Tag: high court

High Court rejects former Human Rights Minister’s case contesting legitimacy of Waheed’s government

The High Court has rejected the case filed by the former Human Rights Minister Fathimath Dhiyana Saeed, requesting the court to rule that former President Mohamed Nasheed’s resignation was obtained under duress and the transfer of power on February 7, 2012 was illegitimate.

Rejecting the case, the court claimed it did not have jurisdiction to look into the matter.

Speaking to local newspaper Haveeru, the former SAARC Secretary General said that she and her legal team had been informed by the High Court that the case could not be looked into as it was beyond the court’s jurisdiction.

However, Saeed told Haveeru that she was of the view that High Court had the jurisdiction to look into the case.

She earlier stated that the constitution clearly mentions of the cases in which the Supreme Court can act as a first instance court but in other cases the High Court does have the jurisdiction to accept constitutional cases as a first instance court.

Speaking to media previously, member of Saeed’s legal team Ishraq Thaufeeg said that following legal review of the circumstances, the team had noticed several legal inconsistencies and lapses that suggested the transfer of power took place illegally.

He also said the  public still questioned the legitimacy of President Mohamed Waheed Hassan’s government, and that therefore it was important that a court of law decides on the matter.

Dhiyana Saeed, formerly a member of current President Mohamed Waheed’s cabinet and one of the earliest critics of Nasheed’s decision to detain Judge Abdulla, has also released a personal memoir explaining her interpretation of Waheed’s ascension to power. In the memoir, former SAARC Secretary General alleged that Nasheed’s political rivals had conspired to assassinate him.

Saeed alleged that the controversial transfer of presidential power on February 7 was the result of a premeditated and well-orchestrated plan, and questioned the findings of the Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CNI), which had declared that there was no coup and Nasheed had resigned voluntarily.

Parliament’s Executive Oversight Committee’s review of the report revealed several concerns including omission of key evidence and witness statements.

Chair of Parliament’s Executive Oversight Committee, MP Ali Waheed, claimed the August 2012 report produced by the CNI was “flawed” based on the findings of the committee.

He added that many interviewed by the committee claimed the CNI report lacked “key information they had given [the CNI panel]” while “others claimed their information was wrongly presented”.

To support its claims, the parliamentary select committee released audio recordings of all the statements given by the witnesses. These included former police and military chiefs and officers, who claimed that Nasheed had no option but to resign.

Leaked statements to the CNI given by key witnesses of the events, including senior police and military officials, also suggested that the transfer of power took place illegitimately.

In the transcript of the statement given to CNI by MNDF Staff Sergeant Shafraz Naeem – the commander of the riot squad of the Bandara Koshi (BK) Battalion on the day – said that he also believed that Nasheed was ousted in a coup.

“In my view this was a coup. Why? I could see it from the way they handled everything, their attitude, how cool and calm all the officers were. I could tell from how cool General Shiyam was inside the MNDF. They did nothing. This is not how a uniformed officer should behave,” he told the CNI.

Meanwhile former President Nasheed told the CNI that he was forced to resign, as he believed his life was at stake on February 7 if he did not.

“In essence, my statement is very small. I was forced to resign. I resigned under duress. I was threatened. If I did not resign within a stipulated period it would endanger mine and my family’s life. I understood they were going to harm a number of other citizens, party members. They were going to literally sack the town. I felt that I had no other option, other than to resign,” he said.

On September 2012, following the release of the report, a legal analysis of the CNI’s report by a team of high-profile Sri Lankan legal professionals – including the country’s former Attorney General concluded that the report was “selective”, “flawed”, and “exceeded its mandate”.

“The report offends the fundamental tenets of natural justice, transparency and good governance, including the right to see adverse material, which undermines the salutary tenets of the Rule of Law,” observed the report.

The Sri Lankan legal team also contended that “there is evidence to demonstrate that there was in fact adequate evidence to suggest that duress (or even ‘coercion’ and/ or illegal coercion as used by CNI) is attributable to the resignation of President Nasheed.”

