Tag: high court

Family requests Nazim’s transfer from jail to house arrest

The family of former defense minister Mohamed Nazim has requested his transfer from prison to house arrest with an appeal filed over the 11-year-jail term on weapons smuggling charges stalled indefinitely at the High Court.

Nazim’s brother, Adam Azim, said the family has written to home minister requesting the transfer. The appeal was stalled after the Supreme Court suddenly transferred two judges on the five-judge-panel to a newly created appellate branch in the south.

Nazim maintains he was framed by rogue police officers who planted the pistol and three bullets in his apartment during a midnight raid.

The trial was criticized for apparent lack of due process. Appeal hearings were set to conclude within a week in late-June. The transfer of judges was made in the middle of the appeal on June 23.

Nazim’s trial coincided with the terrorism trial of ex-president Mohamed Nasheed. The opposition leader was sentenced to 13 years in jail over the military detention of a judge during his tenure. The pair’s imprisonment sparked a political crisis with daily protests.

With mounting diplomatic pressure, Nasheed was transferred to house arrest. Talks have now commenced between the government and Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

The MDP has requested Nazim be transferred to house arrest to allow political reconciliation. The largest opposition party has also requested the government withdraw terrorism charges against the Adhaalath Party president Sheikh Imran Abdulla.

Imran was charged with inciting violence at a historic anti-government protest on May 1. The Adhaalath Party allied with the MDP in March after President Abdulla Yameen told Imran he had no power to release Nazim.

Home minister Umar Naseer told the press on Sunday that the government is open to exploring avenues to release jailed politicians and withdrawing charges. The government will present a paper at a third meeting on Wednesday night.

While there has been progress on government’s talks with the MDP and the Jumhooree Party, talks with the Adhaalath Party has been stalled, with the party insisting Imran should represent it at talks.

Ibrahim Muaz, the president’s office spokesperson, said the Adhaalath Party cannot present demands before sitting for talks. “There cannot be demands to start the discussions. Decisions can only made after discussing at the table.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Ex-defence minister’s appeal stalled

The High Court today cancelled the third hearing into an appeal filed by former defence minister Mohamed Nazim following the Supreme Court’s transfer of two judges on the panel to a newly created appellate court in the south.

Nazim is serving an 11-year jail term on weapons smuggling charges. The retired colonel maintains he was framed by rogue police officers.

Appeal hearings began on Sunday and were to continue daily and conclude this week.

The Supreme Court yesterday transferred Judges Abbas Shareef and Shuaib Hassan Zakariyya to the southern branch of the High Court. The two are among the five-judge panel overseeing Nazim’s appeal.

A family member said they have not been informed when the next hearing is to take place.

There are now a number of issues that could stall Nazim’s appeal. A panel of at least three judges must preside over the case.

Two criminal court judges who had sentenced Nazim were recently appointed to vacant seats on the nine-member High Court bench. The High Court has previously said the pair – Judges Abdulla Didi and Sujau Usman – will not oversee the appeal.

Of the seven judges left, judge Azmiralda Zahir was also transferred along with Shareef and Zakariyya to the southern branch.

This leaves only four judges to oversee Nazim’s appeal.

The High Court could proceed with a three-member panel. But the Supreme Court could at any time transfer any three of the remaining six High Court judges in Malé to a second regional branch in the north.

If any of the two former criminal court judges sit on the Malé bench, the appeal cannot proceed.

The division of the High Court into three regional branches with three judges each was required through amendments to the Judicature Act in December last year.

The regional branches can only hear appeals of magistrate court verdicts, while only the main branch in Malé can hear appeals of challenges to laws and regulations.

Critics have previously questioned the need to divide the high court bench, noting magistrate courts typically only hold trials on petty crimes. The bulk of complicated civil and criminal matters are heard at the Malé’s superior courts.

The opposition has described the judges’ transfer to the regional branches as a demotion, and said it will allow the Supreme Court to transfer judges it is not happy with to the regional branches.

The apex court’s decision to divide the High Court comes at a much later date than that required by law. The amendments said the Supreme Court must establish the regional branches within 90 days of the ratification of the law.

