Tag: former president mohamed nasheed

Home minister assures Nasheed’s safety and welfare in custody

Former President Mohamed Nasheed will be incarcerated in a 264-square foot furnished “prison apartment” in Maafushi jail with air-conditioning, a sitting room, a television and VCD player, Home Minister Umar Naseer has said.

Naseer revealed in a tweet this morning that the opposition leader would also have a 1,087-square foot garden and would be able to “live with other inmate-friends.”

“The government guarantees the safety, welfare, and protection of former [President] Nasheed while in custody,” Naseer tweeted last night.

“He’ll be treated with respect and dignity.”

Following the Criminal Court sentencing Nasheed to 13 years in jail on Friday night, Naseer said he had asked police to hold the former president in Dhoonidhoo detention centre “until a special unit is constructed in Maafushi prison.”

Nasheed was found guilty on terrorism charges over the January 2012 military detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

However, the office of former President Nasheed released a statement today claiming the cell being prepared to house the opposition leader was in an area of the jail deemed unfit for human habitation.

“The use of the cell being prepared in Maafushi jail was discontinued after the Human Rights Commission of Maldives and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent determined in 2009 that it was unfit to hold people,” the statement read.

“The toilet of the cell currently being prepared is inside the cell. It was built such that unclean odours and bacteria fans out to the whole cell. It is adjacent to the jail’s garbage dump. Germs, bacteria and unclean air constantly circulate inside the cell.”

The Maldives Correctional Services – which manages jails and detention centres – functions under the home ministry.

Home Ministry Media Coordinator Thazmeel Abdul Samad told Minivan News today that he was not aware of the location of the cell within the jail.

“It is being built in the most appropriate way to hold a former president of Maldives,” he insisted, adding that Nasheed would “not feel any discomfort.”

Thazmeel said construction of the cell would be complete within a week or ten days.

The office of the former president meanwhile contended that the the home ministry’s arrangements were in violation of the Constitution as well as the Maldives’ obligations under the the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

“This government is making arrangements to unjustly cause serious harm to President Nasheed,” the statement alleged, adding that preventing inmates from interacting with others or from being seen by anyone was also against the domestic anti-torture law.

“We have received information of the Ministry of Home Affairs preparing a good place to hold President Nasheed and making arrangements to keep other inmates with him,” it continued.

“However, the cell is being prepared in an area in Maafushi jail that has been deemed unfit for human habitation. And as the other inmates to be kept with President Nasheed so as not to keep him in isolation would be determined by this government, we are extremely concerned over the threat to President Nasheed’s safety and security.”

Related to this story

Former President Nasheed found guilty of terrorism, sentenced to 13 years in prison

Government will ensure Nasheed’s right to appeal conviction, says spokesperson

Respect Criminal Court verdict, says President Yameen

“This is not a court of law. This is injustice,” Nasheed tells the Criminal Court

MDP to launch national civil disobedience campaign to free Nasheed

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Respect Criminal Court verdict, says President Yameen

President Abdulla Yameen has called on all parties to respect the Criminal Court’s verdict against former President Mohamed Nasheed.

In a statement released by the President’s Office last night, President Yameen noted that the opposition leader has “a constitutionally guaranteed right of appeal” to challenge his conviction on terrorism charges at the High Court.

“The government calls on its international partners to engage constructively, based on mutual respect and dialogue in consolidating and strengthening democratic values and institutions in the country,” reads the brief statement.

“The government remains steadfast in ensuring the separation of powers as stipulated under the Maldivian constitution and upholding the rule of law in the country.”

In the wake of the Criminal Court sentencing the opposition leader to 13 years in jail on Friday night (March 13), the United States, United Kingdom and the European Union expressed concern with the lack of due process, while Amnesty International said Nasheed’s conviction “after a deeply flawed and politically motivated trial is a travesty of justice.”

Domestically, the Human Rights Commission of Maldives said the former president was denied fundamental rights that guarantee a fair trial in line with the Maldives’ obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Moreover, human rights NGO Maldivian Democracy Network urged the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges to intervene in order to prevent a “slide back to autocracy,” whilst Transparency Maldives expressed “grave concern” and stressed that Nasheed was denied legal representation, the right to appeal, and sufficient time to mount a defence.

However, President’s Office Spokesperson Ibrahim Muaz Ali told Minivan News yesterday that he believed the Criminal Court “would have afforded due process in the conduct of Nasheed’s trial.”

“If you study this case, from the beginning to the end, it is clear the charges are not politically motivated,” Muaz insisted.

President Yameen as head of state could not “interfere in judicial proceedings and is not to blame for court proceedings,” he said.

Intervention

Commonwealth Secretary-General Kamalesh Sharma released a statement yesterday noting that the intergovernmental organisation would continue to closely follow the judicial process after the verdict.

