Tag: former president mohamed nasheed

Nasheed requests intervention in Hulhumale Magistrate Court legitimacy case

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has requested the Supreme Court allow him to intervene in the case over the legitimacy of the Hulhumale Magistrate Court.

Nasheed is to face charges in the Hulhumale Court over the unconstitutional arrest and detention of Chief Criminal Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Procedural points regarding the legitimacy of the Hulhumale Court had been raised by former president Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team, the claims over the courts legitimacy were however dismissed by the Hulhumale Magistrate Court.

The Supreme Court issued an order over the High Court to cease its cases regarding the legitimacy issue of the Hulhumale Magistrate Court, until a decision had been reached.

The Supreme Court has confirmed the request made by Nasheed to intervene in the Hulhumale Court legitimacy case, however it is yet to respond to the request, court said.

The first hearing of the case is scheduled for 2:00pm today at the Supreme Court.

The case is being tried at Supreme Court upon request from the Judicial Services Commission to take over the case from the lower court.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Court scheduling practices enabling judicial corruption: senior legal official

A senior legal official who served under the current and former administrations has claimed the country’s legal system is wide open to corruption, by allowing individual judges to schedule court hearings at their whim.

The legal figure, who has been involved in some of the country’s highest profile cases in recent years, told Minivan News that it was “quite evident” that the lack of a centralised system for scheduling legal hearings was not only resulting in massive inefficiency, but also allowing for corruption within the country’s court system.

Both the Prosecutor General’s (PG) Office and the country’s judicial watchdog body have maintained they have limited involvement at present in deciding when hearings should be scheduled – with almost all decisions being taken by individual courts.

However, a PG’s Office spokesperson claimed that the Criminal Procedure Code presently sitting within the People’s Majlis was, if passed, anticipated to allow pre-trial hearings to give the prosecution and other parties a greater say in agreeing general timeliness for trials.

The senior legal source, who asked to remain anonymous, concurred that the responsibility for scheduling trial and sentencing hearings was presently the responsibility of individual courts and the judges overhearing them. The source alleged the system had created a situation where the judiciary, in certain cases, set hearings either as soon as possible, or instead delay them for up to several years depending on their own preferences and political motivations.

Such inconsistencies within the scheduling of several cases involving senior parliament and political figures – or their close associates – had left courts open to allegations of corruption and political motivation, the senior legal official claimed.

In one case submitted by the PG’s Office that involved a staff member working for former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom facing allegations of child abuse, the source claimed there had been a delay of several years between the trial’s last last hearing and sentencing – despite all evidence having been submitted to the court.

“The judge presiding over the trail announced that the next hearing would be to deliver sentencing, but there had been delays of several years before this was scheduled,” the source claimed. “I understand letters were written by the PG’s Office asking to expedite the case, yet the situation [of delayed hearings] is quite common.”

The legal source claimed that this was just one example of a number of cases that had undergone significant delays – sometimes over the space of years – awaiting their next hearing within the nation’s courts without any specified reason.

“There must be hundreds of cases like this,” he said. “There is no central system for scheduling hearings, just six or seven judges all acting independently of each other.”

In outlining alleged inconsistencies within the scheduling of court hearings, the source pointed to the decision of the Criminal Court on February 23 this year to dismiss three long-standing counts of fraud against Parliament Deputy Speaker and ruling-coalition aligned MP Ahmed Nazim all at once.

The decision was taken by the court 16 days after the controversial transfer of power on February 7, with the presiding judge stating that Nazim’s “acts were not enough to criminalise him”.

“The Criminal Court dropped all of Mr Nazim’s cases,” the anonymous source claimed. I had never seen a criminal case where so much evidence failed to lead to a conviction.”

In an interview to the local media outlet Sun following the rulings, Nazim claimed that a total of four cases against him over alleged fraud were baseless and had been leveled by former President Mohamed Nasheed’s administration, using false evidence.

Nasheed is currently being tried over the detention of a Criminal Court chief Judge, who he alleges took the country’s legal system into his own hands and posed a threat to “national security”.

