotional sentiments get in the way of fulfilling their legal duties.

He added that every person is entitled with the right to file a case at the court if the person feels that his rights had been compromised, and when the highest court decides on a matter, that decision will be final and binding, and cannot be changed.

Faiz Hussain also said that the court will look into cases filed with them, and the court process would not stop.  He added that while there remained the option to settle matters out of court, if a matter came to the court, it would look into that matter.

“A very noble jihad”, says JSC President Adam Mohamed

Meanwhile President of JSC and member of the Supreme Court bench Adam Mohamed followed Chief Justice Faiz Hussain in condemning the efforts of some parliament members to dissolve the court bench.

Justice Adam Mohamed contended that article 54 of the Constitution clearly states as to how a Judge can be removed from a court. Therefore, Mohamed said the efforts led by MDP MPs to change the bench through legislation were unconstitutional.

“While the constitution very clearly mentioning as to how a judge can be removed, It remains very clear that efforts to remove a sitting judge in contrast with the principle laid down in Article 54 of the Constitution is clearly unconstitutional.

The JSC President also called on state institutions to refrain from interfering with the work done by the courts or do anything that could “impact the fairness and impartiality” of the JSC.

“I call upon you not to forget the fact that you are carrying out a very noble jihad in the name of Allah in delivering justice to the people,” he told the judges.

Regarding the removal of judges, Adam Mohamed echoed Chief Justice Faiz Hussain’s remarks stating that claiming that a judge could only be removed by either retirement, resignation or if the parliament successfully removes the judge by a two thirds majority.

Every effort will be made to bring the necessary changes – MDP

During the MDP’s emergency national council meeting held last week, the motion proposed by MDP national council member Mohamed ‘Sanco’ Shareef – which concerned the removal of the existing Supreme Court bench – received unanimous support from all attending members, including former President Mohamed Nasheed.

“The Supreme Court is acting in such a fashion that it has now begun overtaking the powers of the parliament and in the process undermining the constitution of this country. [Therefore] this motion calls on MDP’s parliamentary group to make formal requests to parliament to immediately abolish the current bench of Supreme Court and establish a new bench that consists of honest judges.

“Also as the Maldives Constitution does not bar the Supreme Court having foreign judges, [this motion also calls] to seek qualified and educated judges from abroad,” read the motion (Dhivehi).

The meeting was called in following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn parliament’s removal of Civil Service Commission (CSC) Chair Mohamed Fahmy Hassan on sexual harassment charges, and a decision to conduct no-confidence votes through secret ballot.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed during the meeting stated that it was more important that there be a proper justice established in the country rather than him being elected as President.

“To reform the judiciary and bring the justice system of this country into the right course is something I must do,” he said. “We will come out to the streets, we will protest. I will not take a single step back until the bench is replaced with better judges.”

Meanwhile, MDP’s Parliamentary Group and Parliament’s Majority Leader Ibrahim Mohamed Solih assured the council that the party’s parliamentary group under his leadership would do everything at its hand to ensure the dissolution of the existing Supreme Court bench.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed’s legal team files High Court case to defer trial until after elections

Former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team filed a case with the High Court today (March 24) regarding the deferment of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court criminal case until after the September presidential election.

Nasheed is facing criminal charges over the controversial detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed during the last days of his presidency.

Nasheed’s legal team previously requested the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court delay the trial until the end of the scheduled presidential elections in 2013, and in a separate request, asked the Hulhumale’ court for a delay in proceedings by four weeks, during the March 7 Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court hearing.

At the same hearing, state prosecutors said they did not object to delaying the trial until presidential elections scheduled for September this year are over.

The Hulhumale’ court dismissed the request to delay the trial until the end of the elections, but agreed to withhold it for four weeks, stating that the panel of judges by majority “had decided to proceed with the trial”.

Nasheed’s lawyers subsequently contested the decision, claiming that continuing the trial could compromise the rights of many people, arguing that Nasheed was the presidential candidate of the largest political party in the country, the MDP.

However, the court stated that Nasheed’s claim he was the presidential candidate of a political party lacked legal grounds to support it, as presidential candidates were decided by the Elections Commission after it opened the opportunity to file presidential candidates.

Filing of presidential candidates is expected to take place in July.