On Sunday, Nazim highlighted several lapses in due process at the criminal court, including judge’s failure to call defence witnesses, discrepancies in testimony by anonymous police officers and police failure to follow standard procedures in the midnight raid on his apartment.

State prosecutors on Monday said police are authorised to change their standard operating procedures at any time.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Three High Court judges transferred to southern branch

The Supreme Court has transferred three High Court judges to the southern branch of the appellate court.

Amendments brought to the Judicature Act in December 2014 divided the nine-member High Court bench into three branches with three judges each.

Two regional branches were to be set up in the north and south with the main branch in Malé. The regional branches will only hear appeals of magistrate court verdicts while only the main branch in the capital can decide on challenges to laws and regulations.

Critics have previously questioned the need to divide the high court bench, noting magistrate courts typically only hold trials on petty crimes. The bulk of complicated civil and criminal matters are heard at the Malé’s superior courts.

The opposition has described judges’ transfer to the regional branches as a demotion, and said it will allow the Supreme Court to transfer judges it is not happy with to the regional branches.

The apex court issued a resolution today stating that Judges Abbas Shareef, Shuaib Hussain Zakariyya and Azmiralda Zahir have been appointed to the southern branch.

The appointments were made with the unanimous consent of all five Supreme Court justices at a meeting last night.

The southern branch is located in the Maradhoo ward of Addu City while the northern branch is to be set up in Haa Dhaal Kulhudhufushi.

All three judges transferred to the southern branch were appointed to the High Court bench in 2011.

Judges Abbas and Shuaib are also amongst the five-judge panel currently hearing the appeal of former defence minister Mohamed Nazim.

It is not yet clear whether the pair will be removed from Nazim’s trial.

The controversial amendments to the Judicature Act voted through in December by the pro-government majority in parliament saw the dismissal of former Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain and Justice Muthasim Adnan.

The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) on June 8 appointed two criminal court judges, Abdulla Didi and Sujau Usman, to the high court.

The two had been part of the panel that had sentenced Nazim to 11 years in jail on weapons smuggling charges.

They had also sentenced former president Mohamed Nasheed to 13 years in jail on terrorism charges. Both trials were widely criticized for apparent lack of due process.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Ex defence minister’s appeal underway

The High Court today began hearings into an appeal filed by ex-defence minister Mohamed Nazim over a 11-year-jail term on weapons smuggling charges.

Nazim, who maintains he was framed by rogue police officers, highlighted several lapses in due process, including the criminal court’s refusal to call defence witnesses, discrepancies in testimony by anonymous police officers, and the police’s alleged failure to follow the law and standard procedures in the midnight raid on Nazim’s apartment.

The retired colonel was charged with smuggling weapons after masked police officers said they had discovered a pistol, three bullets, and a pen drive with documents detailing a plot to assassinate President Abdulla Yameen, inside a bedside drawer in Nazim’s apartment on January 18.

The rushed trial has been widely criticised for apparent lack of due process.

Five high court judges are presiding over Nazim’s appeal.

Presiding Judge Abdul Ganee Mohamed said hearings will be held daily, as agreed by Nazim’s lawyers and the Prosecutor General’s Office. Hearings are expected to conclude within the week and a verdict is expected soon.

Nazim was sentenced to jail on March 27.

He claims a team of Specialist Operations (SO) police officers had planted the weapons at his apartment on the orders of tourism minister Ahmed Adeeb.

Adeeb and Nazim had fallen out over the tourism minister’s alleged use of police officers to commit criminal activities including the cutting down of all of Malé City’s Areca palms in October last year, Nazim has alleged.

Adeeb has denied Nazim’s claims.

At today’s hearing, Nazim’s lawyers said the criminal court issued search warrant was invalid as police officers had provided false information to obtain it.

The court warrant was issued based on information provided by a senior officer and  not based on intelligence reports, lawyers said.

While some police officers had said they did not know which floor they were to search for the weapons, another officer had testified in court that they were only instructed to search the eight floor of the apartment building, lawyers said.

The court warrant had authorized a search of the entire building. The discrepancies in police testimony on the floor to be searched showed they had lied to obtain the warrant and also demonstrated that the police were aware they would be searching the ex-defence minister’s apartment, lawyers said.

 

Nazim’s lawyers also said that criminal court judges prevented them from questioning the validity of the court warrant.

