Tag: former president mohamed nasheed

UK-based lawyers to aid Nasheed defence in “unprecedented” legal move

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has confirmed two senior UK-based legal experts – one a specialist in Shariah Law – will be joining the defence team of former President Mohamed Nasheed ahead of his trial over the detention of a senior judicial figure whilst in power.

Party Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor confirmed that Sir Ivan Lawrence QC and Barrister Ali Mohammed Azhar will be working with local lawyers Hisaan Hussain and Hassan Latheef in some capacity to represent Nasheed.

One practising lawyer in the country contacted by Minivan News today said the appointment of two foreign legal experts in a domestic trial was an “unprecedented” development within the country’s legal history, but could not clarify further at the time of press.

The former president, who will next month begin defending himself in court against charges that he illegally detained Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed back in January 2012, has rejoined the MDP in a campaign around the country’s southern atolls in a bid to regain the presidency following February’s controversial transfer of power.

However, while free to campaign in the country, judicial authorities have said that Nasheed remains barred from leaving the country without court approval ahead of the next hearing of his trial in November.

Nasheed was himself presented to court on Tuesday (October 9) after being arrested a day earlier by police.

Speaking in court, he maintained that the detention of Judge Abdulla was justified on grounds of national security following the reported failure of other institutions to hold the judge accountable.

The former president also alleged that the charges are a politically-motivated attempt to prevent him from contesting presidential elections in 2013.

Nasheed, who is now restricted from travelling abroad without judicial approval , is required to return to court on November 4, giving his legal team 25 days to study evidence against him and prepare a defence. A period of 30 days had been originally been requested by lawyers, but was rejected by a three-member judging panel.

The state presented more than 30 pieces of evidence it claimed proved that Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed was detained unlawfully, including the account of the judge himself.  It will also use audio and video of the judge’s detention, as well as speeches given by Nasheed.

Assisting with the former president’s defence will be veteran criminal lawyer Sir Ivan Lawrence QC, whose biography notes experience working within UK and international institutions like the Divisional Court, the Court of Appeal, the House of Lords and a mass murder war crimes trial at The Hague.

Nasheed will also be assisted by Barrister Ali Mohammed Azhar, who is also said to have worked extensively at high level UK institutions like the Court of Appeal and House of Lords, specialising in areas such as international and human rights law.

Azhar, who visited the Maldives back in 2005 along with Ivan Lawrence as part of a fact finding mission dealing with alleged human rights abuses, is also an expert in Sharia Law, according to his own biography.

Minivan News was awaiting a statement from the MDP about the appointments international legal assistance at the time of press.

Nasheed has meanwhile returned to campaigning with the MDP as part of a ‘journey of pledges’ that has seen the party touring a number of islands in the south of the country.

Despite having obtained permission to return to campaigning in the southern atolls following his arrest this week, the Department of Judicial Administration confirmed today that Nasheed was restricted from travelling abroad without court approval.

Department of Judicial Administration Spokesperson Latheefa Qasim that Nasheed’s passport had been withheld by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court following the issue of a warrant.

When asked about possible restrictions on the role foreign legal experts could have in domestic court hearings, Qasim said she would be unable to comment at present, having not been aware of the reported appointment of UK-based lawyers to Nasheed’s defence team.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP proposes no confidence motion against Home Minister

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has confirmed that a no confidence motion against Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed has been sent to the secretariat of the People’s Majlis.

MDP MP and Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor speaking from the island of Thinadhoo confirmed to Minivan News that an estimated 26 signatures had been secured by the party to support the no confidence motion.

However, Ghafoor said he was not able at time of press to confirm the exact numbers of MPs expected to support the motion, or if the People’s Majlis had approved or set a date for a no confidence vote to take place.

Parliament’s Counsel General Fathmath Filza could also not be reached for comment today by Minivan News.

To have a no confidence motion heard within the People’s Majlis, officials regulations require signatures from 25 serving MPs. Support from a majority of the full membership of parliament during the vote is then needed to remove the Home Minister from his post.

As well as serving under the present coalition government of President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan, Dr Jameel served as Justice Minister with oversight of the judiciary during the autocratic rule of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, as well as being an active member of the former opposition party, the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP).

The case is the second no confidence motion to be proposed this month after MP Alhan Fahmy of the government-aligned Jumhoree Party (JP) said he had held discussions over taking a no confidence vote against both President Waheed and Vice President Mohamed Waheed Deen.

