Tag: High Court Judge Abbas Shareef

Civil Court concludes first hearing of Hulhumalé Court challenge

Former President and Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) leader Mohamed Nasheed’s case against the legality of the process in which the bench of the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court was heard by the Civil Court today.

Nasheed submitted the case to the lower court after the High Court decided on Monday (February 9) that it could not deliberate on the legality of the bench, citing jurisdictional grounds.

The High Court’s decision read that, under the regulation, the court can deliberate on decisions of the lower courts, but not on their composition.

According to Nasheed’s legal team member Ahmed Abdulla who spoke to the press outside the court, the trial today heard the case challenging the legality of the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court bench and also a stay order requested by Nasheed.

“We have received information the Judicial Service Commission plans to bring changes to the bench, we requested the court to order a halt to that”, Abdulla said.

He added that the JSC’s legal team requested more time to respond to the case regarding the legality of the bench but that it had responded to the stay order request.

“Firstly they stated that the bench is not in existence and then they said that we have brought no changes to the bench. Therefore what they are basically saying is that bench not being in existence is not a change. We were unable to comprehend what they were saying”.

Abdulla told reporters that in response to this, Nasheed’s legal team stated that the reason Nasheed had lodged cases in court against the JSC is because the commission insists it has powers to assemble court benches.

Nasheed’s legal team member Hisan Hussain stated that the reason the JSC is saying the bench does not exist is because magistrates who were initially appointed to the bench have now been promoted to superior courts.

“We must always assume that the JSC will assemble a bench, possibly even tomorrow and proceed with the case as long as the commission insists it has authority to do so,” she continued.

The judge will decide and rule on the stay order request in the next hearing to be held Saturday (February 14) .

While the trial continued supporters of Nasheed and the MDP gathered outside the Civil Court and expressed their discontent over the government’s “persecution and failures”.

Tensions between Special Operations police officers and those gathered grew as police started clearing the crowd from the main entrance of the civil court around 5pm.

Some pushing and shoving was observed along with heated exchanges of words between protesters and the police, although no arrests were made.

(PHOTO: LAWYER AHMED ABDULLA)


Related to this story

Nasheed predicts he will soon be jailed

High Court cannot deliberate on Hulhumalé court bench

Opposition alliance a “waste of time”, says Gayoom

MDP and JP reach agreement on defence of Constitution

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court cannot deliberate on Hulhumalé court bench

The High Court has decided today (February 9) that it does not have the jurisdiction to deliberate on the process in which the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court’s bench was formed.

The ruling was made with regards to a procedural issue raised by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) after former President and Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) leader Mohamed Nasheed had challenged the legality of the bench.

The judicial watchdog had raised a procedural issue, claiming that the High Court does not have the jurisdiction to oversee the case as the bench had been formed on the advise of the Supreme Court.

The controversial court was formed specifically to oversee Nasheed’s trial for the January 2012 detention of Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed. Legal challenges to the court have seen the case stalled since April 2013.

The opposition leader today urged Maldivians to take direct action against persistent injustices in the courts, while his legal team claimed today’s decision contradicted prior decisions by the High Court to consider related cases.

In the ruling, the High Court bench presiding over the case unanimously decided that under regulations governing the relevant procedure, “there are no grounds on which the case can proceed in this court any further”.

The High Court’s decision read that, under the regulation, the court can deliberate on decisions of the lower courts, but not on their composition.

Today’s hearing was immediately concluded after Judge Abbas Shareef – presiding over the case – read out the ruling.

Nasheed’s legal team has subsequently submitted the case to the Civil Court, again challenging the composition of the Hulhumalé court bench.

“It is not a trial that is being conducted here”: Nasheed

Speaking to press after the hearing, Nasheed said the “trial is being hastened without due process in order to prevent me from getting the protection of the new penal code which would be enacted in April”.

He also accused the government of using the judiciary to threaten and intimidate political opponents, stating that the Maldivian judiciary is unable to deliver a “free and fair trial, especially with regards to cases against me”.

Nasheed claimed that the father of one of the High Court judges was ordered by a lower court to pay a substantial amount of money owed, suggesting undue influence in the case to produce a specific ruling.