The Commonwealth urged restraint and advised peaceful resolution of “differences of view” through dialogue.

“The Foreign Minister of Maldives, Hon Dunya Maumoon, has made recent public comments welcoming constructive and close dialogue with international organisations,” the statement read.

The Commonwealth assured its commitment to working with the Maldives to address issues of concern.

“All societies should have the space and opportunity for dialogue in order to ensure that universally shared values are advanced, and to create a stable and harmonious future,” the statement continued.

“All societies should also have national institutions that enjoy the confidence, trust and respect of the people they serve. The Commonwealth is committed to offering practical support in a collaborative partnership to achieve these goals in an enduring way.”

The Asian Centre for Human Rights (ACHR) has meanwhile called on the UN to hold an emergency session on the situation in the Maldives.

The ACHR “urged the members of the UN Security Council to take necessary measures to seize assets and freeze accounts of President of Maldives Mr Abdulla Yameen, Foreign Minister Dunya Maumoon, Prosecutor General Muhthaz Muhsin and the three judges overseeing Nasheed’s trial i.e. Abdulla Didi, Abdul Bari Yoousuf and Sujau Usman and other key officials of the regime, impose travel restrictions and trade embargo, and withhold financial assistance and technical cooperation to the Maldives until the release of Nasheed.”

“The trial is a travesty of justice – Judge [Abdulla Mohamed] who claims himself to have been illegally detained for which former President Nasheed was charged under terrorism charges still heads the Criminal Court trying Nasheed and effectively allowed his deputy, Judge Abdulla Didi, to convict Nasheed in a kangaroo trial. If the United Nations and international community fail to intervene now, democracy may never return to the Maldives,” said ACHR Director Suhas Chakma.

The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (Forum-Asia) also condemned the verdict and noted that Nasheed was “never investigated for the fresh charges of terrorism before trial.”

“The trial of Nasheed was riddled with numerous violations of basic human rights and fair trial standards, and his conviction must be condemned. This is a clear case of political persecution and therefore the verdict is not surprising, considering the manner in which the court has conducted the trial,” said Forum-Asia Executive Director Evelyn Balais-Serrano.

Related to this story

Democracy Network alerts UN Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges on Nasheed’s sham trial

Former President Nasheed found guilty of terrorism, sentenced to 13 years in prison

“This is not a court of law. This is injustice,” Nasheed tells the Criminal Court

US, EU, and UK concerned over lack of due process in Nasheed trial

Nasheed trial “not free or fair,” says Maldivian Democracy Network

Former President Nasheed appears in court with arm in makeshift sling

 

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

US, EU, and UK concerned over lack of due process in Nasheed trial

The United States, United Kingdom and the European Union have expressed concern with the lack of due process in the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed, who was convicted of terrorism charges and sentenced to 13 years in prison last night.

“Despite the calls from the international community for due process to be followed, we are concerned that the former President’s trial has not been conducted in a transparent and impartial manner or in accordance with due legal process,” said UK Foreign Office Minister Hugo Swire in a statement.

He added that the UK would be watching the appeal process closely.

“I recognise that this outcome will be deeply worrying for many in the Maldives. I therefore urge calm across the Maldives and encourage all political parties to act with moderation, restraint and within the bounds of the law,” Swire urged.

“We have been consulting closely on our concerns with Commonwealth partners, and we will continue to do so over the coming days.”

The US meanwhile expressed concern with “the apparent lack of appropriate criminal procedures during the trial”.

“We are particularly troubled by reports that the trial was conducted in a manner contrary to Maldivian law and Maldives’ international obligations to provide the minimum fair trial guarantees and other protections under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),” reads a statement by the US embassy in Colombo.

“This includes the denial of legal representation to former President Nasheed during the first hearing and concerns regarding the lack of impartiality and independence of the judges.

“We call on the government of Maldives to take steps to restore confidence in its commitment to democracy and the rule of law, including judicial independence, and to ensure fundamental rights are respected including the freedom of speech and of the press as well as the right to peaceful assembly and peaceful protest.  We urge the government to ensure former President Nasheed’s safety and well being in custody, and we hope all Maldivians will express their views peacefully.”

The EU said Nasheed’s conviction “raises very serious questions about due process of law and risks undermining people’s trust in the independence of the judiciary.”

The EU statement also noted that due legal process was obligatory for the Maldives under the ICCPR.

“Should the conviction be appealed, the appeal process must be fair and transparent with former President Nasheed being accorded all his rights, including adequate access to his lawyers,” the EU stated.

“The European Union calls on all sides in the Maldives to act responsibly and uphold constitutional freedoms.”

Indian External Affairs Ministry Spokesperson Syed Akbaruddin meanwhile tweeted saying India was “deeply concerned at developments in the Maldives, monitoring situation closely.”