Aside from allegations of potential corruption, the source also raised fears that the present lack of a centralised scheduling system was failing to promote accountability or efficiency in the nation’s judiciary.

“If for instance the PG’s Office files two different cases about the same suspect, the courts might schedule one hearing for today and another next week, with the judge unaware that there are pending cases against the suspect.

Mandate

Responding to Minivan News over the allegations of potential judicial corruption, court watchdog the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) referred the matter to the Department of Judicial Administration, saying the scheduling of hearings and any such concerns were not within its mandate.

“The scheduling of court hearings are administrative procedures undertaken by individual courts,” the JSC said.

The Department of Judical Services meanwhile said that when hearing criminal cases there presently existed no time limits by which time court hearings should be scheduled.

“In Criminal cases, there are no regulations stipulating requirements about such time limits. However, the court works on a guideline administratively adopted” said department spokesperson Ahmed Maajid.

Minivan News was still waiting for a response from the Department of Judical Services about these administrative guidelines at time of press.

Questioned as to whether the legal sources were shared by the prosecutor general, a spokesperson for the PG’s Office told Minivan News that it was for the courts to determine the schedule of court hearings.

“Generally we are not involved, unless, for example, a hearing involves travel to some of the country’s outer islands, then we might discuss a schedule with the courts,” he said.

The PG’s Office said it did not “usually” write to the courts regarding the issue of court scheduling , unless it had itself received complaints over the matter.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Judicial Council decided Hulhumale’ court could not hear criminal cases, reveals Nasheed’s legal team

Members of the Judicial Council raised doubts over the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court at a meeting in late 2010 and decided that criminal cases were out of its jurisdiction, former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team have revealed.

In a press statement, Nasheed’s legal team said that minutes from a meeting of the Judicial Council were among documents submitted by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to the High Court.

The JSC entered as a third party into an appeal lodged by Nasheed at the High Court challenging a ruling by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, which had summarily dismissed procedural points raised by the former President’s lawyers.

The procedural issues included the legal status of the magistrate court.

However, before the High Court was due to issue a ruling on Nasheed’s appeal, the Supreme Court instructed the High Court to suspend proceedings as the apex court had been asked to determine the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

The Judicial Council minutes meanwhile revealed that Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz, former Chief Judge of the High Court Abdul Gani, former Chief Judge of the Juvenile Court Shuaib Hussain Zakariyya, Magistrate Mohamed Niyaz from the north judicial district and Magistrate Ali Shareef from the south judicial district “all raised questions over the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ court.”

The Judicial Council was abolished after the Supreme Court unilaterally struck down articles in the Judicature Act concerning the council.

“Presenting the case [to the council], the Chief Justice said that following the enactment of the law on courts, members of the judiciary as well as lawyers were saying that the court in Hulhumale’ could not function under the law and that the Hulhumale’ court had been stopped following the passage of the [Judicature Act in 2010],” the press release explained.

The Judicature Act states that magistrate courts should be set up in inhabited islands aside from Male’ without a division of the trial courts (Criminal Court, Civil Court, Family Court and Juvenile Court).

According to appendix two of the constitution, Hulhumale’ is a district or ward of Male’ and not a separate inhabited island. The former magistrate court at Hulhumale’ – controversially set up by the JSC before the enactment of the Judicature Act in October 2010 – should therefore have been dissolved when the Judicature Act was ratified.

Moreover, the minutes revealed that the Judicial Council had decided that criminal cases were out of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court’s jurisdiction.

The Chief Justice had said at the Judicial Council meeting that the magistrate court had been dealing with civil cases and family disputes.

The press statement noted that it was the opinion on record of all judges at the council meeting that the Hulhumale’ court could not function as a separate court following the enactment of the Judicature Act.

Supreme Court intervention

Nasheed’s legal team also expressed concern with the Supreme Court ordering the High Court to suspend hearings on the appeal.

