Tag: former president mohamed nasheed

CMAG lobbying anticipated to be key focus during Nasheed’s UK visit

Former President Mohamed Nasheed is expected during a visit to the UK this week to lobby the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) to keep the Maldives on its agenda and assist in enacting reforms to civil society institutions, his party has said.

With Nasheed this week making his first visit to Europe since February’s controversial transfer of power, the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has said it anticipates the former president will lobby during the trip to keep the Maldives on CMAG’s agenda as well as to help set clear targets for a Commonwealth-backed reform agenda.

The MDP has claimed that it is now advocating for an agreement on “structural adjustments” that would help address concerns raised in the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) report.  The report, released last month, rejected accusations by Nasheed and his supporters that he was forced to resign from office.

The current government has meanwhile said that it would be difficult to look into concerns raised by the CNI concerning the events between February 6 to February 8 this year without potentially implicating Nasheed for his role in the alleged use of “excessive force” by police during his tenure.

The President’s Office also maintained that any reforms to the country’s judiciary or civil society would have to be made through the country’s independent institutions such as the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) and the Judicial Services Commission (JSC)

Nasheed left today for the UK, where he is scheduled to meet senior UK government officials and MPs as well as top Commonwealth’s figures and human rights organisations. He will be joined during the visit by former Foreign Minister Ahmed Naseem and the party’s Deputy Chairperson (Finance) Ahmed Mausoom.

As well as speaking both in London and Scotland on the theme of democracy in the Maldives, the MDP today said it anticipated Nasheed, who is presently chosen to represent the party in the next general election, would also be likely to lobby to keep the Maldives on the agenda of the CMAG.

CMAG had placed Maldives on its formal agenda in February, at the time citing ‘the questions that remain about the precise circumstances of the change of the government, as well as the fragility of the situation in Maldives’ as reasons.

The government has maintained that the CMAG ‘lacked mandate’ to place Maldives on the agenda. Following this there has been multiple instances where the government had expressed disapproval in what it termed ‘interference’ by the Commonwealth.

MDP MP and spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor said that it was anticipated Nasheed would seek to have GMAG retain the Maldives on its agenda in order to pressure the Waheed administration to meet a number of commitments such as those raised in the CNI’s findings.

“I expect there will be strong lobbying for our position [on CMAG],” he said. We have agreed to go ahead with the CNI recommendations, though with the reservations raised by Ahmed ‘Gahaa’ Saeed.

Saeed was chosen to be Nasheed’s representative on a reformed CNI panel charged with investigating the events surrounding the transfer of power on February 7. However, he resigned the day before the findings were released over concerns at what he claimed was omitted evidence and witness accounts from the final report.

Ghafoor added that with the CNI report suggesting a need for structural adjustment of certain civil society institutions along with the judiciary – a major concern for the Nasheed administration in its last few months – he hoped the Commonwealth would support such reforms.

“Whilst in government, we had previously participated with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on a voluntary basis whilst in government to undergo structural reform,” he claimed. “It required bitter medicine, such as in the sacking of some civil servants, but it was vital in trying to cut the state debt.”

Ghafoor added that he hoped CMAG could provide similar assistance in setting up a structural adjustment programme that set clear dates by which key reforms in areas like the judiciary or civil society were to be enacted.

“We have agreed to move ahead with the CNI with reservations, but we want to see wrong doings identified in the report being addressed,” he said, pointing to the actions of some police and military figures in the transfer of power.

While the Commonwealth was scheduled to last week rule on whether the Maldives would be removed from the investigative agenda of CMAG, it announced the decision would be delayed until its next meeting on September 28.

The President’s Office at the time expressed confidence that the country would be taken off the agenda at the next meeting, saying that this move had been supported by all but one of those present for the teleconference. Local media have reported that the delayed decision has been a result of a “technical glitch” during a live CMAG webcast, a situation Ghafoor claimed that he had yet to received clarification on.

“I’m not aware of any hitch taking place during the CMAG meeting. What we hope is that they will would keep us on the agenda and back a structural adjustment programme that would call for certain commitments to be met at specific dates,” he claimed.

Parallel to Nasheed’s UK visit, Ghafoor claimed that the MDP’s national council was also engaged in pressuring the party’s parliamentary group to boycott the People’s Majlis once it reconvenes, at least until the party was given guarantees about certain concerns it held about reforms.

“The national council on Thursday decided to try and pressure the parliamentary group to boycott Majlis,” he said. “We are discussing this today as a party. We are clear that we would wish to disengage from the Waheed regime unless our concerns are addressed.”

Responding to the MDP’s comments, President’s Office Media Secretary Masood Imad told Minivan News that in looking to address the concerns raised by the CNI concerning security forces and the country’s judiciary, it would continue to rely on independent institutions in the country.

“I understand that the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) has already looked into some of the matters raised. I don’t know what they are looking at or what stage they have reached right now. Similarly, President Dr Waheed has also promised to refrain from interfering with the judiciary here, even when he has not been made aware of what is going on,” he said.

Masood stressed that the government would not however be able to set up any additional commission or mechanism to oversee reforms.

“Independent institutions can come in and oversee this. We would encourage them to do this and will not interfere with their work,” he said.

However, in terms of addressing the CNI’s concerns about the transfer of power, Masood also claimed that Nasheed himself faced possible criminal action for the events occurring on February 6 and February 7 before his resignation.

“During the events of February 6 to February 8, I wouldn’t say that Nasheed was in power, but he was in office, resulting in excessive force being used by police up to his resignation,” he said.

Masood said that President Waheed has accepted that police had used “excessive force” during protests held on February 8 after he came to power and condemned such acts.

“President Waheed has already said he will take action against those with involvement [in the use of excessive force], due process would be taking place through groups like the PIC,” he said.

However, Masood added that any calls from the EU or Commonwealth to investigate the events surrounding the transfer of power would lead to difficulties over the actions of Nasheed in the build up to his resignation.