Saeed was not responding to calls at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed’s legal team files High Court case to defer trial until after elections

Former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team filed a case with the High Court today (March 24) regarding the deferment of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court criminal case until after the September presidential election.

Nasheed is facing criminal charges over the controversial detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed during the last days of his presidency.

Nasheed’s legal team previously requested the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court delay the trial until the end of the scheduled presidential elections in 2013, and in a separate request, asked the Hulhumale’ court for a delay in proceedings by four weeks, during the March 7 Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court hearing.

At the same hearing, state prosecutors said they did not object to delaying the trial until presidential elections scheduled for September this year are over.

The Hulhumale’ court dismissed the request to delay the trial until the end of the elections, but agreed to withhold it for four weeks, stating that the panel of judges by majority “had decided to proceed with the trial”.

Nasheed’s lawyers subsequently contested the decision, claiming that continuing the trial could compromise the rights of many people, arguing that Nasheed was the presidential candidate of the largest political party in the country, the MDP.

However, the court stated that Nasheed’s claim he was the presidential candidate of a political party lacked legal grounds to support it, as presidential candidates were decided by the Elections Commission after it opened the opportunity to file presidential candidates.

Filing of presidential candidates is expected to take place in July.

High Court case submission

Nasheed’s legal team submitted a case to the High Court at approximately 10:20 this morning (March 24) to defer the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court criminal case until after the September presidential election, MDP Spokesperson Imthiyaz ‘Inthi’ Fahmy told Minivan News.

“Now the court has to formally accept the case, which will happen at a later date,” stated Fahmy.

“We expect that prior to the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court hearing, the High Court should have a decision and will ask the lower court to halt the case,” he added.

Nasheed’s legal team confirmed with Minivan News that the case has been submitted to the High Court.

“This is not an appeal. We submitted a case to the High Court for the deferment of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court case until the election is over,” said one of Nasheed’s lawyers, Hifaan Hussain.

“The court accepted the documents, but we are waiting for the court to accept and register the case,” she explained.

Hussain explained a reply from the High Court will likely be issued within three days and once the case is accepted it should take about a month to complete.

She expects the High Court to grant the deferment of lower court’s case against Nasheed until the presidential election is over.

President Nasheed’s Spokesperson MP Mariya Didi is also confident the High Court will grant the deferment.

“The prosecution has said they have no objection to deferment of the trial until after the elections,” Didi stated.

“I don’t see any reason why the court should not grant deferment when the prosecutor has no objection to it,” she added.

Politicising  justice

The MDP maintain that the charges are a politically-motivated attempt to prevent Nasheed from contesting elections in September, and have condemned the former President’s repeated arrest on the court’s order by squads of masked special operations police.

Speaking during a party rally held earlier in March, President Nasheed stated that the four-week break granted by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court until the next hearing was an opportunity for state institutions to decide on the matter.

“Delaying trial for just four weeks has no meaning. There is no reason for it nor does it help anyone. We want the trial to be delayed till the elections are over. [The prosecution] gave one month and said that they did not object to further delays,” Nasheed told his supporters.

Nasheed said that it was very clear that charge of arresting the judge was not a charge against him alone, but several others as well.

He also warned that if the magistrate court issued a verdict that would bar him from contesting the elections, a lot of people would rise up against the decision and trigger a “very dangerous political insurgency”.

Didi also highlighted the large number of Maldivians continuing to support Nasheed, speaking with Minivan News today.

“It is clear that 46,000 Maldivians have decided President Nasheed is their presidential candidate. Our campaigns show that President Nasheed will win the elections with a clear majority.

“The coup has set us back not only with regard to democracy and human rights, but in regard to investor confidence and development.

“Our international development partners have also urged the government to take account of the wishes of the people and to hold an inclusive election with – as the European Union put it – the chosen candidate of MDP Mohamed Nasheed being able to contest the elections.

“We cannot waste another five years with a government that lacks a democratic mandate,” Didi declared.

Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court legitimacy questioned

During the early-March MDP rally, Nasheed also criticised the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) stating that the problem with Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was not just the panel of judges. He alleged that the JSC had formulated the bench and have now been forcing administrative staff of the court to do specific things to impact the trial.

