Tag: former president mohamed nasheed

India should stop meddling with Maldives’ domestic matters, says Home Minister Jameel

Home Minister Mohamed Jameel Ahmed has expressed his disappointment over the Indian government’s decision to provide refuge to former President Mohamed Nasheed in the Indian High Commission.

The former President was due to attend a hearing regarding his detention of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

Instead of appearing in court, Nasheed sought refuge in the Indian High Commission, claiming his trial was politically motivated and an attempt to bar him from running in presidential elections scheduled this year.

Speaking to local newspaper Haveeru, Jameel said that attempts by any country to prevent a person from facing charges pressed by an independent Prosecutor General (PG), could be described as interfering domestic matters of a sovereign state.

He said the charges levied against the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) presidential candidate were serious as they involved the “abduction of a senior judge”.

In January 2012 while in power, Nasheed’s Home Minister Hassan Afeef wrote to the Defense Ministry requesting the judge be detained as he posed a threat to both the country’s national security and the criminal justice system.

The judge had previously obtained an injunction from the Civil Court against his further investigation by the judicial watchdog, which had complied.

The Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) subsequently arrested Judge Abdulla and placed him in military detention on Girifushi – a military training centre near Male’, also used for Nasheed’s famous underwater cabinet meeting in 2009.

In an attempt to give a legal justification for the involvement of the armed forces during the arrest, the former Home Minister alleged the judge had “taken the entire criminal justice system in his fist”, and posed a threat to “public order, safety and national security”.

After his sudden resignation on February 2012, Nasheed is now facing criminal charges for violating Article 81 of the Penal Code, which states that the detention of a government employee who has not been found guilty of a crime is illegal.

Jameel – a former Justice Minister under President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s 30 year autocracy – has previously said it was “crucial to conclude the case against Nasheed before the approaching presidential elections, in the interests of the nation and to maintain peace in it.”

“Every single day that goes by without the case being concluded contributes to creating doubt in the Maldivian people’s minds about the judiciary,” the home minister said at the time.

Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s contended that the charge against its presidential candidate was a desperate attempt by the government to destroy its political opponents and bar Nasheed from contesting the scheduled elections.

The UK Bar Human Rights Commission – which is has been observing Nasheed’s trial – concurred in its recent report, agreeing that the trial was politically motivated.

“BHRC is concerned that a primary motivation behind the present trial is a desire by those in power to exclude Mr Nasheed from standing in the 2013 elections, and notes international opinion that this would not be a positive outcome for the Maldives,” the report stated.

However Home Minister Jameel has disputed the MDP’s claims, arguing that the trial was not politically motivated but a sincere attempt by the current government to uphold the rule of law.

Expressing his frustration over Nasheed’s presence in the Indian High Commission, Jameel said he had “never previously seen the international community trying to protect a convict or an individual who is being tried in a court of law”.

“I describe this action [by Indian High commission] as very unusual,” he said. “For example, it would be very unusual for a murderer to seek refuge in a diplomatic office.”

Jameel said the country needed assistance from the international community to look into the arrest of the judge, and “not to protect an individual who stands charged with a serious crime”.

Tweeting last night, the Home Minister implied that India was meddling in the Maldives’ internal affairs: “What’s happening now gives us an indication of the extent and level of interest some countries prepared to take in our internal matters,” he said.

“I would strongly urge everyone to let our institutions deal with the challenges, and allow the Maldives to uphold rule of law,” he tweeted.

Jameel was not responding to calls at time of press.

In a statement released by Ministry of External Affairs, the Indian government called on its regional counterpart to strictly adhere to “democratic principles and the rule of law, thereby paving the way for free, fair, credible and inclusive elections”.

“Following the arrest warrant issued against him by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, the former Maldivian President Mohamed Nasheed, who is a candidate for the Presidential elections in Maldives scheduled for September 2013, is in the Indian High Commission and has sought India’s assistance. We are in touch with the relevant Maldivian authorities to resolve the situation,” the statement read.

“Now that the President of the Election Commission of Maldives has announced that Presidential elections would be held on 7 September 2013, it is necessary that the Presidential nominees of recognised political parties be free to participate in the elections without any hindrance.

“Prevention of participation by political leaders in the contest would call into question the integrity of the electoral process, thereby perpetuating the current political instability in Maldives,” it added.

India’s Ministry of External Affairs concluded its statement by contending it was “not in the interest” of the Maldives or the region to prevent any candidate from contesting the country’s presidential elections later this year.

“India would call upon the government and all political parties in Maldives to avoid any actions that would vitiate the political atmosphere in the Maldives,” its statement read.

In a statement released by the office of the former President, Nasheed welcomed the Indian statement.

“The events of the past year – the mass arrests, the police brutality, the politically motivated trials – demonstrate that Dr Waheed cannot be trusted to hold a free and fair election. Waheed should do the right thing and resign from office. An interim, caretaker government should be established that can lead the Maldives to genuinely free and fair elections, in which all candidates are freely able to compete,” he said.

Nasheed in the statement also reiterated his belief that that his trial was “a politically motivated sham” and said the Hulhumale Magistrate Court – established to hear his case – was illegal and created “with the sole purpose of disqualifying me from standing in the presidential elections”.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed “seeking advice” in Indian High Commission following court order for his arrest

Police have been issued a court order to produce former President Mohamed Nasheed at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court ahead of his trial, scheduled at 4:00pm today.

The former President, who is due to attend a hearing regarding his detention of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012, was inside the Indian High Commission at 1:00pm this afternoon following the announcement of the court order.