“Any investigation would have to focus on Nasheed’s role in this, the Commonwealth and EU countries are asking us not to touch him,” he said.  “While the independent institutions can look into this, the EU and Commonwealth will be unhappy if their boy becomes involved in investigations. This will happen as there are many questions [Nasheed] has to answer.”

Nasheed, who is presently set to face trial over his role in the controversial detention this year of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed, has alleged that charges against him are politically motivated in order to prevent him from standing as a candidate for the MDP at the next general election.  Nasheed has alleged that Judge Abdulla had been detained over fears he was a threat to national security.

Independent institutions

Despite the government’s decision to rely on the country’s independent institutions to help oversee any reforms or investigations into the CNI’s recommendations, groups such as the Elections Commission have this month found their work under increased scrutiny following the release of the CNI report (CNI).

Prominent members of both the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) and the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) have this month questioned the ability of their own institutions to fulfil their mandates.

Aiman Rasheed of local NGO Transparency Maldives’ suggested that weak and unassertive institutions must take some of the blame for the events of February 7 and the surrounding political crises.

“The independent institutions need to step up their game by standing for and protecting the values for which they were constituted,” said Aiman at the time.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Bangladesh media reports SAARC summit uncertainty following regional unrest

Political unrest in the Maldives and Nepal during 2012 has set back preparations for the 18th summit of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), Bangladesh-based media has reported today.

According to The Daily Star newspaper, the next summit meeting for the heads of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and the Maldives had been scheduled to be held in Kathmandu during May 2013.

However, the chances of meeting such a date are now alleged to be unlikely over reports that no preparatory work has been undertaken by Nepalese authorities.

Citing unnamed “diplomatic sources”, the Daily Star has claimed that the postponement of an inter-summit session of the organisation’s council of ministers by the Maldives – in its position of current SAARC Chair – had further set back Nepal’s own preparations.

“The Maldives, the current SAARC Chair, is also in serious political crisis following the alleged ouster of Mohamed Nasheed as president of the country in February last,” wrote the newspaper.

The inter-summit session is reported to have been required under the SAARC Charter to be held six months after the organisation’s previous summit in order to finalise the dates, venue, and agenda of its next meeting.

Foreign Minister Dr Abdul Samad Abdulla and President’s Office Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza were not responding to calls from Minivan News at the time of press.

The previous SAARC summit meeting was held back in Addu Atoll in November 2010.

During the summit, former President Mohamed Nasheed identified several key issues to be addressed including trade, transport, economic investment, security against piracy, climate change and good governance.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Gayoom expresses “frustration” over “foreign influence” in inquiry commission

Former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom has said that he will not accept that the toppling of former President Nasheed’s government on February 7 was a coup d’état, even if the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI)’s report  came to such a conclusion.

After giving a statement to the CNI, Gayoom in a press conference held at the office of his Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), stated that he had seen the recording of the video in which ousted President Nasheed publicly resigned, and said that it was not made “under duress” and that therefore it was very clear that it “was not a coup”

“Even though I was in Malaysia, I saw the video recording of how he resigned and what he said – such as that he is now resigning, and that if he continued to remain as the president the country may face further grief and pain,” Gayoom said.

“Also, it was he himself who wrote the letter of resignation and it is he who sent the letter to the parliament,” Gayoom claimed added.

Gayoom said that there was no point in Nasheed claiming that it is “a coup” after he had resigned in accordance with the constitution.

“I told this to the members of the CNI, and I think they seem to believe it too. I also said that Mohamed Nasheed after [his resignation] went home to sleep, he slept that afternoon, that night, the following morning and then he changed his mind [after waking up], then in the evening said he did not resign, or that his resignation was not permanent but a coup d’état. Then who is going to believe that?” Gayoom questioned.

“Something must have happened after 24 hours, some people must have talked to him and ‘got into his head’ to make him change his statement. Before that he was under the belief that he resigned,” the former president contended.

“Frustrations”

In the press conference, Gayoom stated that during the session with the CNI, he also highlighted two things that “frustrated” him about the commission.

One reason for the frustrations was, he explained, the inclusion o a representative of ousted President Nasheed in the commission, following “foreign” influence.

“The reason that frustrates me is that if this commission has a representative of Nasheed there should be a representative of mine too. That is because on many previous occasions Nasheed has repeatedly made false accusations towards me, both in the Maldives and outside, that the change [of power] was a revolution that I brought in,” Gayoom said.

“Where is justice when there is someone in this commission who supports Nasheed’s claims?” the ex-president questioned.

Gayoom claimed that it would only be fair that he have his “own representative if Nasheed gets to have one”.

His second cause of frustration, Gayoom said, was that the CNI was mandated to look into the events that took place from January 14 to February 8.

He stated that the “change” that took place on February 7 was the result of Nasheed’s “unlawful” and “un-Islamic” actions carried out, that had “angered a lot of citizens”, and contended that this would be clear if the CNI looked into what Nasheed had done after assuming presidency in 2008.

Gayoom during the press conference also shared some of the questions that the CNI posed to him during the session, and the responses he offered.

He said that the CNI questioned as to whether he had provided any financial benefit to the key actors of the change in February 7, to which he replied saying that he “did not spend a single cent on them”.

“Nasheed told the commission that when he entered the Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) headquarters, I had told someone that now the ‘fish has gone into the net’ and to better to hold it there,” he explained. “I said that was an outright lie.”’

Gayoom maintained his earlier stand that he had no part to play in the transfer of power, and that “now even Nasheed should believe it because he said that he would believe it if I went to the CNI and told them that I did not play a part in the ‘coup’.”

Ending political instablity

When the CNI had asked him what he thought would bring an end to the ongoing political instability in the country, Gayoom said told the commission the solution was for Nasheed and his Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) to stop their “extremist” actions and pave the way for negotiations.

Despite Gayoom expressing his openness to negotiate, last month in a rally held by the PPM in Addu City he vigorously condemned his successor, claiming that Nasheed had a habit of defaming him to both the local and international community.