Addressing the motion proposed against Dr Jameel, MDP MP Imthiyaz ‘Inthi’ Fahmy claimed in local newspaper Haveeru that the action had been taken over concerns concerning what the party called an “unprecedented” increase in murders and assault in the Maldives since the transfer of power.

Inthi also criticised the Jameel for what he called a failure to probe human rights abuses allegedly conducted by police on February 8 this year.

Police Integrity Commission findings

In a Police Integrity Commission (PIC) report released earlier this month into allegations of police brutality in the breaking up of Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s demonstrations held on February 8 provided two contradicting accounts of the events.

The report contended amongst it findings that on February 8 , police acted within the boundaries of the law and its own regulations, acting in accordance with Article 6(4) and Article 6(8) of the Police Act and as protection from any danger that may ensue from the MDP demonstrations.

President of the PIC, Shahindha Ismail, has however stated in the report that she saw certain acts carried out by police on February 8 to have been against the law, claiming that there no valid reason for police to have broken up the MDP demonstrations in the manner the police did.

Dr Jameel’s detention

During his time in opposition before February’s controversial transfer of power, Dr Jameel was an outspoken critic of Nasheed’s religious policies, authoring a pamphlet entitled ‘President Nasheed’s devious plot to destroy the Islamic faith of Maldivians’ and attacking his “business dealings with Jews”.

Under the former government, Dr Jameel was controversially detained by police on charges of slandering the government as a result of the publication, which authorities alleged at the time was a “pamphlet of hatred”.

Both Dr Jameel and DQP Deputy Leader of the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) were not responding to calls by Minivan News at the time of press in regards to the no confidence motion.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Hundreds demonstrate in capital after former president placed in detention

Additional reporting by Mariyath Mohamed and Daniel Bosley

Hundreds of protesters gathered near the President’s Office in Male’ on Monday night as close family and legal representatives of former President Mohamed Nasheed left to visit him at the Dhoonidhoo detention facility, where he is being kept ahead of his trial on Tuesday afternoon.

The country’s first democratically elected president was taken into police custody yesterday on the island of Fares-Mathoda in Gaaf Dhaal Atoll after the Hulhumale Magistrate Court issued a warrant for his arrest and presentation in court on Tuesday October 9.

The issuing of the warrant – exactly seven months after Nasheed’s ousting – follows his defiance of a court-ordered travel ban outside the capital Male’, and two court summons.

The Maldives Police Service confirmed to Minivan News that it had been ordered to detain Nasheed and present him at his trial in Male’ at 4:00pm today, but added that no order had been received to keep him in custody beyond the hearing so far.

Leaving to meet Nasheed last night, his wife Laila Ali, several close family members, and a handful of legal advisers travelled to Dhoonidhoo  at 10:15pm to cheers and chanting from a vocal group of around 500 to 600 supporters. The demonstrators had gathered behind temporary police barricades set up by the main Bank of Maldives building in the capital.

Demonstrators had been gathering since about 9:30pm as police set up blockades around the roads surrounding the President’s Office building on Boduthakurufaanu Magu.

Tensions during the evening were mostly evident in vocal exchanges between protesters on the front line and the 20 to 30 police officers assigned to man the blockades, who faced heckling and jeering from the crowds.

“You are only protecting certain individuals in this country,” one protester shouted angrily.

An police officer on the front lines responded that he was there to protect everyone. The jeering and chanting continued throughout the evening.

By 10:30pm, Minivan News observed some minor scuffles as police attempted to force the several hundred demonstrators back behind temporary barriers to chants of “free Nasheed” by the gathered crowd.  However, violent clashes with authorities were minimal during the gathering.

Senior officials of MDP were among the demonstrators, with MDP MP Imthiyaz Fahmy and parliamentary group leader Ibrahim Mohamed Solih on the front-lines of the gathering.

Police Spokesperson Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef said the demonstrations, which concluded at around midnight, were conducted peacefully and without any arrests.

“There were three barricades that were thrown into the water by the Bank of Maldives building, but no one had been arrested as a result,” he said.

Minivan News observed a small number of riot police in helmets later gathering behind police lines, but these officers were not deployed, as protests died down soon after midnight.

Also present earlier in the evening was former Minister of Environment Mohamed Aslam, who had travelled with Nasheed during the day after he had been detained by police.

Speaking to Minivan News, Aslam said Nasheed had requested he be returned to his home in Male’ under police custody ahead of his trial, rather than the detention centre at Dhoonidhoo.