Police had set up barricades around the High Commission area at time of press.

Police Spokesperson Sub Inspector Hassan Haneef today confirmed that police had received an order to produce the former president at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

“We have received the order and we will be trying to carry it out in accordance with the Maldivian constitution and the order itself,” Haneef said.

The court summons follows Nasheed’s failure to attend his previously scheduled trial hearing at Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court on February 10.

The former President was on an official visit to India after being granted permission to depart the country by the court. Despite his permitted travel period expiring on February 9, Nasheed arrived back in Male’ on February 11.

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Mohamed Rasheed at 1:00pm said the former President was inside the Indian High Commission in Male’, “seeking advice” after news of the court order calling for his arrest was made public on Tuesday night.

“He went to the hospital in Male’ this morning and then returned back to his home. After a few minutes he went to the Indian High Commission with a couple of MDP MPs.

“[Nasheed’s] lawyers are not around at the moment, but from what I know they are attempting to appeal the order at the High Court,” Rasheed said.

Last night Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) members camped outside the former President’s residence in order to prevent police from entering the narrow street where Nasheed lives.

MDP Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor claimed  police had intended to arrest Nasheed in secret in order to present him at his court hearing today.

“They [Police] were going to pounce on Nasheed, but we received intelligence about it and let people know what was happening,” Ghafoor said.

“This is pre-2008 procedures. At least one hundred people were outside Nasheed’s residence last night throughout the night,” Hamid told Minivan News today.

Minivan News observed crowds of supporters still filling the street this morning at around 10:30am.

LIVE UPDATES: Refresh page for latest

1:15pm: The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) have issued a statement condemning the arrest warrant for Nasheed.

“The MDP reiterates its belief that the arrest warrant and the charges against him are politically motivated and calls on the international community to remain vigilant and immediately intervene to ensure a free and fair trial for President Nasheed,” the party said.

“President Nasheed’s legal team was informed by the Maldives Police Services that the court order was issued to arrest President Nasheed and summon him to the court on 13 February 2013. However, the court has not yet informed him or his legal team of the scheduled hearing.”

1:39pm: Maldives Police Service (MPS) were standing outside the Indian High Commission building in Male’.

The second hearing of the case was scheduled on 10th February 2013 while President Nasheed was on an official visit to India and was unable to return to Male’ due to a medical emergency.

The lawyers informed the court in writing as stated in the court’s regulations. According to the regulations, if the accused is unable to attend the hearing and after informing the court, documentation must be provided to the court within 2 working days.

While time frame to produce the documents has not even passed, and when the documents were being processed, the court issued an arrest warrant on President Nasheed on 11th February 2013. The courts also have an option to fine the accused (MVR 75) for failing to appear before court.

1:59pm: ‘MDP News’ Twitter feed shows woman being apprehended by police outside the High Commission building.

“This highlights, once again, how biased the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court is against President Nasheed. This illegal court has no interest in the rule of law, it exists merely to serve the political aims of its paymasters. This trial is a thinly veiled attempt by Dr Wadeed, in cahoots with his friends in the judiciary, to prevent President Nasheed from contesting in the upcoming presidential elections. The regime is fearful of President Nasheed’s popularity, so they are pulling out all the stops to prevent his name appearing on the ballot paper. These forceful measures by the Court are contrary to their usual practice,” said MDP MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor.

2:43pm: Indian media ‘Times Now Live’ asks: “Will India protect Nasheed?”

3:30pm: Nasheed has tweeted confirming that he is seeking refuge in the Indian High Commission: “Mindful of my own security and stability in the Indian Ocean, I have taken refuge at the Indian High Commission in Maldives.”

Minivan News observed around 200 people gathered near the police barricades. The crowd appeared non-violent but the atmosphere was tense.

3:54pm: Indian media is reporting the Indian government as denying that Nasheed has sought refuge.

4:05pm: Minivan News has observed a police officer armed with a rubber bullet gun deployed outside the High Commission.

4:10pm: MDP MP Ghafoor has said Nasheed is discussing “a transition arrangement, where we can have a free and fair election in September.”

“We have a scenario now we can’t move ahead without a mediator. We prefer India because it is our neighbour and a democratic nation,” he said.

4:23pm: Minivan News understands that no formal request for refuge or asylum has been made at this stage.

4:26pm: An appeal hearing was cancelled after a summoning chit was not able to be delivered to Nasheed.

4:27pm: Riot police appear to have pulled a man out of the crowd and arrested him.

4:49pm: MDP MP and spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor has said he was not aware how long the former president planned to remain in the Indian High Commission building.

“This is the safest place for him to be until a solution is found,” he claimed. “I would speculate that a transitional arrangement for fresh elections is being sought.”

Without providing specific examples of how Nasheed’s life was in danger, MP Ghafoor contended there had been threats against the former president going back to when he was first elected in 2008.

“Right now we have militarised Special Operations (SO) police officers running the show. I do not believe [Nasheed] is safe,” he claimed. “50,000 MDP members do not trust the police either.”

After Nasheed was previously taken into police custody ahead of a court hearing back in October 2012, the former president was not reported to have been physically mistreated by authorities during his transfer to Dhoonidhoo detention facility.

President’s Office Media Secretary Masood Imad said at the time that despite allegations raised by the MDP concerning the alleged use of excessive force by police to seize the former president, authorities had insisted officers had acted with restraint.