Gayoom at the time said that he “humbly refused” a request from United States Ambassador to Sri Lanka and the Maldives, Patricia Butenis, to take part in the All Party Talks along with Nasheed.

He dismissed Nasheed’s claims that the controversial transfer of power was a coup d’état, and commended the acts of the mutinying police and military officials.

Following the remarks, the opposition MDP expressed its disappointment to see Gayyoom refusing to take part in the All Party Talks.

“With the country fallen into this grave state, it is saddening to see Gayoom refusing to take part in the All Party Talks, a negotiation that is highly related to the public interest of the country,” MDP Spokesperson MP Imthiyaz Fahmy said, and called on the former President to prioritise the country before his own personal interest.

Fahmy said the MDP was ready to come to the negotiation table, a sentiment matched by former MP and MDP Legal affairs committee member Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail.

“I was once the President of the MDP. Nasheed was the Chairperson then. We both were harassed and tortured during Gayoom’s regime because we were opposed to his rule,” Ibra said. “But even then we were both prepared to talk to Gayoom and his government on issues that concerned the national interest,” he recalled.

Gayoom showing “symptoms of dementia”

Speaking to Minivan News, Ibra described Gayoom’s comments as “desperate” and in “self-denial”, knowing that CNI report would unveil the “dirty truth” behind the toppling of the country’s first democratically elected government.

He further suggested that the recent remarks that Gayoom had been making in the local media exhibited symptoms of dementia, a loss of cognitive ability in a previously unimpaired person beyond what might be expected from normal aging.

“Perhaps a person may make contrasting statements rarely. But we are speaking of several and repeated statements, which may suggest that [Gayoom] maybe exhibiting symptoms of dementia. People of that age face dementia, due to old age,” he alleged.

In response to Gayoom’s frustrations on the CNI, Ibra questioned why Gayoom should have his own representation when allegations were levied against several others, and stated that it was impossible to include the representatives to CNI.

“Allegations were levied against the current Commissioner of Police, Defence Minister, the President and several politicians. Can we include each of their representatives in the commission?” he questioned.

Ibra stated that the focus and the mandate of the CNI was to find out whether Nasheed resigned under duress or not, and added that it was not the CNI’s mandate to see how Nasheed ran the country, or reflect on frustrations expressed by Gayoom.

Ibra further alleged that Gayoom was trying to discredit the members of CNI, knowing that the CNI report would not come out in his favor.

“I think he clearly knows from what the CNI knows and the evidences they collected, and from the facts surrounding the event, that it is highly unlikely the report will not come out in his favour. So he has already begun his work to discredit the CNI stating that it is not impartial and lacks credibility,” Ibra claimed.

Concern and condemnation

Following Gayoom’s remarks, in a media statement the opposition MDP expressed concerns and condemned the remarks, citing that it reflected Gayoom’s lack of concern on the interests of the country.

“When a lot of people are alleging that the transfer of power that took place on February 7 was a coup d’etat, and while many question the events that unfolded on that day as well as the legitimacy of the current government, it is very concerning to see former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom publicly stating that he would not believe that former government of the Maldives was toppled by a coup, even if the CNI established to look into the issue decides so,” read the statement.

The MDP in the statement said that the democratic achievements the people of the country had achieved in the last three years were diminishing, and claimed that police brutality and human rights abuses had become abundant following the coup.

“The grave situation that the Maldives lies today is that the economic growth of the country has severely slowed down, efforts of social protection of the people are at a halt, unemployment rates are rapidly rising and people’s income has come down significantly,” read the statement.

The MDP in the statement alleged that despite the country being in such a grave situation, Gayoom’s remarks reflect his insincerity and lack of concern towards the general well being of the country and its people.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Just 300 police and military officers sustaining regime”: former President Nasheed

Ousted President Mohamed Nasheed last night claimed that only 300 police and military officials were keeping the “coup government” of President Mohamed Waheed Hassan from falling apart.

Nasheed made the remarks during a ceremony held last night on Male’ City Council hall to release a report on the findings of the controversial transfer of power on February 7, produced by a team of Danish legal experts from University of Copenhagen, and a book about the event written in Dhivehi by Ali Moosa Didi.

Nasheed stated that there were “lots of measures” taken to ensure that the “illegitimate” government remained in power, and that the 300 officers were playing a pivotal role in the process.

“300 police and military officers are responsible for undermining the public interest of the entire country, and following that coup, a lot of measures and efforts are being carried out to ensure the survival of the coup regime, and these 300 officers are playing a pivotal role in it,” he said.

He also claimed that in the course of these efforts, police brutality and state sponsored torture had shown an “alarming” increase.

Nasheed also reiterated that his Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) had “not run out of options”, adding that its core identity was built on “not backing down”.

Nasheed said the party could “advocate and negotiate”, but said the most effective way to bring about early elections and restore the country’s democratic legitimacy was through continued “direct action”.

“Direct action”

During the last two weeks, the MDP has been carrying out what it has called “direct action” protests.

While the opposition party contends that its protests have been “largely peaceful”, the ongoing demonstrations have at times turned into violent clashes with police. This violence has led to allegations of police brutality against demonstrators, and counter claims of protesters attacking reporters and security forces.

The MDP stated that it expected its protests, stated to continue until the present government of President Waheed “topples” would continue indefinitely. The MDP alleged that the Waheed administration came to power in February 7, through a “coup d’etat” and therefore had no legitimacy.

Party MP and Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor who is currently under arrest following the protests at the time claimed that the MDP was committed to managing “peaceful, disciplined” protests, though he accepted that violent confrontations appeared to be increasing between police and protesters.

He alleged that this violence was a result of law enforcement officials increasingly showing a “lack of discipline” on their part.

The Maldives Police Service has contended that it continues to use “minimum force” to protect its officers during the demonstrations.

Conversely, while police have said that none of its officers were hurt in the last 24 hours, there have been serious and minor injuries sustained by police during attacks by individuals suspected of being affiliated with anti-government demonstrators.

