Tag: high court

Civil Court rejects MP Alhan’s request for injunction suspending candidacy of MDP Feydhoo ticket winner

The Civil Court has ruled today that it does not have the jurisdiction to grant an injunction suspending the candidacy of the Maldivian Democratic Party’s (MDP) Feydhoo primary winner.

The decision (Dhivehi) came in a lawsuit filed by Feydhoo MP Alhan Fahmy against the MDP seeking annulment of the opposition party’s primary for the Feydhoo constituency in Addu City.

Alhan lost the MDP’s primary to Mohamed Nihad last month by a 162 vote margin and challenged the results on the grounds that the voter list was outdated and did not include 67 new members. He also alleged electoral fraud in the Feydhoo poll.

Alhan had asked the court to order the Elections Commission (EC) to suspend Nihad’s candidacy pending a judgment on the legitimacy of the primary contest.

Judge Ali Naseer however ruled that cases concerning the candidacy of persons standing for parliament was in the jurisdiction of the High Court under the Judicature Act and the General Elections Act.

Lawyers representing the MDP reportedly did not attend this morning’s hearing.

Judge Naseer said that the party will be given an opportunity to respond to the allegations of fraud at the next trial date.

At yesterday’s hearing, the party’s legal team raised a procedural issue contending that the court could not hear the case as Alhan had not completed the appeals process through the party’s internal mechanisms.

The judge however dismissed the procedural point and ruled that the court could proceed with the case. He noted that as the MP could no longer submit a complaint to the party’s appeals committee, dismissing the case would deprive Alhan of his constitutional right to a fair trial.

The MDP has since appealed the ruling at the High Court.

While Alhan had first filed his case at the High Court, the court’s registrar informed his lawyers that it could not hear cases involving internal elections conducted by political parties.

Alhan was stabbed in a restaurant in Male’ on February 1 and returned to the Maldives on Friday (March 1) after undergoing treatment in Sri Lanka.

The incumbent MP is contesting the upcoming parliamentary elections as an independent candidate.

Last August, Alhan was summoned by police in connection with the alleged blackmailing of Supreme Court Justice Ali Hameed, using footage of the judge having sex with three prostitutes in a Sri Lankan hotel.

The MP tweeted a screenshot of a text message he claimed had been sent to his mobile phone by Superintendent of Police Mohamed Riyaz. The text read: “Alhan, will make sure you are fully famed (sic) for blackmailing Justice Ali Hameed. You don’t know who we are.’’

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

AG withdraws from non-cooperation case against Raajje TV

The appeal case concerning the President’s Office’s refusal to cooperate with private broadcaster Raajje TV has been withdrawn by the Attorney General’s (AG) Office.

The office is quoted as saying in local media that the case was withdrawn because it was not the policy of the government to work against any media outlet.

An official from the AG’s office was quoted in online newspaper CNM as saying that the government’s policy was to provide equal opportunity to all media outlets.

On April 14, 2013, the Civil Court ruled in favour of the Maldivian Democratic Party-aligned Raajje TV after the President’s Office had barred the station from the then-President Dr Mohamed Waheed’s press conferences and functions.

The office told parliament’s government oversight committee that Raajje TV was not invited to press conferences as the station did not fit the criteria or standards of reporting set out by the President’s Office.

The policy of the President’s Office was to invite “responsible and experienced” media outlets, which included private broadcasters DhiTV and VTV, state broadcaster Television Maldives (TVM), newspapers Haveeru and Miadhu, as well as internet publications Sun Online and Minivan News.

The Civil Court ruling was subsequently appealed at the High Court by the attorney general.

At the time, the Maldives Media Council also asked the prosecutor general to press charges against the President’s Office over what it found to be discriminatory treatment.

Raajje TV’s dispute with the President’s Office followed a similar disagreement with the Maldives Police Service (MPS) in 2012, during which police announced that they had stopped cooperating with the local broadcaster, alleging the station was broadcasting false and slanderous content which had undermined the services credibility of the MPS.

On February 5, 2013, the Civil Court ruled that a decision by the police to cease cooperating with opposition-aligned TV station Raajje TV was unconstitutional.

Raajje TV’s main studios were destroyed last October in a premeditated arson attack carried out by a group of masked men. After the police’s role in the incident was criticised by Reporters Without Borders, the Police Integrity Commission recommended charges be filed against two unnamed officers.

The station has also been the subject of a Supreme Court-ordered investigation into its alleged criticism of the court’s rulings. In December, police requested the Prosecutor General press charges against both the News Head of Raajje Television Ibrahim ‘Aswad’ Waheed and the Deputy Chief Executive Officer of the Station Abdulla Yameen Rasheed.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Jabir’s legal team ask court to determine ways jailed MP can campaign

The wife of Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Abdulla Jabir has today submitted a legal issue to the High Court arguing that the recently jailed MP has a right to campaign for next month’s Majlis elections.