The request was rejected by authorities, with Nasheed being dropped off at Dhoonidhoo, where representatives from the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) were said to be present.

While being returned to the capital yesterday, Aslam alleged that a foreign national, whom he believed to be from the India, was also travelling with police, saying he had requested to be transported back to Male’.

“I would say it is highly irregular to have a foreign person on a police boat in such a situation,” he claimed.

Discussing Nasheed’s arrest, Aslam said that after meeting with members of the public on Fares-Mathoda, Nasheed and his entourage returned to the former environment chief’s home on the island after it had been confirmed that a police force had landed nearby.

“These were police armed with riot guns gathered by my home,” he said.

Upon requesting entry to the building and showing an arrest warrant for Nasheed, Aslam said he had asked officers for a few minutes to discuss the situation with the former president.

“As soon as I turned around they had forced their way into the building and begun shoving us around,” he said. “As they forced there way in they also pushed me onto a glass table that broke, fortunately I wasn’t badly hurt from this.”

As police forced themselves into several rooms before locating Nasheed, Aslam claimed that the former president did not resist arrest. The former environment minister said that he was however unable to confirm reports that Nasheed had been pepper sprayed by officers, adding that he did not see such an incident at the time. He claimed to have seen some form of unidentified firearms being packed away by police after they left Fares-Mathoda.

Aslam said he had opted to travel with Nasheed they were transported to larger boat off the island to return to Male’. Along the way he added they had stopped for lunch, at which point it was announced that Nasheed was to be taken to the Dhoonidhoo detention facility.

Speaking to Minivan News yesterday, President’s Office Media Secretary Masood Imad said the government had wished to avoid any direct involvement in Nasheed’s detention and trial, referring any requests on the matter to police and judicial authorities.

“We have asked the Maldives Police Service to notify media of any developments.  The President’s Office wishes to stay clear of this matter,” he said at the time. ”We know as much as the [media] about developments right now.”

Masood added that, despite allegations raised by the MDP concerning alleged use of excessive force to seize the former president, police authorities had insisted officers had acted with restraint.

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High court rejects Nasheed’s appeal challenging legitimacy of Hulhumale’ magistrate court

The High Court has rejected former President Mohamed Nasheed’s appeal challenging the legitimacy of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, and its summoning of him in connection to the detention of Chief Criminal Court Judge, Abdulla Mohamed.

The former President’s legal team appealed the  court’s summoning order issued to police to summon him to a rescheduled hearing to be held on Sunday at 4:00pm.

Nasheed and his lawyers did not appear at the court hearing, and police made no attempt to arrest the former President.

The trial, which has been described by present Home Minister and former Justice Minister Mohamed Jameel on twitter as a “historic criminal trial” has escalated political tensions in the country.

Nasheed’s legal team earlier on Sunday challenged the legitimacy of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, claiming that the court was formed in contradiction to the provisions stated in the Maldivian constitution.

Speaking to local media , member of Nasheed’s legal team and the former Minister of Human Resources Hassan Latheef said the Hulhumale court had “no legal capacity” to issue an order to police to summon Nasheed.

“In the appeal, we also intend to raise the question of legitimacy surrounding Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.  We also hope that the High Court will make a decision on the legality of the formation of this court,” explained Latheef.

The team had filed for a temporary court injunction to halt the trial until the appeal case was concluded.

Former MP and President of MDP Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail echoed similar remarks,raising doubts on the legitimacy of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Writing on his personal blog, Ibra claimed that the constitution had very clearly mentioned that trial courts would be defined and created by a law.

“When Parliament created courts by the Judicature Act, there was no ‘Hulhumale’ Court’ designated as a Magistrates Court,” he wrote.

“The Supreme Court itself is still sitting on the case of the validity of the [Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court]. It was created by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), without authority derived from law. Therefore the validity of any orders or judgments issued by this court is questionable, and the Constitution says no one has to obey any unlawful orders, ie, orders which are not derived from law,” he explained.

He also cast doubts on the legitimacy of the JSC’s decision to appoint a panel of judges to look into the case.

“The Judicature Act does make some provision for Superior Courts (Criminal Court, Civil Court, Family Court and Juvenile Court only) to appoint a panel of judges for some cases. Such panel has to be decided by the entire bench or Chief Judge of THAT court. In this case, a panel of judges from other courts was appointed by the JSC to [Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court]. The JSC does not have that authority by Law,” he contended.