On July 12, an attack near Dhilbahaaru Magu in Male’ required one officer to fly to Sri Lanka for treatment for head injuries received from an assault with a pavement brick.

Minivan News has observed protests in recent weeks switching from heckling and mocking of officers at police barricades to violent confrontations as police have charged through protest lines, while demonstrators themselves have broken through barricades to confront police.

Police have come under particular criticism by the MDP for using pepper spray directly in the faces of protesters – an accusation denied by law enforcement authorities.

“Maldives Police did not use any excessive force nor was pepper spray directed to anyone’s face,” police said in a statement at the time.

However a video released of the incident showed a riot police officer reaching over a crowd of people surrounding Nasheed and spraying him in the face. Nasheed turns away as the spray hits him, and is taken away by his supporters, but later returned to the protest.

In this environment, the government has itself called for “calm”, urging all political leaders to abandon the street protests, which have attracted international attention over the last few weeks, and sit down for “sincere dialogue”.

Minivan News tried contacting Presidents Office Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza, but did not respond at time of press.

EU Concern

Meanwhile the EU has slammed an “escalation of political tension and violent protests” in the Maldives as police confirmed that 50 people – including a former cabinet minister – were arrested during the last two days during anti-government demonstrations.

However, with the arrest of 32 demonstrators in the last 24 hours, as well as a government decision to clear the MDP’s Usfasgandu protest site by July 30, some opposition figures have claimed the tension will likely intensify further.

Spokesperson for Catherine Ashton, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, said there remained “deep concern” in Europe over the political unrest in the Maldives.

“The High Representative is convinced that continued political unrest, heavy-handed responses by security forces, and charges filed against political leaders will only lead to further deterioration of the political climate in the country and will adversely affect the lives of all Maldivian citizens,” stated the EU.

“The High Representative acknowledges the efforts of the Commonwealth Special Envoy, Sir Don McKinnon, to strengthen the Maldives Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) whose purpose it is to establish an objective account of the events which led to the resignation of President Nasheed and the transfer of power to the present Government on 7 February 2012. She appeals to all parties to refrain from any actions that could jeopardise completion of the Commission of National Inquiry’s work, including legal action against political leaders”.

The calls followed a statement released by the Commonwealth this week urging all parties to show “restraint and restore calm” as initiatives like the reconstituted Commission of National Inquiry (CNI).  The CNI, expected to be completed by next month, was  established to ascertain the truth between February’s controversial transfer of power.

In a statement released Tuesday (July 17), Commonwealth Secretary General’s Special Envoy to the Maldives, Sir Donald McKinnon called for dialogue among political leaders, urging all parties to show “restraint and restore calm.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

US and UK must consult Maldives judiciary over dropping Nasheed charges: government

The government has said it will “not interfere” with the Maldives’ judiciary amidst calls from the US and UK to drop charges against former President Mohamed Nasheed, alleging that requests may have been made by diplomats with “sympathies” for the one-time head of state.

President’s Office Media Secretary Masood Imad told Minivan News that requests had been made by UK and US officials to drop charges against Mohamed Nasheed over his potential role in the controversial detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed earlier this year.

However, Masood added that any such requests needed to be addressed to the country’s judiciary, reiterating a previous pledge by President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan that his administration would not interfere with judicial process.

“We promised, as you may remember, that we will not interfere in the running of the country’s judiciary,” he said.

“Sympathies”

Masood also raised doubts whether calls to drop the charges were an official request of the UK or US governments, rather than the views of individual elements in either nations’ respective embassies based in Colombo, Sri Lanka.

“I do not believe that it is the UK and US governments that have made this request, I think it is the embassies themselves,” he alleged. “Maybe they have sympathies for Nasheed.”

The comments were made after China’s Xinhua news agency reported yesterday that the US Embassy of Sri Lanka and the Maldives, as well as its UK counterpart based in the country, asked that the former president not face charges that could potentially exclude him from standing in the next general election presently scheduled for next year.

The UK High Commission was not responding at time of press, while a US Embassy spokesperson said the embassy had no comment on the matter.

Nasheed, along with former Defense Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu both face charges for their alleged roles in the detention of Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.  The charges were filed this week by Prosecutor General Ahmed Muizz.

The detention, which the former government claimed had been made over concerns about “national security” owing to allegations that Judge Abdulla was involved in perjury and “blatant collusion” with the previous administration, was widely criticised by international bodies at the time.

On Sunday, (July 15), Nasheed himself claimed to Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) supporters that he did not wish to see the charges presented against him withdrawn for any reason.

“I, as the president of this country and as the presidential nominee of the MDP, worked for the benefit of the Maldivian people, for their well-being and to fulfil the needs of the people of the Maldives. I have not done anything to further my own interests during my tenure as president,” Nasheed said.

He also called on the public  to be present at his trial and witness what happened in the court, alleging that the whole case was politically motivated and that his opponents were seeking to gain an unfair upper hand from the “political scandal”.

“This case is a case that I wanted to see coming. This is a case that I want to face myself. I will not back down from this case,” he said.

Nasheed has joined MDP supporters on numerous occasions during more than a weeks worth of consecutive daily protests in Male’ calling for the present government to step down and hold early elections on the back of the controversial transfer of power in February.

The MDP continues to allege that it was removed from office in a “coup d’etat” sponsored by mutinous elements of the police and military, as well as former opposition politicians.

Judicial Reform

While the Waheed administration has publicly stressed that it would not seek to tamper with the running of the nation’s judiciary, the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) has identified the courts among a number of areas that need to be overhauled of part of “radical changes” to ensure compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The committee is “deeply concerned about the state of the judiciary in the Maldives,” a statement released by the UNHRC this week noted.

“The state has admitted that this body’s independence is seriously compromised.  The Committee has said the judiciary is desperately in need of more serious training, and higher standards of qualification,” the statement read.