“I’m told [Nasheed] asked for a box of cigarettes [in custody], a request that [officers] granted.  He was given Benson and Hedges as I understand,” Masood previously told Minivan News.

Ghafoor also alleged that SO officers also this week entered the home of Parliamentary Speaker Abdulla Shahid in what he claimed was an attempt to intimidate the Majlis representative.

Speaker Shahid was not responding to calls from Minivan News at time of press.

The Maldives Police Service has vehemently denied allegations it had threatened Shahid in a statement published Saturday (February 9).

5:16pm: Nasheed’s trial hearing scheduled for 4:00pm today has been cancelled after he failed to attend at the specified time.  The Department of Judicial Administration (DJA) confirmed the cancellation. It has yet to be rescheduled.

5:37pm: Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel has tweeted accusing India of meddling in Maldives’ internal affairs:

5:43pm: RaajjeTV reports that the government is to begin negotiating with the Indian High Commission.

5:53pm: President’s Office Media Secretary Masood Imad has said there has been no contact between the government and the Indian High Commission in Male’ today.

“All I know right know is that Mr Nasheed is in a meeting with Indian High Commissioner Dnyaneshwar M Mulay,” he said. Masood added that a message had been sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirming a meeting between former President Nasheed and the high commissioner was taking place.

6:16pm: Local media has reported that the Indian naval vessel ‘Kalpei’ has arrived in the country as part of a joint operation being conducted with the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF).

The ship is said to be taking part in a five day maritime security program that will see it help patrol the Maldives’ Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), according to the Sun Online news service.

6:58pm: Mohamed Aslam, former Minister of Housing and Environment in Nasheed’s government, has confirmed that the opposition MDP’s National Council has today approved taking “direct action” against the government.

Aslam said the term ‘direct action’ related to a wide programme of civil disobedience, rather than one specific strategy. “The whole situation is very fluid right now. Nothing will be ruled out,” he said.

“What we are demanding is a transitional government, as well as free and fair elections that would include [former President] Nasheed.”

Aslam claimed that following a march in the capital conducted by MDP supporters on Friday (February 8), there remained widespread public support for Nasheed to contest elections scheduled for September this year.

However, he stopped short of declaring the day’s developments a “turning point” in the party’s calls for early elections. “We always hope that we have reached a turning point, whether it is today or tomorrow,” Aslam said.

7:19: WikiLeaks tweets that Nasheed has done a ‘Julian Assange’ – a reference to the whistleblowing website’s founder who sought refuge in Ecuador’s embassy in London in a bid to avoid extradition to Sweden.

7:30pm: Official Spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ibrahim Muaz Ali has told Minivan News that it will not be seeking discussions with the Indian High Commission in Male’ over Nasheed’s presence on its property today.

“We have contacted the commission today. [Indian] Officials confirmed [Nasheed’s] presence and that he had come for a meeting with the high commissioner,” the spokesperson added.

Muaz said that although Nasheed had appeared to have deliberately sought to avoid his trial hearing today, the Foreign Ministry “did not think” there was a need to hold talks on the matter with Indian officials.

7:40pm: Reports on social media suggest that Nasheed’s luggage has been transferred to the Indian High Commission building in Male’. Photo by Ranreendhoo Maldives.

10:10pm: Minivan News has observed more people beginning to gather at the barricades. Crowd is chanting “money money, yes sir” and “baaghee Waheed, hang him”.

One glass bottle has been thrown over the barricade by protesters. Police look like they are preparing to charge.

10:15pm: Bottle was allegedly thrown from Majeediyya School. Police have now entered the crowd.

10:23: Minivan News observed around 700 to 800 hundred people currently at the barricades.

10:25: Former President Nasheed has called for President Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik to step down from office and an interim arrangement to be established that would oversee a free and fair presidential election in the Maldives.

“The events of the past year – the mass arrests, the police brutality, the politically motivated trials – demonstrate that Dr Waheed cannot be trusted to hold a free and fair election. Waheed should do the right thing and resign from office. An interim, caretaker government should be established that can lead the Maldives to genuinely free and fair elections, in which all candidates are freely able to compete,” President Nasheed said.

President Nasheed labelled his ongoing trial “a politically motivated sham” and said the Hulhumale’ Magistrates Court – established to hear his case – was illegal and created “with the sole purpose of disqualifying me from standing in the presidential elections.”

President Nasheed said he could not hope to be afforded a fair trial and accused Waheed of “ruling down the barrel of a gun.”

President Nasheed added that “the fate of Maldivian democracy hangs in the balance” and said that “the Maldivian people must not be robbed of their democratic right to elect a leader of their choosing.”

10:42pm: Minivan News has observed around 1,500 now gathered on Sosun Magu.  MDP representatives have vowed to be there “every night” while Nasheed remains in the high commission building.

11:15pm: Several MDP MPs have pledged a first-round victory for Nasheed. Speakers addressing the crowd can be heard from the other end of Sosun Magu, however there is near silence outside the Indian High Commission on Ameer Ahmed Magu, Minivan News has witnessed.

Only the shards from two smashed bottles thrown at police earlier in evening indicate any sign of conflict, while further up Ameer Ahmed Magu, a handful of officers are stationed across the road from the high commission.

11:55pm: Minivan News has observed protesters throwing bottles at police.  Temporary barricades were also hurled at officers as protesters tried to make their way up to the People’s Majlis from Sosun Magu.

11:57pm: Protesters trying to make their way to parliament are met by police charges.

February 14, 00:01am: Protest is officially announced at an end for the night.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Government claims “remarkable success” in democracy, good governance and rule of law

The President’s Office has claimed the government has achieved “remarkable success” during its first year in power.