Parliament’s Independent Commissions Oversight Committee has been investigating the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, specifically the appointment of judges by the JSC.

Deputy Speaker of Parliament Ahmed Nazim told local media on Friday (March 22) that a notice had been sent to Gasim Ibrahim – who is a Majlis-appointed JSC member and also the presidential candidate for Jumhoree Party (JP) – regarding a case to remove him from his JSC post.

The parliamentary committee summoned all members of the JSC to attend the committee on Wednesday (March 20) to face questions regarding the manner in which judges were appointed to the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench.

Another committee meeting is scheduled to take place tonight (March 24).

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, also raised concerns over the politicisation of the JSC during her investigative visit to the Maldives this February.

As part of a wider review of the Maldives justice system, Knaul claimed that the JSC – mandated with the appointment, transfer and removal of judges – was unable to perform its constitutional duty adequately in its current form.

As well as recommendations to address what she said were minimal levels of public “trust” in the nation’s judicial system, Knaul also addressed matters such as the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed.

Nasheed is currently facing trial for his detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court last year, charges he claims are politically motivated to prevent him from contesting presidential elections later this year.

Knaul maintained that the former president, like every other Maldivian citizen, should be guaranteed a free and independent trial.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Sacked Human Rights Minister files case in court to declare Waheed government illegitimate

A legal team led by sacked Human Rights Minister Fathimath Dhiyana Saeed has filed a case at the High Court, requesting it rule that former President Mohamed Nasheed’s resignation was obtained under duress and the transfer of power on February 7, 2012 was illegitimate.

Nasheed’s resignation followed 22 days of continuous protests backed by religious scholars, opposition leaders and mutinying police and military officers, in mid-January 2012, over the controversial detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed. Nasheed’s Vice-President Mohamed Waheed Hassan subsequently ascended to power.

Following resignation, Nasheed and his Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) claimed he was forced to resign under duress and that his government was toppled in a bloodless coup d’etat.

Dhiyana Saeed, formerly a member of President Mohamed Waheed’s cabinet and one of the earliest critics of Nasheed’s decision to detain Judge Abdulla, has released a personal memoir explaining her interpretation of Waheed’s ascension to power. The former SAARC Secretary General also alleged that Nasheed’s political rivals had conspired to assassinate him.

Speaking to Minivan News, Saeed confirmed that the High Court had accepted the initial paperwork. However, a final determination to formally accept the case will be made after review of the paperwork.

According to local media, lawyers joining Saeed in the petition include Ishraq Thaufeeg and Aiminath Nazlee, both whom currently represent Saeed’s newly founded law firm, Fanandheeb Chambers.

Speaking to local media outlet Channel News Maldives, Thaufeeg said following legal reviewing of the circumstances, the firm had noticed several legal inconsistencies and lapses that suggested the transfer of power took place illegally.

He also said that public still questions the legitimacy of President Mohamed Waheed Hassan’s government, and that therefore it was important that a court of law decides on the matter.

Saeed alleged in her memoir that the controversial transfer of presidential power on February 7 was the result of a premeditated and well-orchestrated plan, and questioned the findings of the Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CNI), which had declared that there was no coup and Nasheed had resigned voluntarily.

Parliament’s Executive Oversight Committee’s review of of the report revealed several concerns including omission of key evidence and witness statements.

Chair of Parliament’s Executive Oversight Committee, MP Ali Waheed, claimed the August 2012 report produced by the CNI was “flawed” based on the findings of the committee.

He added that many interviewed by the committee claimed the CNI report lacked “key information they had given [the CNI panel]” while “others claimed their infmrmation was wrongly presented”.

To support its claims, the parliamentary select committee released audio recordings of all the statements given by the witnesses. These included former police and military chiefs and officers, who claimed that Nasheed had no option but to resign.

Former Chief of Defence Force Moosa Ali Jaleel was heard telling the committee that he “fully believed that President Nasheed resigned under duress”.