Police officers did not follow standard procedures during the raid on the apartment, lawyers said. A copy of the warrant was not provided to Nazim, and officers spent time unsupervised in Nazim’s bedroom before the search, they said.

Charges against Afaaf Abdul Majeed were dropped at the first hearing, claiming evidence from the pen drive indicated she had no connection to the weapons.

Lawyers argued charges should have been dropped against Nazim, too, claiming a police officer, who had conducted the analysis of the documents found in the pen drive, had said there was no evidence to suggest the weapons belonged to Nazim. The media was barred from the hearing in which the data analysis expert had testified.

Lawyers said they were blocked from mounting a defence because judges refused to call defence witnesses and because several key police witnesses were anonymous.

Noting discrepancies in testimony provided by police officers, Nazim’s lawyers accused them of lying under oath. Lawyers also accused public prosecutors of coaching witnesses, as they had admitted to meeting with witnesses before they appeared in court.

The criminal court prevented the ex-defence minister from making an independent analysis of the weapons and from collecting defence statements.

Public prosecutors will respond to Nazim’s appeal tomorrow.

Judges Abdul Ganee, Abdulla Hameed, Shuaib Hussain Zakariyya, Abbas Shareef and Abdul Rauf Ibrahim are overseeing Nazim’s appeal.

Two judges who oversaw Nazim’s trial, Abdulla Didi and Sujau Usman, were promoted to the High Court on June 8.

Nazim’s trial also coincided with a terrorism trial against ex-president Mohamed Nasheed. The opposition leader was sentenced to 13 years in jail on March 13.

He was tried by the three judges who oversaw Nazim’s trial.

The pair’s imprisonment has triggered a political crisis with daily protests from February through May, two mass demonstrations and hundreds of arrests.

Foreign governments, international organizations including the UN, and civil society groups have criticised the trials for apparent lack of due process. President Yameen, however, insists he has no constitutional authority to release the pair and says they must exhaust all appeal processes.

Nasheed’s lawyers were blocked from filing an appeal when the criminal court failed to issue the required case documents within a shortened 10-day appeal period.

The former president was temporarily transferred to house arrest today.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Two judges in ex-president’s terrorism trial appointed to high court

Two criminal court judges who sentenced ex-president Mohamed Nasheed to 13 years in jail in a widely criticised trial have been appointed to the High Court today.

Judges Abdulla Didi and Sujau Usman took the oath of office at a surprise ceremony at the Supreme Court this morning.

Two seats on the nine-member bench have been vacant since the high court’s chief judge was demoted to the juvenile court in August, and another judge retired in February this year.

The appointment of new judges was stalled when the high court in October last year said the evaluation criteria was flawed.

But the Supreme Court on May 28 overturned the ruling, paving the way for Didi and Usman’s appointment.

The third judge in Nasheed’s terrorism trial was Judge Abdul Bari Yoosuf. He was awarded a discounted flat in a newly built luxury apartment complex in Malé.

The former chief judge Ahmed Shareef was suspended in 2013, shortly after the high court suspended court proceedings against Nasheed on charges of arbitrarily detaining a judge during his tenure. The high court was reviewing the composition of the bench overseeing the trial.

The Prosecutor General’s Office in February withdrew the lesser charges of arbitrary detention and filed new terrorism charges against Nasheed at the criminal court.

Evaluation criteria

The high court, in an October 2014 ruling, ruled that the criteria on evaluating a candidate’s educational qualification and experience was flawed and ordered the Judicial Services Commission to amend the criteria.

The 100-point mark sheet awarded 35 points for education, 30 points for experience, 10 points for ethical conduct and 25 points for an interview.

All candidates were to be put to a secret vote in the order of the candidates who received the highest points. The first candidates who received a majority in the vote would be appointed.

In evaluating the educational qualifications, a candidate with a degree in Islamic Shariah or a degree in common law would receive 20 points. But a candidate with a combined degree in Islamic Shariah and common law would receive 25 points.

Candidates with a masters or a doctoral degree would receive an additional five points each.

The criteria appeared to grade candidates on the title of their degrees, the high court said. For example, an individual who had a degree in common law may have done the same number of modules on Islamic Shariah as a candidate who had a combined degree in Islamic Shariah and common law.