“There is more than ample grounds to contend that the summons was issued by an unlawful panel of judges, sitting in an unlawful court, which had already issued an unconstitutional restraining order which was ultra vires,” he added.

Nasheed was initially to appear at the Hulhumale Magistrate Court on last Monday but instead decided to depart on his party MDP’s campaign trip ‘Vaudhuge Dhathuru’ (‘Journey of Pledges’) to southern atolls, defying a previous court order that he remain in the capital.

On September 26, Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court ordered that the former President be confined to Male’, ahead the court case.

The court officials claimed that such a travel ban was the “standard procedure” followed by all courts to “necessitate those accused in a case to obtain permission from the relevant court to leave the country”.

Following Nasheed’s failure to present himself on last Monday’s hearings, Hulhumale Magistrate Court asked the Maldives Police Service to “produce” Nasheed for the rescheduled hearings but was “not to be detained”.

Initially upon reception of the Hulhumale Court’s request, Police Media official Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef said the authorities would enforce the “court order” to summon Former President Mohamed Nasheed to the court.

However, police on last Saturday said in a statement that, given the phrasing of the request made by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, Nasheed could only be produced to the court with his consent and the request did not mention to detain him.

The statement by the police stated that “producing someone out of his will” would mean to “limit his freedom” and therefore it amounted to an arrest which was not mentioned in the court’s request.

Hulhumale’ Magistrate court initially rejected the case forwarded by the Prosecutor General against former President, stating that the court did not have the jurisdiction to look into such cases as stated in the Judicature Act.

The state then appealed the decision in High Court and won its case where the Hight Court invalidated the decision.

Deputy Prosecutor General Hussain Shameem, dissenting the decision of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court claimed that the court did have the jurisdiction to hear the case of former President.

He contended that should the court maintain its decision against hearing the case, there were few other judicial alternatives in trying to ensure a “fair trial”.

The High Court ruling stated the case was based on the “unlawful detention” of a person, adding that magistrate courts have the jurisdiction to proceed with such cases.

Following the High Court ruling, Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court decided to re-accept the case and proceed with the hearings.

On January 16, Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed was detained by the military, after he had opened the court to order the immediate release of former Justice Minister, current Home Minister and deputy leader of the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP), Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed.

The former Home Minister Hassan Afeef said at the time that military assistance was sought for “fear of loss of public order and safety and national security” on account of Judge Abdulla, who had “taken the entire criminal justice system in his fist”.

Judge Abdulla’s arrest sparked international criticism of the Nasheed administration as well three weeks of anti-government protests in January, leading to Nasheed’s controversial resignation on February 7.

Along with Nasheed, former Defence Minister Tholhath Ibrahim as well as three other senior military officers are facing charges over the arrest of the judge.

Nasheed has meanwhile vowed to his supporters that his name would appear on the ballot paper of the next presidential election, and that he was “not in the mood to be straitjacketed and put in a dungeon.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Court extends detention of Afrasheem murder suspects, MDP raises concerns of ‘politically motivated’ arrests

Additional reporting by Ahmed Nazeer.

The Criminal Court has opted to extend the detention period of four suspects accused of involvement in the murder of Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Dr Afrasheem Ali, as parliament’s ’241′ Security Services Committee today meets to discuss politician safety.

Authorities today confirmed that the four suspects, which the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has alleged include two “front-line activists”, would be kept in custody for an extra 15 days as the investigation into the murder of the MP continued.

The high profile murder has been met with growing speculation from politicians over potential political or religious motives, yet police have so far provided no details on the nature of the murder, despite allegations and counter claims appearing in the media.

The MDP yesterday  expressed concern that the “brutal murder of a respected and elected member of the Parliament” was potentially being used to frame political opponents. The party has therefore called for “calm and restraint”, while also slamming the President’s Office for issuing statement claimed to connect the attack to former President Mohamed Nasheed.  Along with condemning the murder, Nasheed this week praised Dr Afrasheem for his moderate views on the country’s Islamic identity.

According to a BBC report earlier this week, the President Office’s Media Secretary “sent out a text describing  MP Afrasheem as the ‘strongest critic’ of Nasheed.”

Rules and regulations

Despite the allegations, Director of the Department of Judicial Administration Ahmed Maajid told Minivan News today that the extension of the suspects’ detention period was in accordance with rules linked to ongoing police investigations.