He added that the circumstances leading up to the resignation of former President gave rise to the fact that resignation was obtained by “illegal coercion”.

Meanwhile former Police Chief Ahmed Faseeh told the committee that police officers who gathered in Republican Square on February 7 had disobeyed orders and their actions were grossly inconsistent with the Police Act, as well as professional standards established within the police.

Former Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) Intelligence Head Brigadier General Ahmed Nilam also testified to the committee that Nasheed was ousted in a coup, claiming that events on February 7 fulfilled all the essentials of a coup.

“Academically speaking, the events on February 7 fulfilled all the essentials of a coup. It involved all the features of a coup that are widely accepted around the world. Some of the elements take place before the toppling of a president. Others take place spontaneously,” he said.

Leaked statements given by key witnesses of the events to CNI, also suggested that the transfer of power took place illegitimately.

In the transcript of the statement given to CNI by MNDF Staff Sergeant Shafraz Naeem – the commander of the riot squad of the Bandara Koshi (BK) Battalion on the day – said that he also believed that Nasheed was ousted in a coup.

“In my view this was a coup. Why? I could see it from the way they handled everything, their attitude, how cool and calm all the officers were. I could tell from how cool General Shiyam was inside the MNDF. They did nothing. This is not how a uniformed officer should behave,” he told the CNI.

Meanwhile President Nasheed told the CNI that he was forced to resign, as he believed his life was at stake on February 7 if he did not.

“In essence, my statement is very small. I was forced to resign. I resigned under duress. I was threatened. If I did not resign within a stipulated period it would endanger mine and my family’s life. I understood they were going to harm a number of other citizens, party members. They were going to literally sack the town. I felt that I had no other option, other than to resign,” he said.

On September 2012, following the release of the report, a legal analysis of the CNI’s report by a team of high-profile Sri Lankan legal professionals – including the country’s former Attorney General concluded that the report was “selective”, “flawed”, and “exceeded its mandate”.

“The report offends the fundamental tenets of natural justice, transparency and good governance, including the right to see adverse material, which undermines the salutary tenets of the Rule of Law,” observed the report.

The Sri Lankan legal team also contended that “there is evidence to demonstrate that there was in fact adequate evidence to suggest that duress (or even ‘coercion’ and/ or illegal coercion as used by CNI) is attributable to the resignation of President Nasheed.”

The CNI report dismissed this theory.

“In summary, the commission concludes that there was no illegal coercion or intimidation nor any coup d’état. The commission has received no evidence supporting or to substantiate these allegations. This disposes the main mandate of the Commission,”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court overturns Civil Court ruling against Male’ City Council over MDP protest site

The High Court has invalidated a Civil Court ruling ordering Male’ City Council (MCC) to hand over the MDP’s protest site to the government.  The area was previously leased to the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

Earlier this month, the Civil Court ordered Male’ City Council to clear the land plot and hand it over to the Housing Ministry. The MCC appealed the Civil Court ruling, claiming that the court had not given the council an opportunity to defend itself, making the ruling unlawful.

The High Court today ruled that the Civil Court had failed to follow legal procedures in its hearing of the case, concluding that its ruling at the time was unlawful.

Presiding judges Justice Azmiralda Zahir, Justice Yousuf Hussain and Justice Abbas Shareef all backed the verdict today. Following the High Court ruling, police removed the barricades on Boduthakurufaanu Magu behind the STELCO and reopened the Usfasgandu area.

The area was cordoned off by police late last month after the High Court issued a warrant requesting the area be kept under police custody until it reached on verdict on the case.

MDP protesters clashed with the police several times after they cordoned off the site.

Lease dispute

Male’ City Council (MCC) leased the Usfasgandu area to the ousted ruling party in March 2012, prompting repeated attempts by the government to reclaim the area on the grounds it was being used for criminal activity, including the practice of black magic.

The MDP had moved to the area after a previous protest camp at the tsunami monument was dismantled and completely repainted by police and military on March 19, 2012.

On May 29, police raided the Usfasgandu site after obtaining a search warrant from the Criminal Court, ordering the MDP to vacate the area. The Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) then began dismantling the protest camp.