If the Supreme Court decides to take over the procedural point raised at the High Court, “President Nasheed would lose one stage of appeal,” the legal team said.

Following the High Court granting an injunction or stay suspending the former President’s trial at the Hulhumale’ court, the magistrate court announced that it has suspended all ongoing cases.

However, the Supreme Court last week instructed the magistrate court to resume the cases and took over a case filed at the Civil Court a year ago by a lawyer, Ismail Visham, contesting the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Speaking to press yesterday after a ceremony to open new offices for the Drug Court, Chief Justice Faiz criticized the JSC as “inept” and contended that “challenges faced by the judiciary would have been resolved” if the judicial watchdog body “properly” carried out its responsibilities.

Faiz also said that the case concerning the legitimacy of the Hulhumale Magistrate Court presently before the Supreme Court had not been addressed before because the JSC had not filed the case.

“When a case was filed in Civil Court contesting the legitimacy of Hulhumale Magistrate Court, the JSC sent a letter to [the Supreme Court] arguing that the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction to look into the case. We then asked the JSC to file a case as per the procedure and they only filed the case just a few days ago,” he explained.

The Chief Justice added that the Supreme Court would be considering the case as a “high priority”.

The JSC filed the case while Nasheed’s appeal was ongoing at the High Court.

Meanwhile, MP Mariya Ahmed Didi, former President Nasheed’s spokesperson, said that the Supreme Court deciding on the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court without allowing the High Court to rule on Nasheed’s appeal would “give weight to what many are saying about the politicization of the Supreme Court.”

The former Special Majlis MP urged the highest court of appeal to allow the High Court to issue a ruling as those unhappy with the judgment could appeal at the Supreme Court.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Coalition government “abusing religion”, “spreading xenophobia”: former President Nasheed

Former President Nasheed has expressed concerns over what he alleged was the current government coalition’s deliberate spreading of xenophobia, abuse of religion for political gains and negligence in bringing MP Afrasheem’s murderer to justice.

Speaking to a gathering of an estimated 2000 attendees at Sunday’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) gathering on the occasion of Republic Day, Nasheed strongly criticised the political opposition to the contract with GMR to develop the Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA).

“With the direction Maldivian politics are going in now, we may have to face consequences where the country’s citizens become prey to powerful foreign countries,” Nasheed warned.

“For the purposes of justifying this coup, people who are passing themselves off as religious scholars are spreading hatred for foreigners among our citizens. Under the guise of religion and nationalism, they have instilled xenophobic sentiments in the hearts of a few Maldivians.”

“A few politicians, for their personal gain, have brought the Maldives to the edge of a very dangerous precipice. The political actions of people who are nearing the age of hundred to try and revive their personal pasts, to repeat what has happened in a different century, will prove to cause a loss to us citizens in the end,” Nasheed said.

He added that it was impossible to “chase the Indian High Commissioner” out of Male’ in this day and age as might have been done in the distant past, and that GMR could not be sent away either.

Nasheed once again asserted that the contract with GMR was one beneficial to the people of the Maldives, “although some businessmen may not be benefiting from it.”

At a recent meeting, Nasheed had shared figures detailing the financial benefits the GMR contract had for the Maldives, while denouncing the Dhivehi Qaumee Party’s economic criticism of the same contract.

“Creating rifts was a common strategy during the long 30 year old regime [Former President Maumoon Abdul Gayyoom’s administration]. Some Maldivian politicians see creating a rift to then take political advantage from it to be a strategic and inventive skill. Baaghee (“Traitor”) Waheed may possibly have read in some book that creating rifts would be beneficial, but Maldivians will get no benefits through setting up India and China against each other and creating problems between them,” Nasheed stated.

Nasheed stated that the country’s foreign policy needed to be clearly laid out, with the aims and objectives clearly defined.

“Stop hiding Afrasheem’s murderer” : Nasheed to CP Riyaz

Nasheed expressed disappointment that the police had to date failed to uncover details in the case of PPM MP Afrasheem Ali who was found brutally murdered in early October.