“Under this regulation, the police must produce anyone arrested on suspicion of criminal activity before a judge within 24 hours. The judge may order for the detention to be extended for a period of up to 15 days if the police can convince the court that a suspect needs to be detained for investigation,” he said. “In reviewing this order, the judge would consider such factors as the nature of the crime and the possibility of the suspect tampering with evidence if released for example.”

At the time of press, Maajid was unable to confirm the identity of the judge who had granted the detention extension, adding that such details could not be granted without receiving a written notice from the media. He added that the judge’s ruling had been consistent with similar investigations.

Police Spokesperson Sun-Inspector Hassan Haneef meanwhile confirmed there had been no further developments within its investigation, beyond the detention of four suspects for questioning in the case.

The Maldives police service have not so far given the identities of the suspects being detained as part of ongoing investigations.

However, the MDP yesterday released a statement claiming lawyers representing party activists Mariyam Naaifa and Ali Hashim had confirmed they had been detained as part of an investigation into the murder.

“The MDP has strongly condemned the gruesome murder of the member of parliament and scholar Dr Afrasheem Ali in the early hours of October 2, 2012,” the party claimed. “While the country is going through a difficult time following the murder of Dr. Afrasheem Ali, the MDP is deeply shocked and disturbed by the manner in which Maldives Police Services (MPS) is conducting their investigation into the incident.”

Aside from the detention of two party activists, the party added that its protest camp at the contested ‘Usfasgandu’ protest area in male’ had been searched by police officers using metal detectors yesterday.  The party has alleged that officers on the scene had confirmed the search was related to the murder of MP Afrasheem.

Speaking to Minivan News today, MDP Spokesperson and MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor alleged that public faith in the police’s ability to conduct impartial investigations was low.

“People have lived with it their whole lives. They have been indoctrinated into silence,” he claimed.

Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party MP (DRP) Ali Azim told Minivan News that the ’241′ Security Services Committee was today summoning Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz to get an update on the progress of the ongoing investigation into MP Afrasheem’s murder.

Azim, a member of the security committee, claimed ahead of today’s meeting that it would be used to try and establish whether there was evidence to suggest the attack was politically or religiously motivated.

Aside from the ongoing murder investigation, media regulator the Maldives Broadcasting Commission (MBC) was also being summoned today over concerns about the media’s role in spreading “hatred” about MPs in the country.

While accepting that the constitution called for the allowance of freedom of speech within the media, Azim claimed that there were limits, alleging that the national press were not being held sufficiently accountable for their work.

“The media has been accusing MPs of wasting taxpayers’ money; of suggesting not enough work is being done and saying that no laws are being passed,” he said. “I don’t think these accusations should be there. A few TV, radio and online media services has been accusing MPs of these things.”

Azim said he accepted that media had a role to hold MPs accountable for their work, but questioned the accountability in turn being required of the country’s journalists.

The MP stressed that the outcome of today’s meeting, which was still ongoing at the time of press, remained confidential and that he would be unable to elaborate further on its outcome.

“Free speech”

Speaking to Minivan News today, Maldives Journalist Association (MJA) President Ahmed ‘Hiriga’ Zahir said that he had not been given any information surrounding the MBC being summoned before the security committee.

Hiriga said that the MJA would await the outcome of the MBC’s meeting before making any official comment on the matter, but added that local media should continue to be able to practice free speech as long as it was accurate.

“I think there are a number of issues that we need to address in the Maldives media right now regarding ethics,” he said. “But our stand has always been that we stand against efforts to undermine the work of journalists and the right to a free media here in the Maldives.”

Hiriga added that while the media had “no right to lie” to members of the pubic, it was nonetheless vital to ensure freedom of the speech was being upheld in the Maldives.

“If some media for instance want to support the government or a certain political side, we have no issue with that, but the information provided must be accurate.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

DRP favours court resolution to GMR dispute as coalition partners prepare to “take to the streets”

The Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) will not join its fellow government coalition partners at a gathering in Male’ to oppose an airport privatisation contract with India-based infrastructure group GMR, claiming any resolution to the dispute must be made through the courts.

DRP Spokesperson Ibrahim Shareef has told Minivan News that while the party itself questioned if the GMR deal was in the best interest of the public, “due process” had to be followed through proper legal channels in order to establish if any wrong doing had occurred with the airport contract.

“Right now we do not feel that the best option is to take to the streets on this matter. We do not know what the purpose of this [coalition] gathering is, so we will not be taking part,” he said.