February 7, 2013, marked the one year anniversary of the government of President Mohamed Waheed Hassan, following his controversial ascension to power.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed suddenly resigned on February 7 last year, following 22 days of continuous anti-government protests sparked after the Chief Judge of Criminal Court was placed under military detention.  The demonstrations were later backed by mutinying sections of the police and military.

Within a few hours following the chaos, Nasheed’s then Vice President Waheed – to whom the opposition had pledged their allegiance weeks before – assumed power and formed a “unity government” with the protesting politicians.

In a publication (Dhivehi) released on the President’s Office website last Thursday, under the title ‘One year for the National Unity Government’, the office highlighted its achievements in 10 different areas. These included: democracy and good governance, upholding of law, building a safe society, economic development, employment opportunities, education, health, fight against drugs, transport system and housing development.

Democracy and good governance

Under democracy and good governance, the President’s office claimed that the Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CNI)’s report on the transfer of power had defeated the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s claims challenging the legitimacy of the government.

Following the transfer of power, the opposition MDP had claimed that former President Nasheed’s government was toppled in a bloodless coup d’état and that his resignation was obtained under duress.

The CNI was formed to look into the circumstances surrounding the transfer of power.  The Commonwealth-led national inquiry panel in its report concluded that the transfer of power that took place on February 7, 2012 was legitimate.

“A national unity government was formed, a roadmap of how the government would be run was established on February 16, 2012, and successfully ran the government for one year,” the pamphlet stated.

However, during Parliament’s Executive Oversight Committee (EOC)’s reviewing of the CNI report, senior police and military officials during Nasheed’s administration – including former Chief of Defense Force retired Major General Moosa Ali Jaleel and former Commissioner of Police Ahmed Faseeh – disputed that their evidence was included in the report, and told the parliamentary committee that Nasheed had no choice but to resign, suggesting that his resignation was obtained under duress.

“I fully believe that President [Nasheed] resigned under duress,” Faseeh told the committee at the time.

Recalling the events, former Commissioner Faseeh told the committee he had done everything he could to control the situation but said there came a point when the officers had openly mutinied and disobeyed his orders.

The former military intelligence head also alleged that Nasheed’s resignation and transfer of power involved unlawful elements and had all the hallmarks of a coup d’état.

“Academically speaking, the events on February 7 fulfilled all the essentials of a coup. It involved all the features of a coup that are widely accepted around the world. Some of the elements take place before the toppling of a president. Others take place spontaneously,” Brigadier General Ahmed Nilam said. He was subsequently suspended.

President Waheed’s former Human Rights Minister Fathimath Dhiyana Saeed, in her personal memoir on the controversial transfer of power, alleged that Waheed had a role in the controversial toppling of Nasheed.  She also claimed that the then vice-president had prior knowledge of what would possibly happen in February.

Battle against CMAG

The President’s Office in the publication also detailed the decision of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) to remove “the Maldives from its formal agenda” after it was put there following the controversial transfer of power.

In September 2012, following the findings of the CNI, the Commonwealth’s human rights and democracy arm removed the Maldives from its formal agenda and placed it under “Matters of Interest to CMAG”.

The government also claimed it had reduced the number of political appointees below that of former President Mohamed Nasheed’s administration, which resulted in savings of MVR 2 million (US$ 129,701.68) per month.

“Efforts were carried out to broaden the role of the civil service and strengthen the functionality of the government,” it stated.

“To close down all doors to corruption, [the government] for the first time in history, established and enacted a code of conduct for political appointees during their course of employment,” it added.

Under democracy and good governance, the publication also highlighted that the Maldives had won the position of vice chairmanship of United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council and the vice chairmanship of the annual assembly of International Renewable Energy Institute (IREI), to be held this year.

Upholding of law

The government highlighted its success on upholding the rule law, claimed that it had established a free state broadcasting service by handing over Television Maldives (TVM) and Voice of Maldives (VOM) radio station to the Maldives Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) – formerly the Maldives National Broadcasting Corporation (MNBC) one and Raajje Radio – thereby running the government without a government-funded media.

Video footage taken during the storming of MNBC on February 7,2012 revealed that a mutinying police officer used a firearm to break down the gates of the station headquarters in capital Male’,  allowing dozens of police and military forces (MNDF) as well as some civilians in plain clothes to forcefully take over the station – approximately two hours before former president Mohamed Nasheed resigned from office.

The publication also stated that the government had abolished the National Administration Offices and had transferred its responsibilities to the local councils.

“The lands that were withheld by the central government were given to local councils in a transparent and responsible manner,” it read.

In July 2012, President Waheed’s government announced that it would be taking over “some responsibilities” assigned to the elected Male’ City Council (MCC).

A press statement released by the President’s Office at the time said the decision had been taken on the advice of cabinet to take back some services that are currently provided by the MCC.

The statement read: “Despite the legal system of the country [dictating] that several services given from the government to the public are delegated to local councils under the Decentralization Act, the decision of the President with the consultation of the cabinet, comes at a time where several of these local councils are failing to provide these services”.

Establishing a peaceful society

The government, under the heading, “establishing of a peaceful society”, claimed it had eradicated violence and established law and order within society.

“License given to cafes, shops and boutiques to operate 24 hours a day were revoked and more police were added to patrol duty which brought down crime rate,” the report claimed.