High Court case submission

Nasheed’s legal team submitted a case to the High Court at approximately 10:20 this morning (March 24) to defer the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court criminal case until after the September presidential election, MDP Spokesperson Imthiyaz ‘Inthi’ Fahmy told Minivan News.

“Now the court has to formally accept the case, which will happen at a later date,” stated Fahmy.

“We expect that prior to the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court hearing, the High Court should have a decision and will ask the lower court to halt the case,” he added.

Nasheed’s legal team confirmed with Minivan News that the case has been submitted to the High Court.

“This is not an appeal. We submitted a case to the High Court for the deferment of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court case until the election is over,” said one of Nasheed’s lawyers, Hifaan Hussain.

“The court accepted the documents, but we are waiting for the court to accept and register the case,” she explained.

Hussain explained a reply from the High Court will likely be issued within three days and once the case is accepted it should take about a month to complete.

She expects the High Court to grant the deferment of lower court’s case against Nasheed until the presidential election is over.

President Nasheed’s Spokesperson MP Mariya Didi is also confident the High Court will grant the deferment.

“The prosecution has said they have no objection to deferment of the trial until after the elections,” Didi stated.

“I don’t see any reason why the court should not grant deferment when the prosecutor has no objection to it,” she added.

Politicising  justice

The MDP maintain that the charges are a politically-motivated attempt to prevent Nasheed from contesting elections in September, and have condemned the former President’s repeated arrest on the court’s order by squads of masked special operations police.

Speaking during a party rally held earlier in March, President Nasheed stated that the four-week break granted by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court until the next hearing was an opportunity for state institutions to decide on the matter.

“Delaying trial for just four weeks has no meaning. There is no reason for it nor does it help anyone. We want the trial to be delayed till the elections are over. [The prosecution] gave one month and said that they did not object to further delays,” Nasheed told his supporters.

Nasheed said that it was very clear that charge of arresting the judge was not a charge against him alone, but several others as well.

He also warned that if the magistrate court issued a verdict that would bar him from contesting the elections, a lot of people would rise up against the decision and trigger a “very dangerous political insurgency”.

Didi also highlighted the large number of Maldivians continuing to support Nasheed, speaking with Minivan News today.

“It is clear that 46,000 Maldivians have decided President Nasheed is their presidential candidate. Our campaigns show that President Nasheed will win the elections with a clear majority.

“The coup has set us back not only with regard to democracy and human rights, but in regard to investor confidence and development.

“Our international development partners have also urged the government to take account of the wishes of the people and to hold an inclusive election with – as the European Union put it – the chosen candidate of MDP Mohamed Nasheed being able to contest the elections.

“We cannot waste another five years with a government that lacks a democratic mandate,” Didi declared.

Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court legitimacy questioned

During the early-March MDP rally, Nasheed also criticised the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) stating that the problem with Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was not just the panel of judges. He alleged that the JSC had formulated the bench and have now been forcing administrative staff of the court to do specific things to impact the trial.

Parliament’s Independent Commissions Oversight Committee has been investigating the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, specifically the appointment of judges by the JSC.

Deputy Speaker of Parliament Ahmed Nazim told local media on Friday (March 22) that a notice had been sent to Gasim Ibrahim – who is a Majlis-appointed JSC member and also the presidential candidate for Jumhoree Party (JP) – regarding a case to remove him from his JSC post.

The parliamentary committee summoned all members of the JSC to attend the committee on Wednesday (March 20) to face questions regarding the manner in which judges were appointed to the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench.

Another committee meeting is scheduled to take place tonight (March 24).

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, also raised concerns over the politicisation of the JSC during her investigative visit to the Maldives this February.

As part of a wider review of the Maldives justice system, Knaul claimed that the JSC – mandated with the appointment, transfer and removal of judges – was unable to perform its constitutional duty adequately in its current form.

As well as recommendations to address what she said were minimal levels of public “trust” in the nation’s judicial system, Knaul also addressed matters such as the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed.

Nasheed is currently facing trial for his detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court last year, charges he claims are politically motivated to prevent him from contesting presidential elections later this year.

Knaul maintained that the former president, like every other Maldivian citizen, should be guaranteed a free and independent trial.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)