Shareef added that the party’s position remained that the government was bound to the agreement should it fail to prove through due process that the contract to develop and manage Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) was invalid.

The comments were made as key financial figures within the former government maintained this week that the deal was vital to not only modernise and boost efficiency at the airport, but also to address concerns over present state expenditure through a focus on privatisation.

Under the terms of the agreement – a US$511 million deal representing the largest ever case of foreign investment in the Maldives’ history – GMR agreed to a 25 year concession agreement to develop and manage the site, as well as redevelop the existing terminal by the end of this year.

The document was overseen by the International Finance Corporation (IFC), a member of the World Bank group and the largest global institution focused on private sector projects in developing countries.

However, the Maldives government earlier this month accused the IFC of negligence during the bidding process for INIA – allegations there were rejected by the organisation amidst continued calls from government-aligned parties to renationalise the airport.

Both the government and GMR are presently involved in an arbitration case in Singapore over the airport development.

Coalition gathering

With the arbitration ongoing, six government-aligned parties are set to hold a gathering from 9:00pm on Thursday night at the Artificial Beach area of Male’ calling for INIA, as the country’s main airport, to be “returned to Maldivians”.

Through a movement called “Maldivians’ airport back to Maldivians”, the coalition – excluding the DRP – told local media this week that the gathering represents the first in a series of activities aimed at regaining management of the airport.

According to local newspaper Haveeru, Sheikh Imran Abdulla of the government-aligned religious Adhaalath Party (AP) said the gathering was aimed at showing the coalition would take a “united stand” on opposing the GMR deal until the airport was “liberated”.

“Our hope is on the night the true feeling of the Maldivian people would be revealed on the airport issue,” he was quoted as saying by Haveeru.

The coalition movement is also expected to detail what it has claimed are losses sustained to the local economy from the awarding of the company to the Indian infrastructure group.

Sheik Imran was not responding to calls at the time of press. However, fellow AP member and Maldives’ Islamic Affairs Minister, Sheikh Mohamed Shaheem Ali Saeed, said he had “no idea” about any such gathering being held.

Meanwhile Dr Hassan Saeed, head of fellow coalition member the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP), referred a query by Minivan News about the gathering to the party’s Secretary General, Abdulla Ameen. Ameen was not returning calls at the time of press.

Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Parliamentary Group Leader Abdulla Yameen meanwhile referred enquiries about the gathering to Secretary General Yumna Maumoon – daughter of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom. Yumna was not responding to calls at the time of press.

DRP Spokesperson Shareef claimed that even should the validity of the agreement between GMR and the former government be found to be questionable, it remained for the courts to decide on such a matter.  Shareef added that senior members of his party had been penalised for holding such views by political opponents.

“Both [DRP Leader] Ahmed Thasmeen Ali and Parliamentary Speaker Abdulla Shahid have been accused of taking bribes on this matter and trying to obstruct efforts to take the airport,” he said.

Shareef claimed the allegations had been devised by a faction formed in the DRP by members loyal to former party head and national President Gayoom, which later branched off to form the PPM party last year.

“Gayoom’s supporters had wished to take the airport back by force,” he said. “I’m not saying the deal is fair, but first we can look to renegotiate terms and get a new agreement. Also the government has the resources to investigate the deal and make the best decision on how to move forward to benefit the Maldivian people.”

Shareef added that the party had therefore decided against “taking to the streets” with other parties in President Waheed’s coalition government.

“We are not saying that the former government were not involved in something improper with the agreement,” he claimed. “But we do not see the previous government as an MDP government, or the current government as a DRP or PPM government, it is always the government of the Maldives, so if an agreement made by the government is found to be valid, than it must be honoured under the law.”

Privatisation pursuit

Speaking yesterday on private broadcaster Raaje TV, former Economic Development Minister Mahmoud Razee said the GMR deal reflected a commitment by the former government to pursue privatisation as outlined in the MDP’s manifesto.

“Firstly, if or when anything is run like a business, private people are more skilled and efficient. They are far more competent and they work for profit unlike the government,” he claimed.  “This means it requires less cost for the government, but needs more outside investment or capital. Private people are more skilled and efficient in terms of managing. The end product thus is more beneficial.”

Addressing criticisms from some local politicians that privatisation provided no benefits to the nation, Razee conceded there was an element of truth to the assumption, but stressed it did not reflect longer-term economic benefits.