Jabir is currently serving a one year jail sentence after being found guilty of declining to provide a urine sample for police to run a drug test.

Speaking to Minivan News today Dhiyana Saeed said that Article 73 of the constitution, which details persons who cannot qualify as Majlis candidates, states that a person serving a jail term of less than 12 months is still qualified.

“If the constitution states that a person serving a jail term less than 12 months will be able to contest in the election then that person should not be suspended from obtaining his electoral rights,’’ she said. “If he is able to contest then he must also be able to campaign.”

Dhiyana – herself a former attorney general and SAARC secretary general – said that the High Court should allow the MP to make phone calls and talk to constituents at a time determined by the court, or he should be allowed to visit a campaign office at a time determined by the court.

Dhiyana noted that when the Elections Act was enacted in 2008, the Jumhooree Party filed a court case claiming that the act’s ruling that prisoners are not able to vote was inconsistent with the constitution.

The High Court subsequently ruled that that article was void and that inmates should have the right to vote.

“So this is the other side of that right, that time it was the right of the persons voting and this time it is the right of the candidate,’’ she said.

Dhiyana revealed that the High Court has said it will decide on accepting the issue and inform her this afternoon.

“If the High Court does not accept this case then we will try filing it with the Civil Court as a civil right issue,’’ she added.

On February 20, 2014, the Criminal Court found Abdulla Jabir guilty of refusing to provide his urine sample to the police to run a drug test, and sentenced him to twelve months under the 2011 Drug Act.

On November 16, 2012, Jabir was arrested along with other high profile MDP members on suspicion that they were in possession and under the influence of alcohol and cannabis from Jabir’s uninhabited island Hondaidhoo in Haa Alifu Atoll.

The prosecutor general pressed three charges against Jabir – one for the charge of declining to provide a urine sample to police,  a second charge for making cannabis transactions, and a third for possession of alcohol.

Last month, the Criminal Court found Jabir guilty of declining to provide urine sample and the MP was taken into custody. Last week, however, the court ruled that the state was not able to prove that Jabir had made any transactions involving cannabis. The alcohol possession case is ongoing.

Jabir’s legal team has claimed the first trial contravened the MP’s constitutional rights as well as the principles of natural justice.

“The number of procedural violations in the whole criminal justice process in regard to this case is highly concerning and we believe that Hon. Abdullah Jabir was denied the fundamental rights that constitutes a free and fair hearing guaranteed to him by Article 42 of the Constitution,” read a press release from Aequitas Legal Consultants last week.

Last month a house in Malé owned by the MP was raided by police, with three men were arrested and drugs and alcohol were seized, though it was reported that Jabir does not live in the building.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court orders revote for Kon’dey island council

The High Court on Thursday annulled the results of the poll conducted on January 18 for the island council of Gaaf Alif Kon’dey and ordered the Elections Commission (EC) to hold a revote.

The court ruled (Dhivehi) in favour of the complainant, Ali Ibrahim, who requested annulment after an 84-year-old man from Kon’dey was found to have cast his vote in the wrong ballot box.

Moosa Easa accidentally voted in the box designated for the neighbouring Dhandhoo’s island council.

While five candidates contested for the island council, the margin between the sixth and the fifth placed candidates was a single vote.

The three judges presiding over the case – Abbas Shareef, Abdulla Hameed, and Ali Sameer – ruled that the 84-year-old citizen was deprived of his constitutional right to vote and that his vote could have affected the outcome of the election.

The EC had originally scheduled a second round of voting in Kon’dey for February 15 between the two fifth-placed candidates who were tied with 88 votes each. The candidate in sixth place had received 87 votes.

The run-off election was however postponed pending a decision by the High Court.

The EC’s legal counsel, Haneefa Khalid, argued at the last hearing of the case that the 84-year-old was duly informed that he had voted in the wrong box.

However, the EC lawyer said, Moosa Easa did not return to vote in his constituency. She added that he had not submitted a complaint either.

Asked by a judge whether Easa’s vote could have affected the outcome, Khalid said there was no guarantee that he would have voted for the sixth placed candidate.

She revealed that the EC has decided to take action against the officials responsible for the mishap in Kon’dey. An investigation into the incident was ongoing to determine how Easa was given the wrong ballot paper, she added.

Khalid also noted that one vote would not have affected the outcome of the election for the Dhaandhoo island council as the margin between candidates was higher.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court refuses to accept case requesting invalidation of MDP Feydhoo ticket winner’s candidacy

The High Court has refused to accept a case filed by Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Alhan Fahmy requesting invalidation of the MDP’s Feydhoo primary winner Mohamed Nihad’s candidacy.