The Housing Ministry filed a case with the Civil Court after MCC refused to hand the land plot to the ministry.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court releases suspects arrested over DMC fraud investigation

The High Court has released the five people arrested in connection with a MVR 24 million (US$1.55 million) corruption investigation involving the Disaster Management Centre (DMC).

The suspects arrested included the Former Head of Disaster Management Centre Abdulla Shahid and the brother of the Speaker of Parliament.

The five individually appealed in the High Court arguing that the Criminal Court’s decision to extend their detention was unlawful.

The High Court ruled there was no need to keep the five detained as the suspects were arrested after their statements had already been obtained,  and because the case was already being investigated by the Anti-Corruption Commission and the Auditor General.

The case involving the Disaster Management Centre fraud concerns an audit report into the Centre produced by the Auditor General. In the report, the Auditor General alleged that the MVR 24 million was fraudulently obtained from the budget allocated for the Centre for the years 2009 and 2010.

The Auditor General (AG) later conducted a special audit into the MVR24 million believed to be fraudulently obtained.

The AG”s report alleged that the Disaster Management Centre had photocopied, edited and reused ‘Credit Purchase Order Forms’ used in 2005 to withdraw MVR 24 million from the Centre’s budget at the Finance Ministry.

The ‘Credit Purchase Order Forms’ were originally given to the Disaster Management Centre in 2005 to withdraw cash from the Tsunami Recovery Fund. The Auditor General’s report also suggested that the Finance Ministry was complicit in the alleged fraud.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court concludes city council’s appeal into ownership of MDP protest site

The High Court on February 13 concluded an appeal by Male’ City Council (MCC) over the ownership of the ‘Usfasgandu’ land plot in the capital, leased to the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

The court is expected to rule on the appeal during the next hearing of the trial, which has yet to be scheduled.

The council’s High Court appeal followed a case filed by the Housing Ministry at the Civil Court ordering the MCC to hand over the land in seven days. The plot of land has been used by the MDP as a base for protests in Male’ for much of last year.

Lawyers from the Attorney General’s told the court that the MCC had given the land to a political party that was supposed to be used for social and leisure purposes.

The MCC claimed that had not been given adequate opportunity by the lower court to present its defense before the ruling to hand over the land was made.

According to local media present at the court, the AG’s lawyers claimed it was the duty of the council to prove their innocence in the matter.

The presiding judges said a verdict would be delivered at the next hearing unless the court needed to further clarify the matter.

The Male’ City Council gave the land to the MDP after its protest site near the tsunami monument area was dismantled by military and police on March 19, 2012.  The camp was dismantled the same day President Dr Mohamed Waheed delivered his presidential speech to the parliament, amid protests inside and outside the parliament chamber.

In May 2012, the Maldives’ cabinet ordered the Usfasgandu site be handed over from the MDP-dominated council to the jurisdiction of the government’s Ministry of Housing.

Following what it called the “non-compliance” of the MCC in handing over the area, police were asked to intervene and “take over”.

A chain of appeals eventually led to the MDP being evicted from the site and cordoned off by police on the orders of the High Court.

Police has previously raided the site on the morning of May 29, 2012, after obtaining a search warrant from the Criminal Court.

The reasons for the search as stated on the warrant included: “suspected criminal activity”, “damage to public property”, and “suspected black magic performed in the area”.

Under ‘evidence’, the warrant alleged that people in the Usfasgandu area verbally abused police officers and damaged a police vehicle on April 20, obstructed a Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) exercise of May 9, and on May 25 “MDP protesters threw a cursed rooster at MNDF officers.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Court released child sex abuse suspect to house arrest in victim’s home

The High Court this week rejected a request to place a male suspect accused of sexually abusing an 11-year old relation in custody. The suspect was previously held under house arrest at the same property where his alleged victim lived.

The Prosecutor General (PG’s) Office confirmed that following a remand hearing on Tuesday (February 5), the suspect had been released from the house arrest – with no restrictions currently placed upon his movement ahead of his unscheduled trial.