The Supreme Court in particular needed “radical readjustment,” the committee said. “As 6 of 7 Supreme Court judges are experts in Sharia law and nothing more, this court in particular is in need of radical readjustment.  This must be done to guarantee just trials, and fair judgements for the people of Maldives.”

A panel member during the UNHRC session also noted the “troubling role of the judiciary at the centre” of the controversial transfer of power on February 7.

“The judiciary – which is admittedly in serious need of training and qualifications – is yet seemingly playing a role leading to the falling of governments,” he observed.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court denies giving advice to PG regarding Nasheed’s case

The Supreme Court of the Maldives has denied local media reports suggesting that it issued advice to the Prosecutor General (PG), following his decision to submit former President Mohamed Nasheed’s Criminal case to Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

The Supreme Court in an official statement stated it was a responsibility of the Prosecutor General to file criminal charges, but insisted the court did not give any advice regarding Nasheed’s case.

Following investigation by the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM), Prosecutor General Ahmed Muizz has filed charges against Nasheed, former Defense Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu, former Chief of Defence Force Major General Moosa Ali Jaleel, Brigadier Ibrahim Mohamed Didi and Colonel Mohamed Ziyad for their alleged role in detaining Criminal Court Chief Justice Abdulla Mohamed in January.

Brigadier Ibrahim Mohamed Didi, key figure who defended the Maldives in the coup of 1988, has resigned from the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) over the matter.

“I’ve always respected the military uniform during my entire 32 years of service in the military. It’s my belief that I must be present in court after removing the uniform. I do not wish to face the court while wearing this uniform,” Didi was quoted as saying.

An official from the Prosecutor General’s office told local newspaper Haveeru that the decision to submit the case to Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was because the case involved a Criminal Court Judge, and that there was a conflict of interest were the case were to be held in Criminal Court.

In normal practice, all criminal cases are referred to the Criminal Court of the Maldives, one of five superior courts of the country with High Court and Supreme Court above them in hierarchy.

In an earlier case prior to the arrest of Judge Abdulla in January 2012, concerning harassment the judge, the Prosecutor General stated that the Supreme Court had advised him to submit a criminal case to Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Regarding the charges against Nasheed, neither the Prosecutor General nor the Supreme Court have stated that any advice was given by the Supreme Court – contrary to claims in local media.

A Supreme Court official said he did not wish to speak about the issue, and referred Minivan News to the Department Judicial Administrations (DJA).

However, officials from the DJA told Minvan News that their Spokesperson Latheefa Gasim had not reported to work and therefore could not provide any information.

The Case

Sources linked to the case earlier suggested that the charges levied against Nasheed related to violation of article 46 of the Constitution, particularly violation of Article 12 clause (a) of Judges Act (Act no 13/2010).

Article 44 of the Maldives Constitution states: “No person shall be arrested or detained for an offence unless the arresting officer observes the offence being committed, or has reasonable and probable grounds or evidence to believe the person has committed an offence or is about to commit an offence, or under the authority of an arrest warrant issued by the court.”

Article 12 clause (a) of the Judges Act states that a judge can be arrested without a court warrant, but only if he is found indulging in a criminal act. The same article also states that if a judge comes under suspicion of committing a criminal act or being about to commit a criminal act, they can only be taken into custody with a court warrant obtained from a higher court than that of which the judge presently sits on.  This warrant has to be approved by the prosecutor general.

However the Prosecutor General is now levying charges of breach of article 81 of the Penal Code: “Arresting an innocent person intentionally and unlawfully by a state employee with the legal authority or power vested to him by his position is an offence. Punishment for a person guilty of this offence is imprisonment or banishment for 3 years or a fine of MVR 2000 (US$129.70).”

If Nasheed is found guilty of the charges, his candidacy for a presidential election could be invalidated, depending on the sentence he may receive as per the article 109(f) of the Constitution, which dictates the qualifications of a president.

Article 109(f) of the Constitution states: “[Candidate should] not have been convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to a term of more than twelve months, unless a period of three years has elapsed since his release, or pardon for the offence for which he was sentenced;”

Detention of Judge Abdulla

The Chief Judge was detained by the military, after he had opened the court outside normal hours to order the immediate release of former Justice Minister and current Home Minister, Deputy leader of the Dhivehi Quamee Party (DQP) Dr Mohamed Jameel.

Jameel had been arrested on successive occasions for allegedly inciting religious hatred, after he published a pamphlet claiming that the government was working under the influence of “Jews and Christian priests” to weaken Islam in the Maldives. The President’s Office called for an investigation into the allegations, and requested Jameel provide evidence to back his claims.

In late 2011 Judge Abdulla was himself under investigation by the judicial watchdog for politically bias comments made to private broadcaster DhiTV.

The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) was due to release a report into Judge Abdulla’s ethical misconduct; however the judge approached the Civil Court and successfully filed an injunction against his further investigation by the judicial watchdog.

Judge Abdulla’s arrest sparked three weeks of anti-government protests starting in January, while the government appealed for assistance from the Commonwealth and UN to reform the judiciary.

As Judge Abdulla continued to be held, Prosecutor General (PG) Ahmed Muizz later joined the High Court and Supreme Court in condemning the MNDF’s role in the arrest, requesting that the judge be released.

The police are required to go through the PG’s Office to obtain an arrest warrant from the High Court, the PG said at the time, claiming the MNDF and Nasheed’s administration “haven’t followed the procedures, and the authorities are in breach of the law. They could be charged with contempt of court.”

He then ordered the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) to investigate the matter.

As protests escalated, elements of the police and military mutinied on February 7, alleging that Nasheed had given them “unlawful orders”.

Nasheed publicly resigned the same day, but later said he was forced to do so “under duress” in a coup d’état. Nasheed’s MDP have taken to the streets in the months since, calling for an early election.

Judge Abdulla was released on the evening of Nasheed’s resignation, and the Criminal Court swiftly issued a warrant for Nasheed’s arrest. Police did not act on the warrant, after international concern quickly mounted

Spokesperson of the Department of Judicial Administration, Latheefa Gasim, yesterday told local media that Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court has accepted the case and the hearings will be held after the first 10 days of Ramadan.