It also claimed that 60 police stations carried out more than 1000 operations to seek out law breakers, and during the course 215 out of 437 prisoners released by the former government’s rehabilitation and training program “Second Chance” were arrested at crime scenes and sent back to jail.

Despite these claims, the year 2012 recorded a significant rise in murder cases including a veteran lawyer and a member of parliament.

Murders in 2012 included: Member of Parliament Dr Afrasheem Ali murdered at his residence, lawyer Ahmed Najeeb found murdered and mutilated in a house, Lance Corporal Adam Haleem murdered while on his way to duty, Hassan Aboobakuru, 65 years, murdered in Manafaru Island, Abdulla Muheeth  mistakenly killed by a gang, 16 year old  Mohamed Arham found murdered inside the park behind Kulliyathul Dhirasathul Islamiyya, and a Bangladeshi expatriate worker found murdered in a building in Male.

“Prison space was increased,” the government said, adding “No prisoner was pardoned as per the power vested in the president under the Clemency Act.”

Presidents Office Spokespersons Ahmed ‘Topy’ Thaufeeq and Masood Imad were not responding at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court ruling “clearly means I will not be allowed a fair trial”: former President Nasheed

The High Court has ruled in favour of the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court rejecting an appeal filed by former President Mohamed Nasheed.

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

The former president had contested the Hulhumale’-based court’s ruling on three procedural issues raised during an initial hearing of his case in October 2012.

Among these issues, Nasheed’s legal team argued that the Hulhumale-based magistrate court could not hold hearings on a nearby island – in this case the capital Male’.  Moreover, a summoning order issued to Nasheed by the court on September 26, 2012, was inconsistent with existing laws, his lawyers claimed.

Finally, Nasheed’s representatives claimed Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was formed in contrast with the Judicature Act.

Issuing a verdict today, the three member judges panel overseeing the appeal ruled that there were no “legal grounds” to declare the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court and its decisions illegitimate.

“Therefore, based on the points highlighted remains as such, the sitting judges unanimously agreed that the High Court had no legal grounds to declare the decisions made by Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court in its ruling no. 397/HMC/2012 on October 9, 2012 illegitimate,” read the verdict.

Responding to the first procedural point raised by Nasheed, the High Court stated that holding a hearing in a spacious venue in Male’ was essential to achieve the purpose of articles 42(c) and 42(d) of the constitution, demanding transparent and open court hearings.

The court also declared that holding such a hearing in Male’ did not compromise the rights of any party and that there existed no law barring a court from holding a hearing in a different venue.

The court also noted that the holding of trials in different venues was a practice carried out by other courts of law.

Regarding the legitimacy of the magistrate court, the High Court said it did not have the authority to overrule a decision by the higher court, despite an appeal by Nasheed’s legal team to the contrary.

The High Court claimed additionally that as per the constitution, the Supreme Court remains the highest authority in deciding legal matters – therefore its decisions are final and binding.

The Supreme Court has previously declared that the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court is legitimate and can operate as a court of law, following a request by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) that it clarify the court’s legality.

Highlighting the third procedural point, the High Court ruled that the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court has the legal authority to issue a summons and that no barrier existed to issuing such orders.

The High Court also stated that principles followed by both itself and the Supreme Court did not limit the magistrate court from issuing such an order.

Immediately following the ruling, President Nasheed was served a summons to attend the Hulhumale’ Magistrate court on February 10.

MDP response to verdict

In a statement following the verdict, Nasheed said the decision “clearly means I will not be allowed a fair trial.”

Former MDP Chairperson MP Mariya Didi noted that the High Court concluded the case after only two successive hearings, adding that it seemed the Hulhumale’ Court “had prepared summons before the High Court judgement was even delivered.”

“Today was a travesty of justice and demonstrates how much President Nasheed’s case is a politically motivated trial,” she said.

Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel – formerly Justice Minister during President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s 30 year government – has meanwhile told local media that swift prosecution of Nasheed before the Presidential Election was necessary to protect the “political and social fabric of the Maldives”.

“Every single day that passes without a verdict will raise questions over the justice system of the Maldives in the minds of the people,” Jameel told newspaper Haveeru.

Background

The Prosecutor General (PG) pressed charges against the former President in the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court on the grounds that holding the trial in Male’ at the Criminal Court represented a conflict of interest on behalf of Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed, whom the case concerned.

The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) appointed the three-member panel of judges to oversee the trial of the former president. The Commission’s members include two of Nasheed’s direct political opponents, including Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid – Deputy of the government-aligned Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP) – and Gasim Ibrahim, a resort tycoon, media owner, MP and leader of the Jumhoree Party (JP), also a member of the governing coalition.

While maintaining the trial was a politically-motivated attempt to block Nasheed from contesting the election – scheduled now for September 7 – the former president’s legal team raised procedural points challenging the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

They argued that the court was created by the JSC in violation of the Judicature Act, and had no legal or constitutional authority.

The team raised the issue during the first hearing of the trial held on October 2012, along with other procedural inconsistencies, but all were rejected.

The former President’s legal team subsequently lodged an appeal in the High Court challenging the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court’s ruling on the procedural points.

Despite its initial rejection of the points, the High Court later accepted the appeal. It therefore issued an injunction ordering the magistrate court to suspend Nasheed’s trial until a decision on the procedural points raised by Nasheed’s legal team was reached.

Nasheed’s legal team said it was prepared to appeal the case in the Supreme Court depending on the outcome.