The remand hearing took place at a time when the PG’s Office is already facing government criticism for pursuing a case against a 15 year-old minor on charges of having “consensual sexual relations”.

The government, which has said it is in the process of reviewing and amending laws on sexual abuse with authorities including the Ministry of Gender, Family and Human rights and Islamic Ministry, today accused state prosecutors of showing “bad judgement” in charging the 15 year-old girl.

The two cases are the latest in a line of high profile sexual abuse trials concerning minors, which have met with international condemnation.

The 15 year-old presently facing charges of having “consensual sexual relations” has also been identified as the victim of child sex abuse in an unrelated criminal case also being pursued by authorities.

The PG’s Office confirmed this week that after reviewing the charges against the 15 year-old girl, a decision had been taken to proceed with her trial at the Juvenile Court over charges of fornication. The PG’s Office was unable to comment further.

However, a source familiar with the matter told Minivan News that the charges against the minor had to be pursued because the girl had confessed to having consensual sex.  The charges relate to an incident reported before her alleged sexual abuse.

Meanwhile, the PG’s Office confirmed to Minivan News that the High Court rejected a request on February 5 to retain a sexual abuse suspect – believed to be an uncle of the victim – after it emerged he had been kept under house arrest in the same property as the 11 year-old victim.

A source with knowledge of the case said that the court released the suspect after enquiring as to why police and state prosecutors had failed to raise concerns about the house arrest earlier.

With no date yet scheduled for the suspect’s trial, the outcome of the remand hearing has meant the suspect had no restrictions on his movement, according to the source.

Minivan News understands the victim has since been moved to a new location on a separate island.

Government legal review

With these two high profile sexual abuse cases ongoing in the courts, the Maldives government has maintained its commitment to reviewing related laws in the Maldives.

President’s Office Media Secretary Masood Imad told Minivan News today that certain laws in the country, which he has previously criticised as treating sexual abuse victims as perpetrators, would be amended following consultations with relevant government authorities.

“We will be holding a one day seminar with the Islamic Ministry either sometime next week or the week after,” Masood said.

The government last month announced its intention to review the laws within the space of a few weeks. However, Masood added that there were many “pressing issues” requiring its attention at the present time.

Minister of Islamic Affairs Sheikh Mohamed Shaheem Ali and Acting Minister of Gender, Family and Human Rights,  Dr Mariyam Shakeela were not responding to calls from Minivan News at time of press.

“Bad judgement”

Despite its stated commitment to review laws concerning sexual abuse in the country, Masood added that the PG’s Office itself remained an independent entity that pursued cases without government involvement.

He added that prosecutors had shown “bad judgement” in pursuing the case involving the 15 year-old while other matters were still pending.

Highlighting what he perceived to be more pressing issues for the PG’s Office, Masood raised concerns against MPs Abdulla Jabir and Hamid Abdul Ghafoor – both aligned with the opposition Maldvian Democratic Party (MDP) – over their alleged  refusal to provide a urine sample after they were arrested under suspicion of drinking alcohol in November 2012.

MPs Jabir – at the time an elected representative for the government-aligned Jumhoree Party (JP) – and Hamid were arrested back in November along with eight others on the island of  island of Hodaidhoo in Haa Dhaal Atoll, on suspicion of drug and alcohol offences.

“[The PG’s Office] should be taking [to court] the issue of suspects refusing to give urine tests after being found at drunken parties,” Masood claimed.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court ruling “clearly means I will not be allowed a fair trial”: former President Nasheed

The High Court has ruled in favour of the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court rejecting an appeal filed by former President Mohamed Nasheed.

Nasheed is being tried in the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court for the controversial detention of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

The former president had contested the Hulhumale’-based court’s ruling on three procedural issues raised during an initial hearing of his case in October 2012.

Among these issues, Nasheed’s legal team argued that the Hulhumale-based magistrate court could not hold hearings on a nearby island – in this case the capital Male’.  Moreover, a summoning order issued to Nasheed by the court on September 26, 2012, was inconsistent with existing laws, his lawyers claimed.