Alhan’s sister, Noorban Fahmy – also the Feydhoo MPs’ lawyer – told local media that the High Court’s registrar informed her that it could not hear cases related to internal elections conducted by political parties.

The case will be filed at the Civil Court tomorrow, she said.

“I asked for the primary to be annulled because the list used on polling day and the [eligible] voter list is different, and the focal point at the ballot box in Feydhoo has said the polls are not fair. And none of the candidates have signed the results,” Alhan had previously told newspaper Haveeru.

The incumbent MP contends that the election in the Feydhoo constituency was fraudulent and that any candidate who won the MDP ticket through fraud cannot be a valid one.

Nihad competed against eight candidates, winning 316 votes. Alhan came in second with 154 votes.

Alhan called for a fresh vote in the constituency, claiming the voter list used at polling stations was outdated and did not afford 67 party members the right to vote.

The party’s election committee has confirmed that 67 members were indeed missing from the list at the ballot box, but decided against holding a re-vote, arguing the primary outcome would not change even if the 67 members were allowed to vote.

Alhan was stabbed in public on February 1 and is currently receiving treatment at Colombo’s Central Hospital. He has announced he will contest March’s People’s Majlis election as an independent.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

State to appeal ruling on diplomatic law

The government is reported to have requested that the Supreme court look into a ruling which stated Maldivian citizens were not obliged to respect diplomatic law.

A High Court ruling in August last year suggested that Maldivians are “not required” to act in compliance with Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, as no national law currently exists in the country that requires enforcement of the convention.

The High Court’s ruling came alongside a decision made regarding an appeal case filed at the court concerning breach of a lease agreement between an individual named Mohamed Shareef and the High Commission of India.

Haveeru has reported that the state will appeal the ruling in the country’s highest court.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court upholds dismissal of corruption charges against deputy speaker of parliament

The High Court last Thursday upheld the Criminal Court’s dismissal of corruption charges against Deputy Speaker of Parliament Ahmed Nazim.

The ruling Progressive Party of Maldives MP was charged with four counts of corruption in late 2009 for allegedly conspiring to defraud the former Ministry of Atolls Development.

Shortly after the controversial transfer of presidential power in February 2012, the Criminal Court ruled that there was insufficient evidence implicating the MP in the alleged scam.

The Prosecutor General’s office appealed the decisions later that year at the High Court on the grounds that the Criminal Court refused to accept state witnesses.

The court of appeal ruled last week that the prosecution was unable to prove that Nazim’s employees signed bogus bid proposals on his instructions.

Moreover, the High Court referred to a Supreme Court precedent which established that accomplices to a crime could not testify for or against an alleged partner to the crime.

The scam – first flagged in an audit report released in early 2009 – involved paper companies allegedly set up by Nazim to win bids for projects worth several hundred thousands dollars, including the fraudulent purchase of harbour lights, national flags, and mosque sound systems.

At a press conference in August 2009, police exhibited numerous quotations, agreements, tender documents, receipts, bank statements, and forged cheques showing that Nazim received over US$400,000 in the scam.

A hard disk seized during a raid of Nazim’s office in May 2009 allegedly contained copies of forged documents and bogus letterheads.

Police alleged that money was channelled through the scam to Nazim who laundered cash through Namira Engineering – of which Nazim was the managing director – and unregistered companies.

Paper companies were allegedly formed using Namira’s equipment and staff to bid for public tenders announced by the now-defunct ministry.

According to the audit report,  evidence was uncovered linking those companies to Nazim with phone and fax numbers stated on the bidding documents registered under his address while the company shareholders were either working at Namira or relatives of Nazim.

Then-employees of Namira testified under oath that they were instructed by Nazim to bid for the projects – however, the Criminal Court judge concluded from their testimonies that they were responsible for the procurement fraud and dismissed their testimonies.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Convicted murderer retracts confession in High Court

Ahmed Murrath – the man sentenced to death by the Criminal Court after being found guilty of murdering a prominent lawyer in 2012 – has today retracted his confession given.

Newspaper Haveeru has reported that Murrath’s lawyer Abdul Hakeem Rashadh told the High Court his client’s hands were handcuffed behind his back when he made the confession and therefore it could not be considered a confession made without coercion.

Rashadh also told the court that Murrath did not willfully commit the murder because he was under the influence of illegal drugs, and also that his client had the opportunity to deny the confession as no witness had seen him committing the murder.

Haveeru reported that Murrath spoke inside the court today, telling judges that when he was in pretrial detention police had refused him access to a doctor.