The high court noted an individual who had done a degree in common law or Islamic Shariah, and held a masters, would receive 25 points, the same as an individual who had just done a degree in Islamic Shariah and common law.

The evaluation criteria for qualification awarded 30 points for ten years of experience as a judge, meaning it did not differentiate between candidates who had served as a judge for ten years or 20 years.

The appellate court said judges must be awarded points proportionate to the number of years they had served as judges.

The high court also ruled that the JSC cannot hold a secret vote to select candidates arguing the procedure was not transparent.

The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the high court’s ruling

Flawed trial

Foreign governments and international bodies have expressed concern over Nasheed’s 19-day trial, noting he was not given adequate time to prepare defense, barred from calling defense witnesses, and at times, denied legal representation.

The UN special rapporteur on independence of judges and lawyers, Gabriela Knaul said: “The speed of the proceedings combined with the lack of fairness in the procedures lead me to believe the outcome of the trial may have been pre-determined.”

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

The three judges who oversaw Nasheed’s trial also sentenced ex-defence minister Mohamed Nazim to 11 years in jail in a weapons smuggling charge.

The retired colonel said the weapons were planted at his home by rogue police officers on the orders of Tourism Minister Ahmed Adeeb.

Adeeb has denied the allegations.

Despite growing calls for Nasheed and Nazim’s release, President Abdulla Yameen said he has no constitutional authority to release the pair.

Nazim’s appeal at the high court is scheduled to begin on June 21.

Nasheed was unable to file an appeal after the criminal court delayed releasing required case documents within the shortened ten-day appeal period.

The government insists Nasheed can still file an appeal, but his lawyers say the law is silent on late appeals.

They argue that the Supreme Court in January has removed the high court’s discretionary powers to accept late appeals in the ruling that had shortened the 90-day appeal period to ten days.

Photo by Raajje TV

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court upholds detention of MDP chairperson, Adhaalath Party leader

The High Court has upheld the criminal court’s order to hold Adhaalath Party leader Sheikh Imran Abdulla and main opposition Maldivian Democratic Party chairperson Ali Waheed in remand detention for 15 days.

However, the appellate court has released Jumhooree Party deputy leader Ameen Ibrahim from police custody, overturning the criminal court’s 15-day remand order.

The three leaders of the allied opposition parties were arrested from their homes with court warrants on the night of May 1. All three subsequently filed appeals at the high court challenging the legality of the criminal court’s remand detention orders.

The arrests followed a crackdown on the May Day anti-government demonstration. Nearly 200 people were arrested after protesters clashed with riot police.

The opposition leaders were accused of inciting violence against the government and threatening police in their speeches on May 1, which police contend led to protesters assaulting police officers, damaging property, and disrupting public order and safety.

The High Court noted in the verdict in Ameen’s case that according to police an intelligence report and an audio recording of Ameen’s speech as evidence to the criminal court.

The criminal court judge accepted the report but did not accept the CD with the recording. Police had said at the appeal hearing that the report did not have a verbatim transcript of Ameen’s speech.

The criminal court judge had not determined whether Ameen had incited violence and encourage criminal offences before deciding that he posed a danger to society, the three-judge panel of the High Court ruled unanimously.

In Ali Waheed and Imran’s cases, the High Court ruled that the criminal court order was lawful. The judges dismissed procedural issues raised in the appeal and noted that police do not have to submit enough evidence to prove guilt to be granted a request for extension of detention.

However, in Ali Waheed’s case, judge Ezmirelda Zahir issued a dissenting opinion, while judges Ali Sameer and Abdulla Hameed issued the majority opinion to uphold the lower court order.

Waheed saying that protesters must go home after freeing imprisoned ex-president Mohamed Nasheed was not sufficient to determine that he threatened police or posed a danger to society, Zahir noted in her dissenting ruling.

All three were members of the opposition ‘Maldivians against tyranny’ alliance’s steering committee, which organised the protest.

Journalists were not allowed to observe the appeal hearings under a new rule that bars media from appeals of detention orders.