Finally, Nasheed’s representatives claimed Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was formed in contrast with the Judicature Act.

Issuing a verdict today, the three member judges panel overseeing the appeal ruled that there were no “legal grounds” to declare the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court and its decisions illegitimate.

“Therefore, based on the points highlighted remains as such, the sitting judges unanimously agreed that the High Court had no legal grounds to declare the decisions made by Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court in its ruling no. 397/HMC/2012 on October 9, 2012 illegitimate,” read the verdict.

Responding to the first procedural point raised by Nasheed, the High Court stated that holding a hearing in a spacious venue in Male’ was essential to achieve the purpose of articles 42(c) and 42(d) of the constitution, demanding transparent and open court hearings.

The court also declared that holding such a hearing in Male’ did not compromise the rights of any party and that there existed no law barring a court from holding a hearing in a different venue.

The court also noted that the holding of trials in different venues was a practice carried out by other courts of law.

Regarding the legitimacy of the magistrate court, the High Court said it did not have the authority to overrule a decision by the higher court, despite an appeal by Nasheed’s legal team to the contrary.

The High Court claimed additionally that as per the constitution, the Supreme Court remains the highest authority in deciding legal matters – therefore its decisions are final and binding.

The Supreme Court has previously declared that the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court is legitimate and can operate as a court of law, following a request by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) that it clarify the court’s legality.

Highlighting the third procedural point, the High Court ruled that the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court has the legal authority to issue a summons and that no barrier existed to issuing such orders.

The High Court also stated that principles followed by both itself and the Supreme Court did not limit the magistrate court from issuing such an order.

Immediately following the ruling, President Nasheed was served a summons to attend the Hulhumale’ Magistrate court on February 10.

MDP response to verdict

In a statement following the verdict, Nasheed said the decision “clearly means I will not be allowed a fair trial.”

Former MDP Chairperson MP Mariya Didi noted that the High Court concluded the case after only two successive hearings, adding that it seemed the Hulhumale’ Court “had prepared summons before the High Court judgement was even delivered.”

“Today was a travesty of justice and demonstrates how much President Nasheed’s case is a politically motivated trial,” she said.

Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel – formerly Justice Minister during President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s 30 year government – has meanwhile told local media that swift prosecution of Nasheed before the Presidential Election was necessary to protect the “political and social fabric of the Maldives”.

“Every single day that passes without a verdict will raise questions over the justice system of the Maldives in the minds of the people,” Jameel told newspaper Haveeru.

Background

The Prosecutor General (PG) pressed charges against the former President in the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court on the grounds that holding the trial in Male’ at the Criminal Court represented a conflict of interest on behalf of Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed, whom the case concerned.

The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) appointed the three-member panel of judges to oversee the trial of the former president. The Commission’s members include two of Nasheed’s direct political opponents, including Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid – Deputy of the government-aligned Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP) – and Gasim Ibrahim, a resort tycoon, media owner, MP and leader of the Jumhoree Party (JP), also a member of the governing coalition.

While maintaining the trial was a politically-motivated attempt to block Nasheed from contesting the election – scheduled now for September 7 – the former president’s legal team raised procedural points challenging the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

They argued that the court was created by the JSC in violation of the Judicature Act, and had no legal or constitutional authority.

The team raised the issue during the first hearing of the trial held on October 2012, along with other procedural inconsistencies, but all were rejected.

The former President’s legal team subsequently lodged an appeal in the High Court challenging the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court’s ruling on the procedural points.

Despite its initial rejection of the points, the High Court later accepted the appeal. It therefore issued an injunction ordering the magistrate court to suspend Nasheed’s trial until a decision on the procedural points raised by Nasheed’s legal team was reached.

Nasheed’s legal team said it was prepared to appeal the case in the Supreme Court depending on the outcome.

Nasheed’s legal team were not responding to calls at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court brings forward Nasheed’s appeal case

The High Court has brought forward former President Mohamed Nasheed’s appeal case, now scheduled for Sunday.

Nasheed is being tried in the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court for the controversial detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

The former President’s legal team lodged the appeal challenging the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court’s ruling on three procedural issues raised during the court’s first hearing held October 9.