“Travesty of justice”

Foreign Minister Dunya Maumoon has previously condemned international statements of concern, stating: “Those who prefer to issue public statements about an on-going legal case, or on a domestic political situation, are advised to do a basic fact-check, before bandwagoning on to accusations made by a political party.”

Dunya asserted in a statement that President Abdulla Yameen’s administration “will not take instructions from a foreign government on any issue in governing the country.”

Moreover, President Yameen has declared that foreigners would not be allowed to meddle in domestic affairs and the ruling Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) has condemned the international community’s “hypocrisy and double standards” with regard to Nasheed’s trial.

Meanwhile, in a statement today, Amnesty International said Nasheed’s sentencing “after a deeply flawed and politically motivated trial is a travesty of justice.”

“Amnesty International condemns the conviction of Mohamed Nasheed to 13 years in jail by judges who were state witnesses during an earlier investigation of this case. This trial has been flawed from start to finish, and the conviction is unsound,” said Richard Bennett, Amnesty International’s Asia-Pacific Director.

“Rather than responding to international calls to strengthen the impartiality of the judiciary the government of the Maldives has proceeded with this sham trial for political reasons”.

Amnesty noted that the opposition leader was denied legal representation at the first hearing of the trial and that at latter hearings his lawyers were not given sufficient time to prepare his defence.

Nasheed’s conviction last night received widespread coverage in international media and was greeted with outrage by several prominent figures who have called for his release.

Sir Richard Branson, founder of Virgin Group, called the outcome of the trial “beyond a joke” and declared he would not visit the Maldives until the opposition leader was released.

 

Related to this story

Former President Nasheed found guilty of terrorism, sentenced to 13 years in prison  

Nasheed trial “not free or fair,” says Maldivian Democracy Network

Foreigners cannot meddle in domestic affairs, declares President Yameen

PPM accuses international community of “double standards and hypocrisy” in Nasheed’s trial

“This is not a court of law. This is injustice,” Nasheed tells the Criminal Court

Global change makers demand a fair trial for Nasheed

Indian Prime Minister Modi cancels Maldives trip

EU, UN join international chorus of concern over Nasheed’s arrest, terrorism trial

Foreign Minister Dunya slams Canada, Commonwealth statements on Nasheed prosecution

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed trial “not free or fair,” says Maldivian Democracy Network

Former President Mohamed Nasheed’s ongoing trial on terrorism charges is “not free or fair,” contends NGO Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN), highlighting several irregularities in the hearings at the Criminal Court.

“It is with great desperation that the Maldivian Democracy Network calls upon the higher courts of the Maldives, the Judicial Service Commission, the Human Rights Commission of Maldives, the parliament and the president of the Maldives to acknowledge and restore justice with regard to the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed,” MDN said in a statement on March 10.

“Furthermore we also call upon the international community, United Nations Special Rapporteur for Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul and United Nations Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Assembly to hold the Maldivian government to account for its continued breach of the constitution, laws and regulations.”

Nasheed is accused of ordering the military to detain Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012. Following international concern and opposition demands to release “political prisoners,” President Abdulla Yameen has said he could not interfere in criminal proceedings as the judiciary was an independent branch of the state under the new constitution.

Irregularities

Listing 11 issues of concern with the trial, the democracy and human rights NGO noted that presiding judges denied Nasheed legal counsel despite repeated requests during the hearing on March 9.

All four of Nasheed’s lawyers had quit in protest of the Criminal Court’s refusal to grant sufficient time to examine the prosecution’s evidence and prepare a defence against new terror charges pressed on February 22.

On February 15, Prosecutor General Muhthaz Muhsin withdrew charges raised against the opposition leader under article 81 of the penal code for illegally detaining a government employee who has not been convicted of a crime. The offence carries a jail term of up to three years.

However, the new charges of “enforced disappearance” filed under anti-terrorism laws carry a jail term or banishment of between 10 to 15 years.

MDN noted that Nasheed’s legal team was given three days for the initial preparation and one day for witness evaluation.

“All attempts by Nasheed’s legal counsel to appeal to the Criminal Court (one appeal) and the High Court (four appeals) have been rejected,” MDN stated.

“Nasheed’s legal counsel was not provided timely meetings with Nasheed in preparation for previous hearings.”

MDN also observed that Judges Abdulla Didi, Abdul Bari Yousuf and Shujau Usman have “engaged in several acts where their integrity has been compromised, such as elaborating and answering for the prosecution and state witnesses during cross examination and open demonstration of animosity towards Nasheed and his legal counsel during hearings.”

State prosecutors have also admitted in court to engaging with witnesses, which MDN argued could be “perceived as witness coaching.”

When Nasheed’s lawyers objected, MDN noted that the presiding judge asked whether it was a problem.