The criminal court has meanwhile issued an arrest warrant for JP leader Gasim Ibrahim, who is currently out of the country. The business tycoon is accused of funding the May Day demonstration.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

PG awaiting court report to decide on appealing Jaleel acquittal

The prosecutor general’s (PG) office is awaiting a case report from the criminal court to decide on appealing the acquittal of defence minister Moosa Ali Jaleel on terrorism charges.

The 10-day appeal period expired yesterday, but the PG media officer Hisham Wajeeh told Minivan News today that the High Court could accept appeals after the deadline if there is a valid reason.

“We only got the verdict. We couldn’t make a decision on the appeal without studying the points noted in the trial, which will be in the summary report,” he said.

The PG office will appeal if it believed there are valid grounds after studying the report, he said.

Five senior state officials were charged with terrorism and tried separately over the detention of criminal court chief judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

The court said there was insufficient evidence to prove the involvement of Jaleel, who was then-chief of defence forces.

Former president Mohamed Nasheed was meanwhile found guilty of terrorism last month and sentenced to 13 years in prison.

Then-defence minister Tholhath Ibrahim was also sentenced to 10 years in jail over the judge’s arrest.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court overturns convictions of murdered MP Afrasheem’s brothers

The High Court yesterday overturned the conviction of former MP Ibrahim Ameen on charges of embezzlement.

Ameen was the ruling Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP for Raa Ungoofaru, a seat previously held by his late brother, Dr Afrasheem Ali.

The moderate religious scholar was brutally murdered on October 1, 2012. Ameen had won the by-election for Dr Afrasheem’s vacant seat, but did not seek re-election last year.

In May 2014, Ameen was found guilty by the criminal court of embezzling MVR36, 818 (US$2,388) from the Ungoofaru Island Council Office between May 2004 to April 2006 and sentenced to banishment of four years and six months.

Ameen was found guilty as he had been responsible for all incoming cash, but was unable to explain how the cash from the island’s powerhouse went missing.

However, the High Court noted that Ameen’s inability to explain how the money went missing did not amount to a confession or grounds to convict in the absence of other conclusive evidence.

A second brother of Dr Afrasheem, Abdul Nasir Ali, was also handed an 11-year banishment sentence in April 2014 for embezzling MVR114,325 (US$7,414) from the island office. Nasir was also found guilty of embezzling fees paid by the power house.

On April 8 this year, the High Court overturned Nasir’s conviction as well. In Nasir’s case, the appellate court ruled that the funds in question were provided out of Nasir’s pocket to buy diesel for the island’s powerhouse, which reimbursed him through the island office.

The court noted that witness testimony during the criminal court trial proves Nasir’s defence.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Ex-defence minister appeals weapons smuggling sentence

Former defence minister Mohamed Nazim has appealed an 11-year jail term on weapons smuggling at the high court today.

Nazim’s defence team said the criminal court had failed to provide a required report into court proceedings by the 2pm appeal deadline today.

The US and UK have criticised Nazim’s trial for apparent lack of due process, and the opposition has been protesting daily for his release.

Nazim’s lawyers said the criminal court’s failure to provide the case report “hampered” his right to appeal and that the new 10-day appeal deadline was too short to file an appeal. The Supreme Court had shortened the 90 day appeal period to 10 days in January.

The retired colonel is currently in Singapore seeking emergency medical treatment unavailable in the Maldives. He left Malé on Friday with his wife.

“Nazim said to let the public know he will not flee and will return as soon as his treatment is completed,” a family member said.

Although inmates are usually allotted three months for overseas treatment, Nazim was only given 45 days. The home ministry authorised him to travel to Singapore only, despite the family saying Singapore was too expensive for medical care.

The inmate’s families are usually required to bear expenses for overseas medical treatment.

After a midnight police raid in January, officers said they had confiscated a pistol, bullets and a pen drive containing information that Nazim was plotting a coup d’etat and planning to harm the president, police commissioner and tourism minister. Nazim says the items were planted.

He requested permission to travel overseas three weeks ago after his doctor advised him to undergo some tests unavailable in the Maldives.

The family has declined to reveal details of Nazim’s medical condition, but said it needs to be monitored and treated.

No prison guards will travel with him, but the correctional service and a guardian from the family will come to an agreement under which the guardian will be responsible for the inmate.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)