“Because the investment is huge, the project is big; the first beneficiaries are always the investors. True. The benefits go to the foreigners,” he said. “In foreign countries, they make a consortium, which means the profits are being shared within multiple parties. For example, if a Turkish company is investing here, it doesn’t mean they do everything themselves. If they are developing a property, the construction, or other necessary work is done through local companies.”

Also speaking during the programme was MDP member and former Minister of Finance and Treasury Mohamed Shihab. Shihab claimed that in cases where there was limited national budgets such as in the development of a new airport terminal, then finance should be sought from outside sources.

He added that as within the case of technology and other expertise, and pointed to local resort groups such as Universal Resorts Maldives as examples in the country’s past where foreign partnerships had benefited the country’s economy.

“Resort owners do [private partnerships] because they profit from it. Let’s conduct a survey among resorts. Definitely the salaries and service charges are higher in foreign managed companies. It is a fact that, countries where foreign investment has been made are far more developed.”

Speaking earlier this year, INIA Chief Executive Officer Andrew Harrison claimed that INIA would remain a Maldivian owned enterprise that would be continuously developed by the company for the duration of the tender.

“We are just the caretakers here,” he said.  ”The airport remains and has always been owned by Maldivians.”

Harrison contended that to ensure profitability for its investment in the airport, GMR was itself committed to strengthening the wider Maldivian economy by working with local businesses, industry and contractors.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

India defends its backyard in the Indian Ocean: Wall Street Journal

“The whole world is watching China’s confrontations in the South China Sea and the East China Sea—but India is watching with particular concern,” Harsh V. Pant, a defence studies professor for King’s College, London, writes for the Wall Street Journal.

“India has no territorial claims here per se, but one Indian official recently said that the South China Sea could be seen ‘as the antechamber of the Indian Ocean,’ given the flow of maritime traffic. New Delhi is nervous about Beijing’s threat to the freedom of navigation, and this is one reason it is strengthening ties with island nations in the Indian Ocean.

This month, Indian Defence Minister A.K. Antony travelled to the Maldives to shore up relations with the young democracy. He was ostensibly there to inaugurate a military hospital built with Indian assistance, but New Delhi used the occasion to make a slew of defence-related announcements.

Chiefly, Delhi will begin training Maldives’ air force and position a naval team in the islands to train Maldivian naval personnel. Mr Antony also said India would station a defence attaché in its Maldivian embassy, extend the deployment of a helicopter squadron in the islands for two more years, and help the Maldives government in its surveillance of its Exclusive Economic Zone, which extends for 200 nautical miles (370 km) from its shores.

All these take defence cooperation up to the next level. More importantly, they underscore India’s continuing commitment to Maldives, despite a somewhat contentious transfer of power earlier this year when its first democratically elected president Mohamed Nasheed resigned under pressure when protests broke out against him. Some saw this as a coup, but India isn’t taking sides. Some of this is sheer agnosticism on Delhi’s part—it doesn’t want to interfere in another nation’s internal affairs—but a lot of it is realpolitik too.

Read More…

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP MP facing charges of terrorism over February 8 retaliatory protests

The Criminal Court has given Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Mohamed Rasheed ‘Matrix Mode’ the opportunity to appoint an attorney to defend himself from charges of terrorism.

The MP for mid-Hithadhoo constituency, along with 43 other protesters including a city councillor from Addu City, are facing terrorism charges for their involvement in the events that took place on February 8, a day after controversial transfer of power in the Maldives.

Following the controversial transfer of power on February 7, thousands of MDP supporters, led by ousted president Mohamed Nasheed, took to the streets opposing the newly installed regime, claiming that it was an illegitimate government installed during a police and military mutiny.

The protesters were met with a violent police crackdown that saw numerous protesters injured and detained, including ousted President Nasheed himself.

Retaliatory protests spread across the country including the southern MDP stronghold of Addu, where Mayor Abdulla Sodig was beaten by protesters and taken to the Addu regional hospital. Several government buildings including police stations and courts were set ablaze during the chaos.

Out of the 43 people now facing criminal charges, hearings for 36 protesters have been previously carried out. None have yet been sentenced.

During Sunday’s hearing, Rasheed and another participant of the events of February 8 were given three days to appoint an attorney to represent them in court.

The state attorney did not read the charges in the hearing, but the Prosecutor General (PG) earlier told local media that Rasheed was charged for allegedly threatening police on the Seenu Gan course way.