Nasheed told press that he will consult both his and other international lawyers regarding his impending trial.

“It is not a trial that is being conducted here,” commented Nasheed, urging Maldivians to stand up against injustice by “protesting and going on strikes” as “this might happen to anyone tomorrow, although it happened to me today”.

Meanwhile, a statement by Nasheed’s legal team argued that the decision of the High Court had contradicted its earlier ruling which found it had the jurisdiction to deliberate on the legality of the Hulhumalé Magistrates Court.

“The High Court had previously decided that the case can be heard in the court and the decision was announced during the trial,” read the statement, noting that two of the three judges present today had delivered the previous ruling.

Judge Ali Sameer and Judge Shuaib Hussain Zakariyya had presided over the case along with Judge Ahmed Shareef before the latter was demoted to the Juvenile Court in August 2014 and replaced by Judge Abbas Shareef.

Nasheed’s lawyers have previously challenged – unsuccessfully – the establishment of a magistrates court in the Malé suburb, arguing that Hulhumalé is considered to be part of Malé City under the Decentralisation Act and therefore does not require a separate court.

United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul has previously noted that the “appointment of judges to the case, has been set up in an arbitrary manner outside the parameters laid out in the laws”.


Related to this story

Nasheed’s request for halt to Hulhumalé court appointments denied

Nasheed requests reappointments to Hulhumalé court be stopped

Nasheed trial part of drive to eliminate President’s opponents, says MDP

Supreme Court declares Hulhumale Magistrate Court legitimate

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed requests reappointments to Hulhumalé court be stopped

Former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team have requested that the appointment of new judges to the vacant positions on the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court bench be halted.

The stay order was submitted at today’s High Court hearing in Nasheed’s case against the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) over the legality of the appointment process to the magistrates court.

Despite Nasheed’s representatives insisting that the court consider the request during the hearing, presiding judges asked that it be submitted in writing, saying that the court will deliberate on the issue in a timely manner.

Responding to the request, JSC lawyer Hussain Ibrahim said he was unable to respond as he was unaware that the process of appointing new judges to the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court bench was underway.

Nasheed’s lawyers attempted to add new points to the original case, but the judges again asked that the new point to be submitted in writing, in spite of further protests.

“This hearing will only take arguments from both sides regarding the procedural issue raised by JSC. We will only allow this trial to be conducted as scheduled”, stated Abbas Shareef, the presiding judge.

The case was first raised in 2012, and challenges the legality of the bench, which was assembled to try the opposition leader for the detention of Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed during his presidency.

JSC’s procedural issue

The JSC lawyer stated that he had no points to add to the arguments made prior to the case’s suspension in April 2013. These included claims that the Hulhumalé bench had been appointed on the orders of the Supreme Court, meaning that the High Court could not deliberate on the decision.

Ahmed Abdulla, member of Nasheed’s team, noted that the letter regarding the appointment of the bench was sent by the Supreme Court in the capacity of the Judicial Council, despite it having been written under a Supreme Court letterhead.

Therefore Nasheed’s lawyers contested that the decision cannot be interpreted as a Supreme Court ruling but must be regarded “an administrative decision by an administrative body”, which would enable the High Court to deliberate on its legality.

The Judicial Council was created under the 2010 Judicature Act to oversee administration of the courts, but its duties were soon absorbed by the Supreme Court in what has been described as a centralising of judicial power.

Hisaan Hussain and Abdulla Shairu also spoke on behalf of Nasheed today, while Hassan Latheef also represented the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) leader in court.

Conclusion

The hearing was concluded after a brief statement by Nasheed in which he requested that the High Court grant him the permission to travel freely during the period in between hearings.

Nasheed also expressed his hope that the court had not expedited his case because “we are moving towards the shade of the new penal code, which does not include the article under which I have been charged”.

The presiding judge ended the session with the announcement that a hearing will be held next week in which the court will deliver its verdict on the procedural issues raised by the JSC, explaining to Nasheed that he will be granted permission to leave Malé after making requests in writing.