Moreover, the judges blocked and ignored Nasheed lawyers’ attempts to “negate state witnesses” under High Court precedents, MDN said.

The judges also refused to admit or hear defence witnesses, claiming they could not negate the prosecution’s evidence or witness testimony.

Referring to video footage submitted as evidence by the prosecution, MDN noted that two judges presiding over the case were at the scene when Judge Abdulla was taken into military custody.

However, the judges have denied Nasheed’s lawyers’ requests to either recuse themselves from the case or be named defence witnesses.

“The Criminal Court has refused to acknowledge international and local trial observers,” the MDN statement continued.

“The Criminal Court allows six members of the public and 10 media persons to enter the viewing gallery while the same courtroom previously allowed 40 seats for viewing.”

MDN also referred to an incident on Sunday night where Raajje TV journalists were forced to delete footage of PG Muhsin allegedly meeting Judge Bari in a café. The Criminal Court subsequently barred all journalists from the station from observing trials.

MDN stressed that the Maldives was a signatory to the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, which obliges the state to afford all citizens a fair trial.

“We call upon the state to make all necessary lawful interventions into these unconstitutional acts and restore law and order in the country,” MDN said.

Related to this story

“This is not a court of law. This is injustice,” Nasheed tells the Criminal Court

Nasheed’s lawyers quit

Nasheed’s lawyers stage no-show citing insufficient time for preparation

State prosecutors influencing witnesses, claim Nasheed’s lawyers

Chief of Defense Forces testifies in Nasheed, Tholhath terrorism trials

Nasheed contests credibility of police and military witnesses in terrorism trial

Judges Didi and Yoosuf refuse to step down from Nasheed’s terrorism trial

Nasheed denies ordering Judge Abdulla arrest, granted three days to answer charges

Former President Nasheed arrives in court with arm in makeshift sling

Nasheed denied right to appoint lawyer and appeal “arbitrary” arrest warrant, contend lawyers

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“I was not afforded the rights of the accused,” says Judge Abdulla

Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed testified in a terrorism trial against former President Mohamed Nasheed tonight, stating the former Commander in Chief must bear responsibility for his “unlawful arrest” in January 2012.

“I was not afforded the rights of the accused. My basic human rights were violated. I had no access to a lawyer,” Judge Abdulla told the court.

He claimed he is still unclear as to why he was kept detained from January 16 to February 7.

Nasheed is accused of abducting Judge Abdulla and is standing trial for terrorism. He has denied charges. If convicted, he faces a jail term or banishment between ten and 15 years.

The opposition leader once again reiterated a request for legal counsel and adequate time to mount a defence, pointing out that he had difficulty in appointing a lawyer while detained in Dhoonidhoo.

All four of Nasheed’s lawyers quit yesterday over the Criminal Court’s alleged failure to provide sufficient time to examine the prosecution’s evidence and prepare to defend the former president against new terror charges pressed two weeks ago on February 22.

Nasheed has previously called the Criminal Court’s rushed trial an “injustice” and “the biggest circus the Maldives has seen in constitutional history.”

But presiding Judge Abdulla Didi insisted there was no obstruction to Nasheed appointing a lawyer, and said the former president had been given ample opportunity to obtain legal counsel.

Judge Didi adjourned the hearing after scheduling the next hearing for Friday night (March 13), where the defence and prosecution are to present concluding statements.

Judges could issue a verdict at their discretion afterwards.

“This is what the President wants…”

Recounting his arrest, Judge Abdulla said he had gone home from work late on January 16, and was having dinner with his wife when masked men in military uniform entered his home without a court warrant and “dragged me off to Girifushi.”

In the process, his arm was hurt, he said. Since he had been arrested at 12am, he did not know where he was being taken, and only found out he was in Girifushi much later, Judge Abdulla said.

Senior government officials including former Defence Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu, then-Minister of Youth Hassan Latheef and former Presidential Envoy Ibrahim Hussein Zaki visited Judge Abdulla in Girifushi, he said.

Judge Abdulla said the meetings with government officials made it clear to him they did not have authority to make a decision on his detention.

Their use of phrases such as “this is what the President wants,” made it clear the then-Commander In Chief was responsible for his detention on Girifushi, Judge Abdulla said.

Government officials offered him four options, to step down as the Criminal Court Chief Judge, to transfer to another job, to leave Malé or leave the country, he continued.

Judge Abdulla was summoned to court tonight by presiding Judges Abdulla Didi, Abdul Bari Yoosuf and Sujau Usman. He was not listed among the prosecution’s witnesses and neither the state prosecutors nor Nasheed posed any questioned to the judge tonight.

Mount a defence

Nasheed requested ten additional days to appoint new lawyers stating: “You have to give a detainee the opportunity. You know very well the laws and rules you have to follow.”