He is also charged with inciting violence and calling upon protesters to attack Seenu Gan Police Station and the officers there, and calling for people to attack the Feydhoo Magistrate Court and Hithadhoo Police Station, the PG said.

The PG also said that the MDP MP was charged under article 2(f) and 2(g) of the Anti-terrorism Act, and also article 6 of the same act.

If Rasheed is found guilty of the charges, he will face a sentence of 10 to 15 years imprisonment or banishment, which will cost him his seat in the parliament.

After the hearing, in a brief statement given to media, Rasheed rebutted the charges stating that he “was not someone who would attack on public property”.

“I am one of those people who worked very hard to bring developments to Addu City during the tenure of [former] President Mohamed Nasheed. Why would I call upon the people to do something to destroy that? I do not believe this,” he said.

He further stated that the supporters of the current government and the media outlets that are politically aligned to government had continuously accused him of being a terrorist, but said the case itself revealed that he was not a terrorist.

“It is only today I have come to know of the charges. Government aligned newspapers, police and senior officials of this government including ministers and the Presidents’ office spokesperson are accusing me of setting ablaze public property and carrying out terrorist attacks,” he said.

“But according to the charges levied up against me, it is not true. The criminal charges do not mention that I did such things, instead the case is built on what I said,” he added.

Last August the PG pressed terrorism charges against more than 40 individuals accused of setting the Seenu Gan police station on fire on February 8, including many MDP activists and elected officials.

The former ruling MDP condemned the “false charges” pressed against “elected representatives of the people of Addu City” and a number of citizens as “politically motivated”.

In a statement, the party said that it believed the charges represented “a deliberate attempt by the regime to destabilise the country”.

“Aside from politically motivated legal action, senior members of Dr Waheed’s regime, including Home Minister Mohamed Jameel, have publicly stated that the regime will arrest President Nasheed and ensure he spends the rest of his life in jail. These statements have been made despite the fact that a trial has not taken place, and while the Minister himself has stated that the ‘judiciary seems to be operating wantonly… and needs to increase public confidence,’” the statement read.

The government of President Mohamed Waheed Hassan has promised that action would be taken against the “terrorist acts” of the protesters and will be brought to justice.

No action has been taken against the police accused of brutality in the February 8 crackdown, however one officer indicted by the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) has since received two promotions.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Our democracy is being suffocated”: Former President Nasheed

“The Maldives stand on a knife edge. At stake is its hard-won liberal democracy, forged from the ruins of a brutal, 30-year dictatorship – a period that was synonymous with serious human rights abuses, including extra-judicial killings and torture,” writes former President Mohamed Nasheed for the Guardian newspaper.

“President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s rule was eventually ended in 2008, by a democratic vote in which I was elected. But it is important that the outside world clearly understands that Gayoom, his allies and his henchmen are back.

It was they who established, late last year, the ‘December coalition’ of Islamic extremists who accused my government of being controlled by ‘Jews’ and ‘Christians’ and used incitement to religious hatred and violence as political tools. It was they who orchestrated February’s overthrow of the Maldives’ first democratically elected government.

And it is they who control the current administration as well as the police and armed forces. From this position of strength, they are slowly squeezing the life out of the democratic fabric of my country.

Despite this, the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG), which met last week, is considering removing the Maldives situation from its agenda. A decision is expected in late September later this month. The choice before the group, comprising the foreign ministers of Australia, Bangladesh, Canada, Jamaica, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago and Vanuatu, could hardly be more important.

Thousands of pro-democracy protesters in the Maldives have been brutalised by the police, arrested and imprisoned. Many of them have been tortured, or charged with terrorism – the favoured means, post 9/11, for repressive states to dispose of opponents. Journalists have been beaten and arrested and media outlets threatened with legal action and closure. Freedom of speech is being strictly curtailed – people can now be arrested for calling members of the current government ‘traitors’. And the country’s independent oversight bodies are being staffed with friends and relatives.

Moreover, a growing sense of impunity is taking hold. Key agents of February’s coup d’etat, and the police officers responsible for the violence that followed, know they cannot be touched. A grotesquely one-sided report into the coup, by the Commission of National Inquiry, was co-chaired by Gayoom’s former defence minister. Despite gross and systematic human rights violations since February – all catalogued by NGOs such as Amnesty International and the International Federation of Human Rights – not one police officer or state representative has been prosecuted. Indeed, many of those responsible have been promoted.”

Read more…

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)