Nasheed’s legal team were not responding to calls at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court to rule in appeal on Hulhumale’ court legitimacy

The High Court is expected to rule Monday (February 4) on a Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) appeal against the Supreme Court’s decision to back the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed, who is currently facing charges in the Hulhumale’ court over the detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed, today appealed against the legitimacy of the legal body alongside lawyers from the MDP.

Nasheed’s legal team have claimed that the Supreme Court ruling legitimising the Hulhumale’ court could be ignored by a lower legal body in the country, if oversights were made in the original verdict.

The High Court hearing follows attempts by the MDP to file a Civil Court case against serving Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed over allegations he had sought to influence the judiciary against the former president.

Dr Jameel was himself arrested under the Nasheed administration last year after the President’s Office requested an investigation into so-called “slanderous” allegations he made that the government was working under the influence of “Jews and Christian priests” to weaken Islam in the Maldives.

Minivan News was awaiting a response from Jameel at time of press.

“Per incuriam”

According to MDP spokesperson and MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor, Nasheed’s legal team today invoked the principal of “per incuriam”, whereby an order from a superior court could be ignored in cases where “oversights” where found in the legal body’s ruling.

“In this regard, there are many precedents where the High Court has ruled against the Supreme Court,” he claimed, without specifying examples.

Hamid contended that rather than arguing the appeal hearing on just a legal technicality, the principal of “per incuriam” was relevant to what he claimed were the questionable grounds by which the Hulhumale’-based court was founded.

“The existence of Hulhumale’ magistrate Court is illegal. Our lawyers have submitted proof such as letters by former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom showing this,” he claimed.

Nasheed came under international criticism last year after detaining Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed. The arrest followed his successful blocking of investigations into his alleged misconduct by the judicial watchdog and quashing of his own police summons.

The former government also accused the judge of political bias, obstructing police, stalling cases, having links with organised crime and “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist” to protect key figures of the former dictatorship from human rights and corruption cases.

Nasheed’s government faced ongoing protests following the detention that led to his controversial resignation on February 7, 2012.

The MDP has maintained that the charges against Nasheed, which would potentially see him facing possible imprisonment or being banned from running for office in elections scheduled for later this year, were politically motivated.

Nasheed, who also spoke at the trial, observed that the chief presiding judge at the hearing had formerly served under Home Minister Dr Jameel during his tenure at the now defunct Ministry of Justice, during the autocratic rule of former President Gayoom. The MDP alleged that the judge, having previously reported to directly to Dr Jameel during his time as justice minister, had a conflict of interest.

Appeal aim

Hamid claimed that should the appeal be upheld by the High Court, the invalidation of the Hulhumale’ Magistrates Court would also call into question the nature of the charges against former President Nasheed.

He claimed additionally that the state was “on the back foot” in the case, with the Prosecutor General’s (PG’s) Office not contesting the issue today during the hearing.

Hamid added that Attorney General Azima Shukoor and a representative for the court watchdog, the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), had also declined to turn up for the hearing.

He was critical however of the chief judge providing the MDP just 20 minutes with which to present the opposition’s case against the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ court.

The three presiding judges are expected to deliver a verdict on the appeal by tomorrow.

Action against home minister

Meanwhile, President of MDP’s Male’ City Branch Mohamed Rasheed Hussain ‘Bigey’ filed a case at the Civil Court Thursday (January 31) concerning Home Minister Dr Jameel’s comments regarding the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed.

The case, which has been accepted by the court, is currently in the process of registration.

“We are submitting this case to the Civil Court requesting that they order current Minister of Home Affairs Mohamed Jameel Ahmed to stop making remarks to local media that will stand in the way of judges presiding over cases fairly and in a manner free of influence,” Hussain said.

Aishath Leesha, the lawyer representing the MDP in the case, claimed that the home minister’s comments concerning an ongoing case were outlawed not only under the Judicature Act and Judges Act, but by previous Supreme Court rulings and the Maldives constitution.

“Hence, we are asking the court to declare that neither Jameel nor anyone else can make comments of this nature,” Leesha said.

Dr Jameel was reported in local media as stating that it was “crucial to conclude the case against Nasheed before the approaching presidential elections, in the interests of the nation and to maintain peace in it.”

He alleged that delays to the trial were due to “various reasons”, and would very likely have “adverse effects on the political and social fabric of the nation”.

“If things happen this way, people will start believing that it was due to the failure to address some issues in the Maldives’ judicial system, which need to be looked into. And in my opinion, the courts will have to take responsibility for this,” Jameel said in his interview with news website Haveeru.

Expressing concern that it would be an “extremely worrisome matter” if people started speculating that the reason for the delay in prosecuting Nasheed was that the country’s judiciary was not performing to par, Jameel said, “Every single day that goes by without the case being concluded contributes to creating doubt in the Maldivian people’s minds about the judiciary.”

http://minivannewsarchive.com/politics/mdp-accuses-home-minister-of-influencing-former-presidents-trial-52062
Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court brings forward Nasheed’s appeal case

The High Court has brought forward former President Mohamed Nasheed’s appeal case, now scheduled for Sunday.

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

The former President’s legal team lodged the appeal challenging the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court’s ruling on three procedural issues raised during the court’s first hearing held October 9.

Speaking to Minivan News, MP Mariya Ahmed Didi confirmed the legal team had been informed of the decision to move the hearing.

“I understand from President Nasheed’s lawyers that they have received summons for February 3, as Nasheed had requested to depart the country the afternoon after the hearing. As far as I understand no particular reason was cited,” she said.