She also said that the Magistrate Court had space limitations and therefore they have been talking to the Housing Development Corporation (HDC) located in Hulhimale about holding the hearings in the reception hall of the HDC office.

“We have been negotiating with HDC to see if they could give us their reception hall to hold the hearings. After the HDC response, we will decide on a date to hold the hearings,” she said at the time.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Don’t withdraw the charges – I will not back down from this case,” Nasheed vows, as PG files charges for judge’s arrest

Ousted President Mohamed Nasheed last night responded to criminal charges pressed against him by the Prosecutor General (PG), for the arrest of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed in the closing days of his presidency.

Speaking to his supporters at the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) protest camp Usfasgandu, Nasheed stated that he is “very prepared” to justify the reasons for the arrest of Judge Abdulla, and said he was ready to appear in court and prove his actions were valid.

“Even if [the court] asks me to be present tomorrow, I would be present. The court has to be place where justice should be served. The trial system has to be reformed to ensure that it provides justice,” he said.

Nasheed claimed that his political opponents were of the belief that “destroying” him through the court would “kill” the ideology of the MDP, but challenged that this would never happen in the country.

“You can torture me. You can chain me to a chair. You can put me in solitary confinement. You can isolate me from my family. You can harass me and torture me. You can destroy me through the court. But tell you what: you can never kill the ideology of the Maldivian Democratic Party in this country anymore,” he said, as supporters roared in support.

The ousted president stated that the MDP had sought to reform the country, and that these reforms had been steadily carried out.

He further stated that he was steadfast and confident he could “stand up in the courts of law” and prove that his actions reflected the nation’s best interests.

He also emphasised that he did not wish to see the charges now presented against him withdrawn for any reason.

“I, as the president of this country and as the presidential nominee of the MDP, worked for the benefit of the Maldivian people, for their wellbeing and to fulfill the needs of the people of the Maldives. I have not done anything to further my own interests during my tenure as president,” Nasheed said.

Nasheed also dismissed the accusation made by the High Court, Supreme Court and the Prosecutor General (PG) that he had ordered the military to arrest Judge Abdulla unlawfully.

“I did nothing unlawful during my tenure,” he challenged.

He also called on the population to be present at his trial and witness what happened in the court, alleging that the whole case was politically motivated and that his opponents were seeking to gain an unfair upper hand from the “political scandal”.

“This case is a case that I wanted to see coming. This is a case that I want to face myself. I will not back down from this case,” he said.

Nasheed also added that the charges will not keep him from engaging in the All Party Talks, and said that he would be present.

“Even if they imprison me, I am willing to take part in the talks even while in prison. They will never be able to defeat us,” he said.

Nasheed also maintained that an early election will take place by the end of this year.

“We will continue our peaceful protests. Day by day the protests will increase and intensify,” he said.

“We will not give up. Our determination will not weaken. By the will of god, we will bring the good governance that the people of this country want.”

The controversial detention of Judge Abdulla

The Chief Judge was detained by the military, after he had opened the court outside normal hours to order the immediate release of former Justice Minister and current Home Minister and deputy leader of the Dhivehi Quamee Party (DQP), Dr Mohamed Jameel.

Jameel had been arrested on successive occasions for allegedly inciting religious hatred, after he published a pamphlet claiming that the government was working under the influence of “Jews and Christian priests” to weaken Islam in the Maldives. The President’s Office called for an investigation into the allegations, and requested Jameel provide evidence to back his claims.

In late 2011 Judge Abdulla was himself under investigation by the judicial watchdog for politically bias comments made to private broadcaster DhiTV. The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) was due to release a report into Judge Abdulla’s ethical misconduct, however the judge approached the Civil Court and successfully filed an injunction against his further investigation by the judicial watchdog.

Judge Abdulla’s arrest sparked three weeks of anti-government protests starting in January, while the government appealed for assistance from the Commonwealth and UN to reform the judiciary.

As Judge Abdulla continued to be held, Prosecutor General (PG) Ahmed Muizz later joined the High Court and Supreme Court in condemning the MNDF’s role in the arrest, requesting that the judge be released.

The police are required to go through the PG’s Office to obtain an arrest warrant from the High Court, the PG said at the time, claiming the MNDF and Nasheed’s administration “haven’t followed the procedures, and the authorities are in breach of the law. They could be charged with contempt of court.”

He then ordered the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) to investigate the matter.

As protests escalated, elements of the police and military mutinied on February 7, alleging that Nasheed had given them “unlawful orders”.

Nasheed publicly resigned the same day, but later said he was forced to do so “under duress” in a coup d’état. Nasheed’s MDP have taken to the streets in the months since, calling for an early election.

Judge Abdulla was released on the evening of Nasheed’s resignation, and the Criminal Court swiftly issued a warrant for Nasheed’s arrest. Police did not act on the warrant, after international concern quickly mounted.

Investigation

Nasheed became the first president to be summoned before the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) when he was asked to testify regarding his role in the arrest of Judge Abdulla in April. Nasheed used his testimony to claim that he had been informed at the time by the Home Ministry that the judge allegedly posed a “national threat” – prompting his eventual detention.

The former president additionally claimed that the Home Ministry had communicated with the Defence Ministry on the situation, which in turn led to the decision to arrest the judge after watchdog bodies like the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) had raised alleged concerns over his ethical conduct.

“I was told that Abdulla Mohamed would not comply with the police’s summons to investigate allegations [against him],” Nasheed later stated at a press conference following the meeting with the HRCM.

“The Home Minister wrote to the Defense Minister that Abdulla Mohamed’s presence in the courts was a threat to national security. And to take necessary steps. And that step, the isolation of Abdulla Mohamed, was what the [Defense] Ministry deemed necessary.”

The HRCM after concluding the investigation sent the case to the prosecutor general.