“There seems to be none among us who is even concerned about it anymore,” said Nasheed. “On the first couple of days, we were very vocal about giving money to Dr Afrasheem’s widow from state funds, but we have not taken any steps to bring the murderer to justice.”

“This government has been negligent in the case of Dr Afrasheem’s death,” said Nasheed. “We assure you that an MDP government will bring his murderer to justice.”

The former president further alleged that the police had failed to find any relevant information about the case, saying “Baaghee [‘traitor’] police claim they have uncovered a lot in their investigations; that it was indeed Afrasheem who had been killed, his identity card number, that he was a member of parliament, his wife’s name, who his friends and relatives are… these traitor police claim to know all the details, except what concerns the actual case of the murder.”

Stating it was a direct message to the Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz, Nasheed said: “Stop hiding Afrasheem’s murderer. You know who Afrasheem’s murderer is. Please send the related details to the judicial institutions and courts of the Maldives. Ensure Afrasheem’s murderer is brought to justice immediately.”

“A republican government is one that belongs to the people”

“The current people in government came to power through a coup. What we see today is a violent, illegitimate, coup government kept in power through the force of pepper spray and batons of a few police officers and MNDF soldiers,” Nasheed said.

He further stated that it was a national obligation of all Maldivian citizens to bring down the coup government and establish a democratic government voted in by the people.

“It is because of that coup that today the country’s economy is being destroyed for the benefit of a handful of businessmen,” Nasheed said.

“This coup government has broken up the social protection programme that we established in our democratic government. Their intention is to create dependency and keep us citizens forever at the mercy of these traitors or some rich businessmen. We need to bring an end to this coup government for the sake of the country’s development.”

Nasheed ended his speech by calling on the Speaker of the Majlis to assume leadership of the country and to hold presidential elections within two months. As a final word, he led the crowd of supporters to chant “Elections Now!”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court instructs High Court to suspend hearings on former President Nasheed’s appeal

The Supreme Court has instructed the High Court to halt its hearings on an appeal lodged by former President Mohamed Nasheed, challenging a ruling by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court on procedural points raised by the former President’s legal team.

The High Court on Sunday granted an injunction or stay suspending the former President’s trial at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, pending a ruling on the procedural points raised by Nasheed’s legal team, which included determining the legitimacy of the magistrate court.

Nasheed’s lawyers were informed by the High Court this morning that a hearing scheduled for 10:15am was cancelled because a judge was “on sick leave.”

An official from the High Court initially told Minivan News that the hearing was cancelled because the judge was on sick leave. However, asked which of the three judges on the panel had taken ill, the official said she would have to clarify.

The High Court official said later that the case had been suspended based on instructions from the Supreme Court. A letter from the Supreme Court was received in the late afternoon yesterday, she said.

“The judge took the sick leave [this morning] after the Supreme Court ordered the case to be halted. It wasn’t cancelled because he took ill,” she claimed.

Nasheed’s lawyers were at first unaware of the Supreme Court order.

Abdulla Shair from Nasheed’s legal team said that the High Court has since informed the lawyers of the Supreme Court’s instruction to halt the case.

However, it was unclear whether the Supreme Court’s order was a writ of prohibition or “just a letter telling the High Court to halt the case until the Supreme Court ruled on the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court,” he explained.

The High Court official said that the instructions were made in a letter from the apex court.

A media official from the Supreme Court was not responding at the time of press.

However, the official told local media today that the High Court was asked to halt hearings on the appeal because one of the procedural points involved the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ court, which the Supreme Court had been asked by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to determine.

The Supreme Court also informed the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court on Wednesday to resume proceedings on other ongoing cases, pending a ruling on the magistrate’s court legitimacy.

Following the High Court’s injunction, the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court announced that it had suspended all ongoing cases in light of the questions raised over its legal status.

In an announcement a day after the High Court granted the injunction, the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court said it has suspended proceedings on cases involving marriage, divorce, guardianship, family matters, property lawsuits, civil cases, criminal cases involving extension of detention periods as well as other matters that could be affected by the questions raised over its legal status.