Didi however expressed concern over the High Court taking decisions on such short notice, stating that as Nasheed received legal council from abroad, such sudden changes in scheduling were inconvenient.

“These are Queens Counciler’s and their schedules are set in advance.  It is not possible to reschedule at such short notice. We have requested the High Court to bear with us on that,” she said.

Didi contended it was imperative that Nasheed be given “all opportunities to defend himself as a defendant in a criminal trial”. Nasheed “should not be an exception to that,” she said.

Spokesperson for the Department of Judicial Administration (DJA) Latheefa Gasim was not responding.

Meanwhile, Nasheed’s legal team has also sought an opportunity to highlight in court the Supreme Court’s ruling concerning the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

The Supreme Court has declared that Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court is legitimate and can operate as a court of law, following the Judicial Service Commission (JSC)’s request that it clarify the court’s legality.

MP Mariya said Nasheed’s legal team was of the opinion that the issue decided in the Supreme Court was different from the issue put before the High Court by the legal team.

“We hope the High Court will give our lawyers the opportunity to explain the distinction and consider all issues before they give a judgment on the matter,” she said.

Following the Prosecutor General (PG)’s decision to press charges against Nasheed in the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court instead of Criminal Court, Nasheed’s legal team initially challenged the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ court arguing that it was created in violation of the Judicature Act.

The team raised the issue during the first hearings of the trial, along with other procedural inconsistencies, but all were rejected. They later appealed the case in the High Court along with other procedural issues.

Despite its initial rejection of the procedural points, the High Court later accepted all points made by Nasheed’s legal team except that concerning the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court. It later issued an injunction ordering the magistrate court to suspend Nasheed’s trial until a decision on the procedural points raised by Nasheed’s legal team was reached.

Controversies

The case has been subject to controversy after Nasheed’s party  claimed the trial was a politically motivated attempt to bar Nasheed from contesting in the next presidential elections.

The UK Bar Human Rights Committee (BHRC) in a recent report concluded that the charges against Nasheed appeared to be a politically motivated attempt to bar the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) candidate from the 2013 presidential elections.

“BHRC is concerned that a primary motivation behind the present trial is a desire by those in power to exclude Mr Nasheed from standing in the 2013 elections, and notes international opinion that this would not be a positive outcome for the Maldives,” the report stated.

The report observed that the detention of the judge was “not a simple case of abuse of power”.

“Rather, the underlying narrative of the situation is that of a president desperate to bring change to a new democracy after decades of oppression, and finding himself thwarted by the inability of the organs of state set up by the constitution to deliver much needed reform,” the report stated.

Referring to “the large number of international reports” that have found the Maldivian judiciary to be flawed, the BHRC noted that the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) “failed in its twin tasks of ensuring that the judiciary has the appropriate experience and qualifications, and in bringing to book the judges who fail to fully and fairly implement the rule of law”.

“Implicit in these criticisms is that Mr Nasheed cannot be guaranteed a fair trial,” the report concluded.

Arrest of the judge

Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed was taken into military detention of January 16, 2012 at the request of then Home Minister Hassan Afeef on the grounds that the judge posed a threat to national security.

The judge had successfully blocked investigation of his misconduct by the judicial watchdog and quashed his own police summons.

Abdulla Mohamed had “taken the entire criminal justice system in his fist,” Afeef said, accusing him of obstructing high-profile corruption cases, releasing murder suspects, colluding with drug traffickers, and barring media from corruption trials.

Judge Abdulla “hijacked the whole court” by deciding that he alone could issue search warrants, Afeef contended, and had arbitrarily suspended court officers.

The arrest triggered series of anti-governmental protests that eventually led to the sudden resignation of then President Nasheed on February 7, 2012.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Commonwealth-backed report a “whitewash”: former president

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has branded the Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) report a “whitewash”, claiming it purposefully excluded testimonies from key police and military figures concerning last year’s transfer of power.

The CNI report, which was published back in August last year, concluded there had been no coup, no duress and no mutiny during the controversial transfer of power that saw President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik sworn into office. The findings were also welcomed at the time by the US State Department and the United Nations.

Nasheed alleged that despite the CNI report’s conclusions, a recent parliamentary inquiry had heard evidence from senior police and military figures that was omitted from the commission’s findings and supported allegations of a coup.

The comments were made following a recent visit by the Commonwealth Secretary General’s Special Envoy to the Maldives, Sir Don McKinnon. McKinnon, whose visit concluded yesterday (January 27), was in the country to discuss progress to “strengthen democratic institutions” in line with recommendations in the CNI report.

The Commonwealth Secretariat today said it would not be issuing a statement or making any comments on McKinnon’s visit at the present time.

Nasheed, who declined to meet with McKinnon during his visit, has expressed strong criticism of the investigation conducted by the CNI.

“The CNI report was a whitewash. It wilfully excluded testimony of police and army leaders – the very people best placed to ascertain whether the transfer of power was legal or not,” he stated.

The former president also slammed the government of President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik, claiming it had taken no action against police and military officers for alleged human rights abuses during the transfer of power, or towards correcting issues with the country’s judiciary raised in the CNI’s conclusions.

In the same statement, Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Mariya Didi condemned the Commonwealth-backed report for empowering and legitimising President Waheed’s government, which she accused of lacking a democratic mandate.

“The CNI report was to empower and embolden an illegitimate regime, which is now pressing charges against President Nasheed in the hope of disqualifying his candidature in the upcoming presidential elections. Uncertainties created by these politically motivated charges have skewed the election landscape and allowed campaign momentum for marginal political groups led by former international civil servants, feudal entrepreneurs and religious extremists that clearly do not have electoral support,” she claimed.