But Judge Didi said the Criminal Court would not give the former president special access or privileges and said he could appoint new lawyers whenever he wishes.

Nasheed’s legal team had been given access to Dhoonidhoo Island even today, Judge Didi noted.

However, the opposition leader argued the four lawyers had dropped the case due to the Criminal Court’s denial of due process and adequate time to prepare defence, and said he required time to appoint a new lawyer of his choosing.

“Lawyers don’t grow on trees,” he said.

The office of the former President Mohamed Nasheed issued a statement tonight, pointing out defendants in other high profile cases had been given over a month to find legal representation, and the court proceedings last more than a year.

The statement also expressed concern over the Criminal Court’s decision not to hear the witnesses Nashed had submitted in his defence.

The judges said they did not believe the witnesses would negate the testimony of witnesses produced by the state, and were therefore unnecessary.

Related to this story

“This is not a court of law. This is injustice,” Nasheed tells the Criminal Court
Nasheed’s lawyers quit

Nasheed’s lawyers stage no-show citing insufficient time for preparation

State prosecutors influencing witnesses, claim Nasheed’s lawyers

Chief of Defense Forces testifies in Nasheed, Tholhath terrorism trials

Nasheed contests credibility of police and military witnesses in terrorism trial

Judges Didi and Yoosuf refuse to step down from Nasheed’s terrorism trial

Nasheed denies ordering Judge Abdulla arrest, granted three days to answer charges

Former President Nasheed arrives in court with arm in makeshift sling

Nasheed denied right to appoint lawyer and appeal “arbitrary” arrest warrant, contend lawyers

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“This is not a court of law. This is injustice,” Nasheed tells the Criminal Court

The Criminal Court tonight continued to hear evidence against former President Mohamed Nasheed in an ongoing terrorism trial, dismissing the opposition leader’s repeated requests for legal counsel.

“I want a lawyer. This is not a court of law. This is injustice. This is the biggest circus this country has seen in its constitutional history,” Nasheed told Judges Abdulla Didi, Abdul Bari Yoosuf and Sujau Usman.

All four of Nasheed’s lawyers quit today in protest of the Criminal Court’s alleged failure to provide adequate time to mount a defense.

The former president is accused of ordering the military detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012. If convicted under the 1990 Anti-Terrorism Act, he faces a jail term or banishment between ten and 15 years.

“I call on all Maldivian citizens to stop this atrocity the three of you are committing here, to summon you before a court of law and ensure justice,” Nasheed said in court today.

He accused the three judges of authoritarianism, taking the law in to their hands and ripping the 2008 Constitution to shreds. The opposition leader also said he preferred an immediate sentence over a trial without legal representation.

The Criminal Court adjourned today’s hearing after announcing Judge Abdulla would be called to court tomorrow night. However, the four defence witnesses would not be summoned as they do not appear to counter the state’s claims, judges said.

Nasheed was arrested on February 22, ahead of the surprise terrorism hearing scheduled for the next day. The Criminal Court has held eight hearings since then.

Documentary evidence

State prosecutors tonight presented video recordings of two speeches Nasheed had made in public on January 22, 2012 and on July 2, 2012, and an audio recording of comments made at the police HQ on January 18, 2012.

A video of Judge Abdulla’s arrest was also screened in court, showing masked soldiers escorting the judge out of his home and into a military vehicle. The video showed Judges Didi and Yoosuf active at the scene of Judge Abdulla’s arrest, Nasheed pointed out.

In the January 22 speech at Raalhugandu area in Malé, Nasheed said judges were undermining the constitutional powers of the judicial watchdog body tasked with disciplining judges. As the head of state, he said he was obliged to take action, but said arresting individuals gave him no satisfaction.

Nasheed also said judges must have the required qualifications, honesty and integrity.

In the July 2 speech, Nasheed described Judge Abdulla Mohamed as a national security threat and said he had ordered the Maldives National Defence Forces (MNDF) to treat Judge Abdulla as such, upon a request from the Home Minister and the Commissioner of Police.

Meanwhile, in an audio clip of comments made to police officers on January 18, Nasheed said he would not allow Judge Abdulla within 100 meters of a courthouse during his presidency.

State prosecutors also read from a transcript of a conversation between Nasheed and his cabinet on January 17, 2012, in which the former president asked his ministers their opinion on releasing Judge Abdulla or keeping him detained.

A log of MNDF’s observations of Judge Abdulla’s activities while at Girifushi, and several Supreme Court and High Court rulings ordering the judge’s release were also presented.

State prosecutors said Nasheed’s comments demonstrated he had directly ordered the judge’s arrest, while the video of the arrest, the military logs and court orders demonstrated the judge had been incarcerated against his will on military training island Girifushi.

At every opportunity, Nasheed repeated a request for legal counsel of his choosing, and reiterated his belief that the trial was unjust and unlawful.