The Supreme Court media official told newspaper Haveeru today that the decision by the highest court of appeal would not affect the High Court injunction suspending the former President’s trial.

Former President Nasheed is facing criminal charges over the military’s controversial detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Speaking to press after the High Court hearing on Sunday, Nasheed’s lawyer Hisaan Hussain claimed that the state was unable to offer valid arguments to defend the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, which the former President’s legal team contends was formed in violation of the constitution and Judicature Act.

At Sunday’s hearing of Nasheed’s appeal, the JSC revealed that it had filed a case at the Supreme Court to determine the legitimacy of the court.

Local media reported on Monday that the Supreme Court ordered the Civil Court to send over all files and documents on a case submitted by a lawyer, Ismail Visham, over a year ago challenging the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

The Supreme Court had issued a writ of mandamus ordering the lower court to suspend its hearings and had taken over the case. The apex court had however not conducted any hearings on the case.

Meanwhile, writing in his personal blog last month, Independent MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed explained that a magistrate court could not legally be established at Hulhumale’.

The Judicature Act states that magistrate courts should be set up in inhabited islands aside from Male’ without a division of the trial courts (Criminal Court, Civil Court, Family Court and Juvenile Court).

According to appendix two of the constitution, Hulhumale’ is a district or ward of Male’ and not a separate inhabited island. The former magistrate court at Hulhumale’ – controversially set up by the JSC before the enactment of the Judicature Act in October 2010 – should therefore have been dissolved when the Judicature Act was ratified.

At Sunday’s hearing of Nasheed’s appeal, the three-judge panel heard arguments on the procedural issues from both the claimant and the state, represented by the Prosecutor General’s Office and Attorney General’s Office.

Adjourning the hearing, Judge Shuaib Hussain Zakariya had said that the judges would try to ensure that the next hearing would be the last before issuing a ruling.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court grants injunction suspending former President Nasheed’s trial

The High Court today granted an injunction (Dhivehi) temporarily suspending the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed at the contested Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, pending a ruling on procedural points raised by the former President’s legal team.

The former President is facing criminal charges over the military’s controversial detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

At a preliminary hearing on October 22, Nasheed’s lawyers requested an injunction halting the trial pending a ruling by the High Court on three procedural points dismissed by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court: a magistrate court holding a trial on a different island to where it was based; the constitutional legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court; and the legality of the arrest warrant issued by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, as such orders could only be issued by a court in the locality of the defendant’s permanent address.

At the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court’s first trial date on October 9, the court summarily dismissed the first two points and agreed to hear the last issue. The court however ruled that the warrant was issued legally as it was following a precedent established by the High Court.

The ruling was subsequently appealed by Nasheed’s legal team at the High Court.

Concluding the hearing on the appeal on October 22, High Court Judge Shuaib Hussain Zakariya said the three-judge panel would issue a ruling on the injunction at the next hearing on the morning of November 4.

Meanwhile, the second hearing of the trial at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was scheduled for 4:00pm today. Following the court order issued by the High Court however, it has since been cancelled.

In its ruling today, the High Court noted that the Prosecutor General’s Office had not objected to the court issuing the injunction at the October 22 hearing.

The High Court noted that continuing without “determining the legitimacy of the necessary procedural processes” and “ensuring the rights of the defendant” could cause irreparable injury to the claimant.

Moreover, if there was “a delay” in ruling on the request for an injunction, “the court believes that the purpose of the ruling [on the appeal] might not be achieved”.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Government confident of meeting 2012 tourism goals despite “political turmoil”

Maldives tourism authorities remain confident the country will meet its ambition to welcome one million visitors to the country during 2012 despite ongoing “political turmoil” in the Indian Ocean over the last year.

The country plans over the next 12 months to hold a number of celebrations to commemorate 40 years since its travel industry was founded.

Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture Ahmed Adheeb has told media in a press conference on Monday that should the Maldives achieve its aims of attracting one million visitors to the country during 2012, it could be effectively seen as being equivalent to welcoming two million arrivals due to the challenges of overcoming the “political turmoil” following February’s controversial transfer of power.

“We are closing in on that target with a lot of challenges. We are working with major obstacles due to the present crisis in the country,” Adheeb was quoted as saying.

The comments were made as former President Mohamed Nasheed, who alleges he was forced to resign from office on February 7 this year under “duress”, pleaded for tourists to “be more aware” of the political problems facing the Maldives.

“Tourists should be more aware of what is going on here. They may think they are remote from Male’ [the capital] but many of the staff are from here,” Nasheed told the UK-based Guardian newspaper this week.

The vast majority of tourists coming to the Maldives stay at its secluded island resorts that are classed as uninhabited, therefore making them exempt from local laws that outlaw the sale and consumption of alcohol and pork products, as well as openly practising any faith other than Sunni Islam. This resort model also keeps most tourists away from the partisan politics of the country, as well as the  unrest that occurred in the capital of Male’ and other islands earlier this year.

Nasheed had previously called for a tourism boycott of the Maldives, as both himself and his supporters continue to question the legitimacy of the government of President Dr Mohamed Waheeed Hassan, his former vice president.

However, these calls were soon dropped by Nasheed and supporters of the now opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).  The party are still pressing for early elections this year, despite a Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) concluding the transfer of power in February was constitutional.

Despite fears about the impact of political uncertainty, Deputy Tourism Minister Mohamed Maleeh Jamal claimed back in September “the hard days” were over for the Maldives tourism industry following the release of the CNI’s findings.

The MDP has itself accepted some of the recommendations of the CNI report relating to judicial reform and holding security officials accountable, despite maintaining “concerns” over how the report was compiled and the potential “comical” implications of its conclusions.

Accepting the challenges faced by the tourism industry, Adheeb claimed that the entire industry was united in seeking to boost the prospects for tourism in the Maldives.

“The industry is driven by itself. This industry is mature enough to continue without any government interference. The difference between the former government and us is we won’t micro manage the industry. We are facilitating the process within the contours of the laws and regulations,” he told local media.

Amidst these claims, the Maldives last Thursday (October 18) picked up a number of accolades at the World Travel Awards (WTA) in Singapore that Adheeb claimed highlighted the strength of the country compared to other Indian Ocean destinations.

“This shows that Maldives is a stronger tourist destination than other Indian Ocean island nations such as Seychelles, Mauritius or Madagascar,” he was quoted as telling Sun Online.

The accolades picked up by the Maldives at this year’s WTA included awards for being the leading destination in the Indian Ocean for cruise and honeymoon holidays.  Also honoured was Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) – presently at the centre of legal and political wrangling – which took the prize for leading regional airport.

Over half way

As the Maldives also commences a number of events to celebrate 40 years since the inception of the country’s tourism, official figures from August showed the Maldives was over half way to meeting its million visitor aims for 2012.

Arrivals to the Maldives between January and August 2012 totalled 614,802 people – an increase of 2.9 percent compared to the same period during 2011, Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture figures showed.

Deputy Minister Maleeh was unable to respond to Minivan News about Adheeb’s comments and the challenges facing the wider tourism industry at the time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP’s Ali Waheed “confident” Majlis will remove President and Home Minister

Deputy Leader of Maldivian Democratic Party’s Parliamentary Group Ali Waheed has expressed his confidence that his party will get the votes it needs to secure no-confidence motions against the President and the Home Minister.

“We have full confidence in this. That is why we proposed it in the first place,” he said. “We want things to go in a democratic way and we accept the decision of the Maldivian people.”

The opposition MDP announced its intentions to submit the motions earlier this month.

Regarding President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan, the MDP alleged that he had destroyed the sensitive economy of the nation and that his handling of the economy had destroyed foreign investor confidence in the Maldives.