The MDP yesterday described Nasheed’s trial as the government’s attempt to eliminate President Abdulla Yameen’s political opponents and to prevent them from contesting in the 2018 presidential elections.

Nasheed’s lawyers have previously challenged – unsuccessfully – the establishment of a magistrates court in the Malé suburb, arguing that Hulhumalé is considered to be part of Malé City under the Decentralisation Act and therefore does not require a separate court.

United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul has previously noted that the “appointment of judges to the case, has been set up in an arbitrary manner outside the parameters laid out in the laws”.

(PHOTO: MINIVAN NEWS ARCHIVE)


Related to this story

Nasheed trial part of drive to eliminate President’s opponents, says MDP

High Court to rule in appeal on Hulhumale’ court legitimacy

Hulhumale’ Court rejects case against former President Nasheed

High Court invalidates Hulhumale’ court’s rejection of case against former president

Supreme Court declares Hulhumale Magistrate Court legitimate

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Hulhumalé Magistrate Court case to resume hearings on February 3

The High Court has today informed both President Mohamed Nasheed and the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) as to how the case on the legality of the Hulhumalé Magistrates Court bench will proceed.

Nasheed’s legal team member Hassan Latheef told Minivan News that today’s meeting was conducted by High Court Judge Abbas Shareef, with the JSC and Nasheed’s representatives informed that a hearing of the case would be held on February 3.

They were also informed that each party would receive a ten minute opportunity to summarise their responses during this hearing, and to raise further points regarding procedural issues raised before hearings halted in April 2013.

The judicial watchdog has raised a procedural issue claiming that the High Court does not have the jurisdiction to oversee the case.

The resumption of the case, which challenges the legality of the bench assembled to try Nasheed for the January 2012 detention of Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed, was announced one week ago after repeated requests from the former president to expedite proceedings.

Hassan Latheef that Nasheed’s legal team raised several points today, including the small amount of time that each party will be given to present arguments in the next hearing and also the need for further time to review and research the case after recent developments in the judicial system.

“There have been significant changes to the whole judiciary, judges have been transferred, benches reduced and High Court now has two new branches. All this has an impact on the procedural issue raised by JSC. This is why we need more time”, said. Latheef.

He also said that judge Abbas Shareef has agreed to reconsider the request by Nasheed’s legal team for a one and a half month delay of the trial after discussion with the two other judges presiding over the case – Judge Ali Sameer and Judge Shuaib Hussain Zakariyya.

Nasheed’s lawyers have previously challenged – unsuccessfully – the establishment of a magistrates court in the Malé suburb, arguing that Hulhumalé is considered to be part of Malé City under the Decentralisation Act and therefore does not require a separate court.

United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul has previously noted that the “appointment of judges to the case, has been set up in an arbitrary manner outside the parameters laid out in the laws”.


Related to this story

High Court to rule in appeal on Hulhumale’ court legitimacy

Hulhumale’ Court rejects case against former President Nasheed

High Court invalidates Hulhumale’ court’s rejection of case against former president

Supreme Court declares Hulhumale Magistrate Court legitimate

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Bank turns to courts over judge’s alleged loan repayment failure

The Bank of Maldives has reportedly turned to the country’s Civil Court in a bid to reclaim Rf2.5 million it alleges was loaned to High Court Judge Abbas Shareef and his father but never paid back.

Haveeru has reported that lawyer Hussein Siraj, who will be representing BML during the trial, claimed at a hearing today that the judge had signed as a guarantor for a Rf 2.5million loan taken out in 2008 for his father Ali Shareef. The bank is now seeking Rf2.6 million in repayments from the original loan within a single transaction.

According to the news report, BML’s lawyer told the court that the finance group sought to sell a mortgaged boat, said to be owned by Judge Shareef and his father, if the requested payment could not be met in a single monetary transaction. Siraj requested that the defendants should also bare the brunt of any charges relating to the sale of the vessel.

Haveeru claimed that the trial is ongoing, though presiding Judge Abdulla Ali is reportedly yet to set a date to reconvene the case following the conclusion of today’s hearing.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)