A second case involving Nasheed has also been sent to the prosecutor general by the police, that involved the confiscation of bottles of alcohol allegedly found at his residence shortly after his presidency ended.

Charges

PG Muizz on July 15 filed charges against former President Mohamed Nasheed and the former Defense Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu for their alleged role in detaining Criminal Court Chief Justice Abdulla Mohamed in January.

Nasheed and Tholhath stand charged with violation of the 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. If found guilty, Nasheed and Tholhath will face a jail sentence or banishment for three years or a Rf 3000 fine (US$193.5).

The case was filed at the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court. In a statement today, Muizz said he intended to levy the same charges against former Chief of Defense Forces Moosa Ali Jaleel, Brigadier-General Ibrahim Mohamed Didi and Colonel Mohamed Ziyad.

Home Minister Mohamed Jameel in a post on social media Twitter has said the “historic criminal trial” is the “first step towards the national healing process.”

Meanwhile, Spokesperson of the Department of Judicial Administration,Latheefa Gasim, told local media that Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court has accepted the case and the hearings will be held after the first 10 days of Ramadan.

She also said that the magistrate court had space limitations and therefore they have been talking to the Housing Development Corporation (HDC) located in Hulhimale about holding the hearings in the reception hall of the HDC office.

“We have been negotiating with HDC to see if they could give us their reception hall to hold the hearings. After what HDC says, we will decide on a date to hold the hearings,” she said.

President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan’s spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza told Minivan News at the time that the president will not “interfere with the independent Prosecutor General’s decisions.”

In April, Nasheed told the UK’s Guardian newspaper that he did not want to arrest a judge, but he “just couldn’t let him [Abdulla Mohamed] sit on the bench.”

“There is a huge lack of confidence in the judiciary, and I had to do something, and the constitution called upon me to do that. It’s not a nice thing to do. And it’s not a thing that I would want to do. And it’s not a thing that I liked doing. But it had to be done,” he added.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed challenges former President Gayoom to also appear before parliamentary inquiry

Ousted President Mohamed Nasheed has last night responded to allegations levied against him by pro-government political figures, during a rally held at the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) protest camp ‘Usfasgandu’.

Speaking during the rally, Nasheed said that he was willing to give evidence to a parliament inquiry regarding every detail about his three year tenure as president.

While speaking in support of Parliament Speaker Abdulla Shahid’s decision to allow the summoning of former presidents and leaders of political parties to parliament, Nasheed dared his predecessor Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, as whether he had “the guts” to appear and reveal details of his own 30 year rule.

“I just want to clarify with the leaders of these political parties: are they ready to reveal the details of their bank accounts to the parliament?” Nasheed challenged.

“I want to clarify with Maumoon Abdul Gayoom whether he was willing to share with parliament about how much knew of the incidents that took place in the country’s prisons during his 30 year regime. Did he order the shooting of inmates in Gaamaadhoo Jail?” he asked.

Nasheed said he wants to know whether Gayoom was willing to clear doubts about whether prisoner Evan Naseem was “shot dead or not” to the people of the country.

He further said that he would ask the parliament whether they would clarify to the people about how the leaders of the political parties gained funding and how they were spending it.

Nasheed said that he was ready to provide every detail of how he ran the country for three years despite the numerous challenges and obstructions from then opposition parties.

He contended that during his tenure as president, he had never ordered anyone tortured and that he had never embezzled public funds.

“I am prepared to provide every detail of my bank account from the day I opened it up until today, to the People’s Majlis [parliament]. I am even willing to cooperate with the Majlis for them to check whether I had a foreign bank account or whether there is any information regarding such, anywhere in the world,” he said.

He added people did not want to hand over the nation’s top office to political leaders who had misappropriated public funds and tortured them in the process, and that it was a duty of the parliament to investigate such allegations of corruption and human rights violations.

“I also do hope that they would share all the details of their oil businesses, their resort businesses, all those ‘Bonaqua’ bottles, details of all those leaked videos of theirs, and as well as all the information with the police to the parliament,” he said.

‘Bonaqua’ was a reference to current Islamic Minister Sheikh Mohamed Shaheem Ali Saeed, who appeared in a video broadcast by MDP-aligned Raajje TV, holding a water bottle and talking to a woman. The station alleged the footage amounted to a “sex scandal”, and claimed it could not release further footage in the interest of public decency.

Nasheed called his supporters on the islands to come to the capital the day he is summoned to parliament for questioning, claiming that people had the right to know what had been going on.

On June 28, Jumhoree Party (JP) Deputy Leader MP Abdullah Jabir  proposed and passed a resolution assembling a temporary committee to investigate the alleged illegal actions of Nasheed.

The motion to form a seven man committee was passed before the session was halted after vehement protests from the MDP parliamentary caucus.

However, yesterday the seven member parliamentary committee was assembled including just one member from the MDP parliamentary group.

The seven member committee includes MP Ali Waheed from MDP, MP Ibrahim Mutthalib from Adaalath Party (AP), Independent MP Ibrahim Riza, MP Ahmed Nihan Hussain Manik from Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), MP Riyaz Rasheed from Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP), and MP Moosa Zameer from People’s Alliance (PA) as well as Jabir himself, who intends to contest the chairmanship of the committee.

“It is important to understand these activities. If we find he has acted against the constitution, parliament will decide on the process that should be taken after that,” he explained at the time.

Arresting of  judge

Speaking at the rally, Nasheed highlighted the decision he made to arrest the Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, Judge Abdulla Mohamed, stating that he had “every reason” to arrest him.

Nasheed said he had ordered the MNDF to make the arrest after Home Minister Ahmed Afeef and then Commissioner of Police Ahmed Faseeh had said that the judge posed a threat to the national security.

He also added that he had several other “legitimate reasons” to arrest the judge, and that he had realised the “depth of information I received from the police and the military and from several citizens”, and that he was willing to “provide this information [about the judge] to the parliament.”