The Criminal Court dismissed Nasheed’s requests, claiming the former president and his legal team had been afforded adequate time. They have previously argued case documents had been provided three years ago when charges of ordering Judge Abdulla’s “arbitrary detention” were filed against Nasheed.

However, lawyers in a statement on Monday evening noted Prosecutor General Muhthaz Muhsin had withdrawn the lesser charges and pressed harsher terrorism charges on February 22.

“Even though we had the case documents for three years, we were reviewing and researching those documents and evidence to mount a defence for the intial charges,” the lawyers said.

“We have to start work all over again in order to build a defence for the new terror charges. This is why we keep reiterating requests for additional time in the ongoing hearings.”

The basis of defence arguments are now different, lawyers argued, stating it was “impossible” to provide Nasheed with proper legal counsel without sufficient time.

Meanwhile, the High Court on Monday threw out an appeal filed by Nasheed in which he claimed the Prosecutor General was not authorised to re-prosecute on new charges.

The appellate court claimed the appeal required interpreting the Constitution and said it had no jurisdiction over the matter.

Nasheed had also appealed the Criminal Court’s decision to keep him under custody until the trial ended. Lawyer Hisaan Hissein has previously said the High Court had rejected the appeal by classifying the Criminal Court’s bail denial ruling as a court summons.

Lawyers have also appealed the initial arrest warrant, and the Criminal Court’s refusal to recuse Judges Abdulla Didi and Judge Abdul Bari Yoosuf despite the pair having provided witness statements to a 2012 investigation into Judge Abdulla’s arrest.

Judge Abdulla’s arrest sparked 22 consecutive nights of violent anti-government demonstrations that culminated in a police and military mutiny on the morning of February 7, 2012, forcing Nasheed to resign in what he subsequently called a “coup d’etat.”

Related to this story

Nasheed’s lawyers quit

Nasheed’s lawyers stage no-show citing insufficient time for preparation

State prosecutors influencing witnesses, claim Nasheed’s lawyers

Chief of Defense Forces testifies in Nasheed, Tholhath terrorism trials

Nasheed contests credibility of police and military witnesses in terrorism trial

Judges Didi and Yoosuf refuse to step down from Nasheed’s terrorism trial

Nasheed denies ordering Judge Abdulla arrest, granted three days to answer charges

Former President Nasheed arrives in court with arm in makeshift sling

Nasheed denied right to appoint lawyer and appeal “arbitrary” arrest warrant, contend lawyers

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed prosecution highlights “selective approach to justice,” says Amnesty International

The arrest and prosecution of former President Mohamed Nasheed on charges of terrorism highlights “a selective approach to justice in the Maldives,” Amnesty International has said.

The international human rights organisation noted in a press statement yesterday (March 3) that the court did not order an investigation of Nasheed’s alleged mistreatment by police on February 23.

“The court also denied him the right to be represented by his lawyer at the hearing, and rejected his request to receive medical treatment for injuries caused after police manhandled him outside the court premises,” reads the statement.

Following his arrest on February 22 ahead of a surprise terrorism trial, Nasheed appeared in court the next day using his tie as a makeshift sling after police manhandled and dragged the opposition leader into the court building.

Citing new regulations, the Criminal Court meanwhile informed the legal team on the day of the first hearing that the lawyers had to register at the court two days in advance despite being unaware of the trial until the former president’s arrest the previous day.

However, the government has maintained that due process was followed in Nasheed’s arrest and dismissed the incident outside the court building as “a stunt” pulled by the opposition leader in order to garner sympathy and support from the international community.

The government also insists that it has no role in the criminal proceedings as charges were raised by an independent Prosecutor General and tried through an independent judiciary.

Amnesty International meanwhile noted that Prosecutor General Muthaz Muhsin pressed charges against Nasheed under anti-terrorism laws after withdrawing previous charges filed under Article 81 of the penal code for illegally detaining a government employee who had not been convicted of a crime.

While the latter offence carries a jail term of up to three years, the charges of terrorism under “enforced disappearance” carries a jail sentence of between 10 to 15 years.

“A conviction would stop Mohamed Nasheed, a popular opposition leader, from contesting future presidential elections, with the next one due in 2018,” Amnesty observed.

Nasheed’s arrest warrant stated that he might not attend trial or go into hiding, Amnesty noted, and the Criminal Court at the first hearing ordered police to hold the former president in custody until the conclusion of the trial.

“Claims of his ill-treatment were substantiated by video footage, viewed by Amnesty International, which appear to show him being manhandled,” the statement continued.

“This was reminiscent of the events of February 2012 when Nasheed and his supporters were attacked by security forces. Eyewitnesses say he was dragged into the court in a degrading manner. He told the judge that he was in need of medical attention, but the judge refused his request.”