Justifying the move against Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed, MDP members have criticised what they see as Jameel’s failure to probe human rights abuses surrounding the February 7 transfer of presidential power.

The party also cited this year’s increase in murders and assault as the reason behind the move.

Majlis regulations state that 26 votes are needed to get a no-confidence motion onto the floor of the house, with a two-thirds majority of the full assembly (52 of 77) required to impeach the president.

Ali Waheed said that he was unable to reveal the stage at which negotiations with other parties had reached, saying instead.

“I’m not in a state to disclose that. However, we believe that the truth will be revealed in time. Let’s work with the positive things and success will follow.”

An official from the Majlis confirmed today that the necessary votes had been received and that the Counsel General had advised the Speaker of the Majlis that the motion can be tabled.

Figures received from the Majlis show that the MDP currently holds 30 seats in the Majlis, with government-aligned parties holding 39 seats and 7 independents remaining.

One seat in the Majlis is currently empty after the murder of Dr Afrasheem Ali earlier this month. A by-election for his Ungoofaru constituency has been scheduled for December.

Speaking at a press conference outside the Majlis yesterday, Ali Waheed said that discussions within the Majlis had indicated potential divisions within the governing coalition, reported local media.

Nasheed’s Allowances

At the same press conference Ali Waheed expressed his concern over the withholding of office allowances to President Nasheed, suggesting that Finance Minister Abdulla Jihad may be summoned before the Majlis if these privileges continue to be withheld.

“This is just another obstacle put up in front of us and we will tackle it accordingly,” he told Minivan News today.

Local media this week gave conflicting statements regarding the reasons for the withholding of Nasheed’s office allowance.

Sun Online reported Jihad as saying that the issue was related to the unknown location of Nasheed’s office whereas Haveeru said that the suspension of privileges was related to a disagreement over whether former presidents were required to conduct charitable activities.

“In reality, the office should be involved in holding social activities. However, the concern of these members is that there is no social work to be seen by the (Nasheed’s) office,” Jihad was quoted by Haveeru.

“It has to be clarified. Hence the financial allowances have been halted for the time being. We still haven’t been provided with the information we sought in relation to the office,” Jihad told the paper.

Jihad was not responding to calls at the time of press when contacted for clarification.

Article 8 of the Protection and Privileges for Former Presidents Act (Dhivehi) states, “In the event that a former president wishes to conduct social work beneficial to the community, the state shall provide up to MVR175,000 a month to arrange for an office, employees and other matters.”

Article 128 of the constitution states that a former president “serving his term of office lawfully without committing any offence, shall be entitled to the highest honour dignity, protection, financial privileges and other privileges entitled to a person who has served in the highest office of the land.”

Nasheed is currently on trial for the alleged illegal detention of Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed shortly before his controversial resignation in February this year.

However, Jihad was reported as saying earlier this week that  Nasheed would be provided any allowances forthcoming from the 2009 Former Presidents’ Privileges and Protection Act .

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed office’s allowance withheld

Minister of Finance and Treasury Abdulla Jihad has said that the office allowances payable to former President Mohamed Nasheed have been withheld for the past three months.

Sun Online have reported Jihad as saying that the issue was related to the unknown location of Nasheed’s office.

“We have not received any response to our letters to clarify this. The allowance will resume once they inform us the office location,” he said.

However, when questioned by local paper Haveeru Jihad said that the suspension of privileges was related to a disagreement over whether former president’s were required to conduct charitable activities.

“In reality, the office should be involved in holding social activities. However, the concern of these members is that there is no social work to be seen by the (Nasheed’s) office. It has to be clarified. Hence the financial allowances have been halted for the time being. We still haven’t been provided with the information we sought in relation to the office,” Jihad told the paper.

The paper reported that the current law on the matter states that up to MVR175,000 per month in office expenses can be provided to former heads of state conducting charitable work.

Jihad said that a former Presidents’ Immunity and Privileges Act is currently being drafted and that Nasheed will be allowed the privileges outlined in the eventual legislation.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)