He further said that the reason for an illegitimate ‘coup’ government to take over the country and the incitement of hatred amongst the people as well as failing of the country’s legal and constitutional system, was

The former opposition had incited hatred – including religious accusations – among the population, benefited from the failure of the country’s legal and constitutional system, and ultimately taken over the government in a bid to protect a judge who posed a threat to the national security and the criminal justice system of the country, he said. Police and MNDF had failed to find a solution to the judge, he added.

Earlier, regarding the charges against Nasheed, Deputy Leader of PPM, Umar Naseer expressed his confidence that the Prosecutor General’s (PG) investigation into charges against former President Mohamed Nasheed would  see his imprisonment before the scheduled elections in July 2013.

“We will make sure that the Maldivian state does this. We will not let him go; the leader who unlawfully ordered the police and military to kidnap a judge and detain him for 22 days will be brought to justice,” said Naseer, according to local newspaper Haveeru.

Naseer went on to say that after the investigations of the police and the Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM), the pressure was now on the PG to prosecute Nasheed.

“[The PG] is an independent person. I hope he will prosecute this case. He has said that he will. I have no doubt that he will,” Naseer said.

Current Home Minister Mohamed Jameel – also the Justice Minister under Gayoom’s government – spoken in similar fashion, telling local media that he was confident “Nasheed will be imprisoned for a very long period.”

Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed was arrested by the MNDF on the evening of Monday, January 16, in compliance with a police request. The judge’s whereabouts were not revealed until January 18.

However, later the Maldivian National Defence Force (MNDF) revealed that the judge was under their supervision at Girifushi in Kaafu Atoll (an MNDF training facility).

Prosecutor General (PG) Ahmed Muizz later joined the High Court and Supreme Court in condemning the MNDF’s role in the arrest, requesting that the judge be released.

According to Muizz, police are required to go through the PG’s Office to obtain an arrest warrant from the High Court.

“They haven’t followed the procedures, and the authorities are in breach of law. They could be charged with contempt of the courts,” he said at the time.

After the arrest, violent protests erupted as then opposition parties led by the PPM of former President Gayoom took to the streets in the name of “upholding the constitution”.

The 22 day long protest ended after the toppling Nasheed’s government and the releasing Judge Abdulla, after several police and the MNDF officers stood up against his administration and joined forces with the protesters on February 7.

The MDP maintained that Nasheed was forced out of office in what they described as a coup d’état.

PPM’s Spokesperson MP Ahmed Nihan had not responded at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil Court to order police to bring historian Shafeeg to Court

Civil Court Judge Abdullah Adheeb has said today that he would order police to summon 82 year-old historian Ahmed Shafeeg.

Shafeeg is being sued by former President Maumoon Abdul Gayyoom after Shafeeg publicly alleged that 111 custodial deaths occurred during Gayoom’s 30 year regime.

Shafeeg made the allegations in his book, “A Day in the Life of Ahmed Shafeeg”, and had failed to be present to the court due to poor health.

Judge Adheeb today said that after Shafeeg had failed to attend the hearings, the civil court staff had to ‘stick’ the summoning order at the front door of his residence. The judge added that when the summoning order was sent to Shafeeg, his son had said that he had been unable to attend to the court due to his old age and poor health.

The judge also said that he had asked Shafeeg to appoint someone to represent him at the court, but Shafeeg responded saying that he would attend to the court after he had recovered from his illness.

During today’s hearings, the judge handed over some medical documents highlighting Shafeeg’s medical conditions to Gayoom’s lawyer, Mohamed ‘Wadde’ Waheed Ibrahim.

Gayoom’s lawyer then requested the judge send the police to summon Shafeeg to court.

A similar request was made by Gayoom’s lawyer during president Nasheed’s presidency, which the judge acknowledged but today replied “We all know how things were at that time.”

Adjourning today’s hearings, Judge Adheeb stated that he would once again order police to summon Shafeeg to the court.

Earlier during President Nasheed’s presidency, he promised that the Maldives Police Service would investigate claims made by local historian Ahmed Shafeeg in his book, that 111 Maldivian citizens were held in custody and tortured by the former administration.

The claims led Gayoom to declare that he would file a court case against Shafeeg for politically-motivated slander.

The former president’s lawyer, Mohamed Waheed Ibrahim, at the time was cited in newspaper Miadhu as saying that lawsuits would be filed “against anyone who writes anything untrue and unfounded against Gayoom”, and noted that all such cases so far had been won.

During a ceremony at the Nasandhura Palace Hotel to launch Shafeeg’s book, titled “A Day in the Life of Ahmed Shafeeg”, Nasheed observed that the former President was not solely to blame for human rights violations.

“The [human rights] violations were not committed by Gayoom alone. A whole system committed them. The whole culture of the Maldives committed them,” Nasheed said at the time.

Shafeeg, now 82, was held in solitary confinement for 83 days in 1995 together with three other writers, including Hassan Ahmed Maniku, Ali Moosa Didi and Mohamed Latheef.

Shafeeg contends that 50 of his diaries containing evidence relating to the deaths of the 111 Maldivians were confiscated during a raid by 15 armed men. He was ultimately released by Gayoom with without charge, and was told by the investigating officer to write a letter of appreciation to the then-President for the pardon.

Last September, Civil Court Judge ordered that the passport of 82 year-old historian Ahmed Shafeeg be held.

The judge said the court would seize Shafeeg’s passport after Gayoom’s lawyer at the time alleged that he had information that Shafeeg was about to leave the country.

A medical certificate was produced to the court at the time by Shafeeg, which Gayoom’s lawyer said was against procedure and that Shafeeg would have to fill in a form stating that he could not appear at court due to his medical condition.

Gayoom’s lawyer told the judge that Shafeeg was intentionally dismissing the summons, “while he has been attending other functions.”

Given the current state of the Maldives judiciary, sensitivity of the issue and extreme political polarisation of the country, it is likely that any verdict with even a remote chance of being accepted by both sides would need to come from an international court. Shafeeg’s family had indicated that they are prepared for this course of action should legal proceedings falter in the Maldives.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)