Echoing calls by the Commonwealth, UN, EU, and the UK, Amnesty urged the government to “ensure the due process of law, and that any judicial processes against Mohamed Nasheed conform to international fair trial standards.”

Amnesty also called for an independent and impartial investigation into Nasheed’s mistreatment in police custody as well as the judge’s refusal to allow the former president to seek medical treatment.

“Dozens of Nasheed’s supporters, including senior members and MPs of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) were attacked and subjected to brutal beatings at the time of the disputed ousting of Mohamed Nasheed from the presidency in February 2012,” Amnesty said, referring to a brutal crackdown on opposition supporters on February 8.

“Despite concerns expressed by Amnesty International, a National Commission of Inquiry investigating the circumstances of Nasheed’s ousting, and the Maldives Human Rights Commission, no one has yet been brought to justice for those attacks. Nasheed’s arrest stands in contrast to government inaction in these cases and undermines its stated claim that his arrest is to uphold the rule of law.”

Related to this story

EU, UN join international chorus of concern over Nasheed arrest, terrorism trial

Foreign Minister Dunya slams Canada, Commonwealth statements on Nasheed prosecution

Commonwealth, Canada express concern over denial of legal representation for former President Nasheed

Former President Nasheed arrives in court with arm in makeshift sling

Five police brutality cases from February 2012 ongoing at court, AG tells Majlis

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

President Yameen rejects request for meeting to discuss MDP-JP demands

President Abdulla Yameen has rejected a request for a meeting with the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party-Jumhooree Party (MDP-JP) alliance to discuss 13 demands issued at a mass rally on February 27.

Briefing the press last night following a meeting of the MDP-JP joint party commission, JP Deputy Leader Ameen Ibrahim said the parties formally submitted the 13 demands in writing and sought meetings with both the president and Home Minister Umar Naseer.

“When we sent the demands, the home minister has replied saying ‘I have heard the demands and I will meet a team assigned by you.’ So his appointment has been arranged for 10am on Thursday morning. We sincerely thank the home minister for that on behalf of both our parties,” Ameen revealed.

“However, the president said in response to our letter, ‘if you want to meet regarding something that would be beneficial to the public, I can make time for you,’ and that it cannot be done any other way.”

The demands included immediately releasing former President Mohamed Nasheed and former Defense Minister Mohamed Nazim, repealing amendments to the Auditor General’s Act that saw the removal of former Auditor General Niyaz Ibrahim, empowering local councils, and investigating serious corruption allegations against senior government officials.

Other demands issued at the protest march included continuing electricity subsidies, fulfilling campaign pledges to provide subsidies to fishermen and farmers, and reversing a decision to impose import duty on fuel.

“The home minister has seen that these [demands] are beneficial to the public, but unfortunately our honourable president has not yet seen it. We are extremely saddened by this,” Ameen said.

President’s Office Spokesperson Ibrahim Muaz Ali told local media today that the president did not have the authority to release suspects in detention while on trial, noting that the judiciary was an independent branch under separation of powers.

The president was open to discussions if the opposition proposed matters that were both beneficial to the public and within the president’s powers and constitutional responsibilities, he said.

After discussing President Yameen’s rejection at the inter-party commission (IPC) last night, Ameen said the parties decided its leaders – Gasim Ibrahim from the JP and Chairperson Ali Waheed or MP Ibrahim Mohamed Solih ‘Ibu’ from the MDP – would directly request an appointment with the president to discuss the prosecution and trials of Nasheed and Nazim.

Criminal proceedings against the pair were being conducted unfairly and unjustly, Ameen reiterated.

The parties also discussed continuing joint efforts, Ameen said, adding that decisions of the ‘joint activities committee’ would be implemented.

Ameen stressed that the activities would take place within legal bounds, adding that its purpose was achieving results desired by the public.

The MDP-JP nightly protests continued near the city council hall last night.

“Extra efforts”

Meanwhile, MDP Chairperson Ali Waheed told the press that the party could not remain inactive while former President Nasheed’s trial was “going rapidly towards a sentence.”

“So we have discussed at our commission about the MDP undertaking special extra efforts to free President Nasheed,” he revealed.

The joint commission discussed affording the space for the MDP to conduct further activities without undermining the alliance with the JP, Waheed added, calling on supporters to join the party’s “direct action”.

Waheed said the government’s lack of an adequate response to the thousands of Maldivian citizens who participated in the protest march was regrettable.

“So now we are going to have to take our efforts to another level. God willing, within bounds of Maldivian laws and regulations, we will carry out our peaceful protest and direct action in various ways in the coming days,” he said.

A special committee has been formed within the MDP to oversee the activities, he continued, appealing for party members to remain united and to channel discontent within the party “as positive energy.”