Murrath acknowledged he is a drug addict and that he had experienced a pain in his body, in response to which police officers at the detention centre had given him a plastic bag containing tea.

Furthermore, it was reported that the Prosecutor General’s Office told the court there were two contradicting statements provided by Murrath, inquiring as to which one should respond.

The court told the PG’s lawyer to prepare his response at the next hearing, asking both parties to make it the final hearing.

Murrath’s girlfriend, Fathimath Hana of Rihab house in Shaviyani Goidhoo island, was also sentenced to life in the case after she confessed to “helping” her boyfriend kill Ahmed Najeeb.

The 65 year-old lawyer’s body was found stuffed inside a dustbin at Masroora house – Murrath’s residence – badly beaten with multiple stab wounds.

Speaking at the Criminal Court during the 2012 trial, Murrath’s girlfriend said that her boyfriend killed Najeeb after he became “sure” the lawyer had attempted to sexually assault her. She admitted to tying Najeeb’s hand, legs, and taped his mouth while Murrath threatened him with a knife.

“We thought he must have a lot of money as he is a lawyer,” she told the court, after declining representation from a lawyer.

Najeeb’s cash card was taken from him and the pair had used it to withdraw money.

According to Hanaa, she did not know that the victim had been killed until Murrath woke her up and told her at around 4:00am. At the time Hanaa said she was sleeping – intoxicated from drinking alcohol.

Murrath corroborated this course of events in his statement, saying that she was asleep when he killed the lawyer. He confessed to killing Najeeb out of anger and apologised to the family members.

On February 9, the cabinet advised President Abdulla Yameen that there was no legal obstruction to implementing death sentences, after the Home Minister Umar Naseer had ordered an end to the 60 year moratorium on executions.

The order closely followed the conclusion of the Dr Afrasheem Ali murder trial, in which Hussein Humam was sentenced to death. Similarly, Humam also claimed that his confession – currently being used as key evidence against his alleged accomplice – was given under duress.

Naseer stated that the order is applicable to all pending sentences, of which there are approximately 20.

In December 2012, the then-Attorney General Azima Shukoor drafted a bill outlining how the death sentence should be executed in the Maldives, with lethal injection being identified as the state’s preferred method of capital punishment.

The last person to be executed in the Maldives was Hakim Didi, who was executed by firing squad in 1953 after being found guilty of conspiracy to murder using black magic.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court rules that MPs’ police obstruction cases cannot be refiled

The High Court has today overruled a decision made by the Criminal Court to accept a previously withdrawn police obstruction case involving MPs Ali Waheed and Ahmed Mahloof.

The case was first filed in the Criminal Court by the Prosecutor General (PG) on 9 November 2010 before being withdrawn twenty days later.

The public prosecutor had argues that the initial case was only withdrawn temporarily while police investigated a related incident.

After the case was again filed in the Criminal Court, defense lawyers of Ali Waheed – which includes former Attorney General Husnu Suood – invoked procedural issues saying that the case could not be refiled.

According to the High Court, on 12 September 2012 the Criminal Court ruled it would proceed with the case, stating that the PG had full authority under the article 5 of the Prosecutor General’s Act to do so.

Ali Waheed subsequently appealed the decision at the High Court, arguing that the PG did not have the authority to re-submit a case without first bringing changes to it.

The High Court’s ruling stated that there were three situations where the PG could withdraw a case filed at a court: to revise the case, to withdraw a case without specifying any reason, or to withdraw a case after telling the court that that the office did not wish to proceed.

The ruling today said that the PG had sent a letter to the Criminal Court on November 29, 2010, asking it to send all the files concerning the case, and that the PG had not stated that the case was being withdrawn for revision.

The High Court said that PG lawyers had explained the withdrawal was because the PG had asked for police to investigate a case where a group of people stormed into the Civil Service Commission. Both cases were related, but the police had not concluded the investigation when hearings into the first case had started.

Ali Waheed was charged with obstruction of police duty during an anti-government protest he had participated in while a member of the then opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP).  Waheed, who has since defected to the Maldivian Democratic Party in May 2011, was charged for breaching article 75 of Maldives Police Services Act.

During the hearings held at the High Court, Assistant Public Prosecutor Hussain Nashid claimed that the charges had only been dropped “temporarily” in a bid to respect the “fairness” of criminal trials.

Nashid also argued that the PG had the discretionary power to decide upon the procedures as to how criminal charges can be filed.

Both Waheed and Mahloof were elected to parliament as representatives of the DRP. However, following the split of the DRP into two factions, both Waheed and Mahloof chose to leave the party.

Mahloof went onto join the Progressive Party of Maldives, the party formed by followers of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)