“Having stolen one presidency, the regime intends to rig the vote for another. This situation has grave consequences for the future of our democracy,” Mariya added.

“Cover-up” allegations

On Saturday (January 26), 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”.

MDP Spokesperson MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor said at the time that respective accounts from the CNI and the UN concerning the transfer of power on February 7 were “not reflective of the experiences of Maldivians who witnessed and lived through the event both out on the streets and through their TV screens”.

“The letters sent to the government [concerning the transfer of power] represented a real shoddy job by these organisations. It is clear they did not do their homework. It is embarrassing,” Ghafoor said.

President’s Office Spokesperson Ahmed ‘Topy’ Thaufeeq meanwhile told Minivan News last week that the CNI report was a “transparent” process undertaken by “qualified Maldivian people”.

“Because of this, the CNI report is accepted by the government. We have a judiciary, if anyone has a problem with this affair they can go to the courts themselves,” he claimed.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

CoNI coup cover-up concerns fuel anti-government demonstrations: MDP

Evidence presented to parliament by former security officials concerning February 2012’s controversial transfer of power has given renewed impetus to anti-government demonstrations in Male’ this week, the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has said.

Minivan News yesterday (January 26) observed several thousand people taking part in an MDP demonstration around Male’, calling for a caretaker government to be installed ahead of fresh elections. The party continues to allege the transfer of power was a “coup”, with Nasheed being forced from office under duress.

The MDP claimed more than 4000 people took part in yesterday’s gathering as part of efforts to communicate its concerns about the legitimacy of the present government to both the local and international community.

MDP MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor added a petition had also been presented at the People’s Majlis by the protesters, though only the party’s elected representatives were allowed admission to parliament.

“Protesters were not being allowed into the Majlis, so our MPs had to present the petition,” Ghafoor said.

The government-aligned Adhaalath Party alleged the MDP protesters verbally abused its supporters and vandalised promotional materials at a membership drive held at a school.

President Dr Mohamed Waheed has meanwhile called for government personnel and institutions “to be vigilant of a system that would ensure a just, fair and equitable governance in the Maldives.”

During his speech – made during a tour of Miladhummadulu Atoll – President Waheed claimed that good governance could only be achieved through listening to the demands of the public.

Renewed impetus

Ghafoor claimed the party’s protests had been given renewed impetus after senior military and police intelligence figures recently gave evidence to the Majlis’ Executive Oversight Committee (EOC) alleging that the transfer of power on February 7 “had all the hallmarks of a coup d’etat”.

“Several of these figures including chief of staff and military heads have confirmed what we all knew. They have all said [former President Nasheed] resigned under duress,” he added.

Ghafoor alleged this same information had purposefully not been included in the final report of the Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) that last year concluded there was no mutiny by police or the military.

The CNI also ruled that former President Mohamed Nasheed’s resignation was not made under duress, but did highlight a need for reforms in key institutions like the judiciary and security forces.

Protests by the party this week are the first large-scale demonstrations through the city since the Freedom of Assembly Bill was ratified by President Waheed earlier this month, imposing a stringent limitations on street protesting.

Adhaalath Party member drive

The government-aligned, religious conservative Adhaalath Party alleged that people participating in yesterday’s MDP protest yelled obscenities at its members during a membership drive being held at Ghiyasuddeen School in Male’.

The party also claimed MDP protesters ripped up the party’s banners at the school that were temporarily put up as part of the membership drive.

Responding to the allegations, MP Ghafoor claimed that while the MDP did not encourage such behaviour towards government-aligned parties, he said he would not be surprised if some supporters had ripped up banners during the protest.

“These allegations are beyond belief. [The Adhaalath Party] has blatantly been involved in a coup against a democratically elected government. There is no love lost between our parties and we do not believe they are even a religious party,” he claimed. “All we see from them is xenophobia and nothing else.”

Ghafoor contended that protesters tearing down a few posters should be seen as a very minor issue compared to wider issues taking place in the country.

“Ripping up a banner is nothing. People do not respect [the Adhaalath Party].  When our supporters walk past police headquarters and yell out ‘baagee’ (traitor) at them, the Adhaalath Party are no different as far as we are concerned,” he said.

Ghafoor added that after the MDP planned to hold demonstrations every Friday to try and ensure maximum turnout from its supporters in the capital.

http://www.presidencymaldives.gov.mv/Index.aspx?lid=11&dcid=8541
Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed resigned “not under duress”: Defence Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu

Former President Mohamed Nasheed’s Defence Minister has claimed Nasheed was not under duress when he resigned from office, local media reported.

Speaking to the Committee on Government Accountability at the People’s Majlis, Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu said that he did not believe “anyone” could have posed a threat to Nasheed’s life while he was in the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) headquarters, local media reported.

The comments were made in relation to the Committee on Government Accountability’s study into the Commission of National Inquiry (CoNI).

“From the beginning till the end, Nasheed was under full protection of the security forces. When he walked to the President’s Office, he was given a timeline to announce his resignation, but such a timeline did not mean that he had to, or that he was forced to resign.

“He did not have to resign, the circumstances did not become so grave that he had no choice but to resign”, Kaleyfaanu was quoted as saying in Sun Online.

Kaleyfaanu claimed that the situation became worse on February 7 due to Nasheed’s handling of the situation. He further alleged that Nasheed had begun commanding ordinary officers of the security forces in violation of principles of command, local media reported.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)