While the party was attempting to peacefully resolve the crisis through negotiation and dialogue, Waheed said MDP believed “other activities” should be scaled up.

The government was opting for the “path of ruin” with its lack of response to the peaceful protest march, he continued, noting that the opposition did not seek a violent confrontation or incite unrest on Friday.

Waheed also said the party could not “go forward” without Nasheed and that the current leadership would not stand in the way of supporters’ love for the party’s elected president.

“We will give the space both within this [joint] commission and our party for [supporters] to raise their voices,” he said.

Related to this story

MDA MP withdraws constitutional amendment on 65-year age limit to contest for presidency

February 27 a historic success, claims opposition

10,000 protest in Malé, call for President Yameen’s resignation

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed ordered Judge Abdulla’s arrest, says Tholhath

Former President Mohamed Nasheed ordered the military to detain Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012, former Defence Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu told the Criminal Court last night.

At last night’s hearing of his trial on terrorism charges, Tholhath said the operation to arrest Judge Abdulla – dubbed ‘Liberty Shield’ – was initiated by Nasheed and carried out by then-Malé Area Commander Brigadier General Ibrahim Mohamed Didi, currently an opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP for mid-Hithadhoo constituency.

According to trial observers from the Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN), state prosecutors noted that Tholhath had confessed to initiating Operation Liberty Shield during a previous trial at the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court.

Asked whether Nasheed directly gave the order to Didi – bypassing the defence minister – Tholhath’s lawyer said details of the orders would be explained after the state presents its witnesses.

Tholhath insisted that Nasheed had ordered the judge’s detention on Girifushi Island.

Judge Abdulla’s arrest triggered a police and military mutiny forcing Nasheed’s resignation on February 7, 2012.

In January 2013, Tholhath told parliament’s Government Oversight Committee that Nasheed had not resigned “under duress” in a a coup d’etat. However, Tholhath had previously claimed that Nasheed’s life was in danger on February 7, 2012 and that the former president had no choice but to resign.

During the 2013 presidential campaign, Tholhath campaigned for Jumhooree Party Leader Gasim Ibrahim and later backed eventual winner Abdulla Yameen.

Terrorism trials

At last night’s hearing, Tholhath’s lawyer asked state prosecutors to clarify which offence the former minister was being charged with under Article 2 of the anti-terrorism law.

When the prosecutor explained that the offence was “enforced disappearance,” the lawyer asked whether the state has decided that the highest authority of the military gave orders that amounted to terrorism, and whether the state was suggesting the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) was a “terrorist organisation” if soldiers enforce their commanders’ orders.

The lawyer also asked why soldiers involved in the operation were not being charged as accomplices.

In reply, State Prosecutor Abdulla Rabiu said senior officers of the military “used the institution as a veil to commit this atrocity,” noting that senior officials would have had the opportunity to seek legal advice.

The defence lawyer said then-Home Minister Hassan Afeef informed Tholhath that the chief judge was a threat to national security as he was blocking corruption investigations, releasing dangerous criminals, and undermining the criminal justice system.

The lawyer also contended that the Human Rights Commission of Maldives’ (HRCM) investigation could not be admissible as the commission was not legally authorised to investigate acts of terrorism.

However, the prosecutor insisted that the HRCM Act confers powers on the commission to investigate terrorism.

After the judges ruled that the procedural issues were not an impediment to continuing the trial, both the prosecution and defence then submitted a list of evidentiary documents and witnesses, including senior officers of the police and military.

Adjourning the hearing, Judge Abdulla Didi said testimony from state witnesses would be heard at the next trial date.

At last night’s hearing of Nasheed’s trial, Judge Didi and Judge Abdul Bari Yoosuf ruled that there was no conflict of interest for the pair to preside over the trial, despite having testified as witnesses in the case’s investigation.

Along with Nasheed, Tholhath, and Didi, former Chief of Defence Forces Major General (Retired) Moosa Ali Jaleel and Colonel (Retired) Mohamed Ziyad are also on trial on terrorism charges over the chief judge’s arrest.

All five defendants have pleaded not guilty to the terrorism charges. The charges were filed under Article 2(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1990, which criminalizes kidnappings, forced disappearances and abductions and carries a jail term of between 10 to 15 years.

At a hearing earlier this week, Jaleel denied any involvement in the judge’s arrest, claiming he neither received nor given any orders to take the chief judge into military custody.

Didi was meanwhile hospitalised on Sunday night after complaining of chest pains. His family told Minivan News today that the retired general would be flown overseas as soon as doctor’s give approval.

Related to this story

Judges Didi and Yousuf refuse to step down from Nasheed’s terrorism trial

Nasheed denies ordering Judge Abdulla arrest, granted three days to answer charges

Former President Nasheed arrives in court with arm in makeshift sling

Chief Judge “took entire criminal justice system in his fist”: Afeef

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)