Speaking to Minivan News, MP Mariya Ahmed Didi confirmed the legal team had been informed of the decision to move the hearing.

“I understand from President Nasheed’s lawyers that they have received summons for February 3, as Nasheed had requested to depart the country the afternoon after the hearing. As far as I understand no particular reason was cited,” she said.

Didi however expressed concern over the High Court taking decisions on such short notice, stating that as Nasheed received legal council from abroad, such sudden changes in scheduling were inconvenient.

“These are Queens Counciler’s and their schedules are set in advance.  It is not possible to reschedule at such short notice. We have requested the High Court to bear with us on that,” she said.

Didi contended it was imperative that Nasheed be given “all opportunities to defend himself as a defendant in a criminal trial”. Nasheed “should not be an exception to that,” she said.

Spokesperson for the Department of Judicial Administration (DJA) Latheefa Gasim was not responding.

Meanwhile, Nasheed’s legal team has also sought an opportunity to highlight in court the Supreme Court’s ruling concerning the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

The Supreme Court has declared that Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court is legitimate and can operate as a court of law, following the Judicial Service Commission (JSC)’s request that it clarify the court’s legality.

MP Mariya said Nasheed’s legal team was of the opinion that the issue decided in the Supreme Court was different from the issue put before the High Court by the legal team.

“We hope the High Court will give our lawyers the opportunity to explain the distinction and consider all issues before they give a judgment on the matter,” she said.

Following the Prosecutor General (PG)’s decision to press charges against Nasheed in the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court instead of Criminal Court, Nasheed’s legal team initially challenged the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ court arguing that it was created in violation of the Judicature Act.

The team raised the issue during the first hearings of the trial, along with other procedural inconsistencies, but all were rejected. They later appealed the case in the High Court along with other procedural issues.

Despite its initial rejection of the procedural points, the High Court later accepted all points made by Nasheed’s legal team except that concerning the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court. It later issued an injunction ordering the magistrate court to suspend Nasheed’s trial until a decision on the procedural points raised by Nasheed’s legal team was reached.

Controversies

The case has been subject to controversy after Nasheed’s party  claimed the trial was a politically motivated attempt to bar Nasheed from contesting in the next presidential elections.

The UK Bar Human Rights Committee (BHRC) in a recent report concluded that the charges against Nasheed appeared to be a politically motivated attempt to bar the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) candidate from the 2013 presidential elections.

“BHRC is concerned that a primary motivation behind the present trial is a desire by those in power to exclude Mr Nasheed from standing in the 2013 elections, and notes international opinion that this would not be a positive outcome for the Maldives,” the report stated.

The report observed that the detention of the judge was “not a simple case of abuse of power”.

“Rather, the underlying narrative of the situation is that of a president desperate to bring change to a new democracy after decades of oppression, and finding himself thwarted by the inability of the organs of state set up by the constitution to deliver much needed reform,” the report stated.

Referring to “the large number of international reports” that have found the Maldivian judiciary to be flawed, the BHRC noted that the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) “failed in its twin tasks of ensuring that the judiciary has the appropriate experience and qualifications, and in bringing to book the judges who fail to fully and fairly implement the rule of law”.

“Implicit in these criticisms is that Mr Nasheed cannot be guaranteed a fair trial,” the report concluded.

Arrest of the judge

Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed was taken into military detention of January 16, 2012 at the request of then Home Minister Hassan Afeef on the grounds that the judge posed a threat to national security.

The judge had successfully blocked investigation of his misconduct by the judicial watchdog and quashed his own police summons.

Abdulla Mohamed had “taken the entire criminal justice system in his fist,” Afeef said, accusing him of obstructing high-profile corruption cases, releasing murder suspects, colluding with drug traffickers, and barring media from corruption trials.

Judge Abdulla “hijacked the whole court” by deciding that he alone could issue search warrants, Afeef contended, and had arbitrarily suspended court officers.

The arrest triggered series of anti-governmental protests that eventually led to the sudden resignation of then President Nasheed on February 7, 2012.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)