high court – Page 18 – Minivan News

PG asks High Court to void dismissal of Deputy Speaker Nazim’s corruption cases

The Prosecutor General (PG’s) Office today requested that the High Court void a previous Criminal Court dismissal of four corruption cases against People’s Alliance (PA) MP and Deputy Speaker of Parliament Ahmed Nazim.

Nazim had been cleared by the Criminal Court of all four corruption charges against him on February 23, 2012. The decision was taken 16 days after the controversial transfer of power on February 7, with the court ruling that Nazim’s “acts were not enough to criminalize him.”

All four cases concerned public procurement tenders of the former Atolls Ministry, which were alleged to have been secured through fraudulent documents and paper companies.

The state prosecutor during today’s hearing claimed that the Criminal Court had acted in contradiction to the procedures normally applied in criminal cases.

The prosecutor also alleged that in passing the ruling to dismiss the cases, the Criminal Court had failed to consider any of the evidence provided by the state.

During today’s appeal hearing, the PG’s Office stated that the dismissal of the cases had breached the constitutional decree of equal treatment to all citizens. Concerns were also raised that the Criminal Court had acted against the norms of procedure in similar cases by ruling that two counts of fraud cases against Nazim could not be prosecuted.

Considering these grounds, the state asked the High Court to rule void the Criminal Court’s dismissal of the four cases, and to order the court to rule on the cases anew.

Nazim dismissed the state’s allegations in court today, local media reported. Speaking on his behalf, his lawyer alleged that the state’s appeal case was “based around a lie”.

Nazim’s lawyer responded to the state’s allegation that the Criminal Court had not followed procedures by claiming that the court had presented the state with an opportunity to present their case during hearings.

The defendant’s lawyer also alleged that the witnesses named by the state had not been presented in court as they were not believed to be fair or impartial witnesses.

Last month, Nazim slammed PG Ahmed Muizzu in parliament, stating that he had failed to either come to a decision on or forward to court some 72 percent of cases submitted to his office by the Maldives Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC).

The criticisms levelled by Nazim were dismissed at the time by the PG himself, who said that the claims were inaccurate.

PG Ahmed Muizzu and MP Ahmed Nazim were not responding to calls at the time of press.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

High Court supports lower court’s decision to extend detention of Abdulla Javid

The High Court has upheld a Criminal Court order to extend the detention of Abdulla Javid, the son-in-law of Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Chairperson and MP ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik.

The High Court’s ruling stated that Javid was arrested in connection with the murder of late MP and Religious Scholar Dr Afrasheem Ali, and that at police had a phone call recording as evidence to support their accusation against Javid.

The case was filed at the High Court by Javid claiming that the Criminal Court’s extension of detention order was unlawful, however,the High Court ruled that there was no reasonable ground so support this.

Police Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef told Minivan News that police policy when providing information about Dr Afrasheem’s death was to keep all information until the next press briefing.

Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz has claimed that the murder of MP for Ungoofaaru constituency Dr Afrasheem Ali was a well-planned murder and insisted it was politically motivated.

The Commissioner alleged that the assassins were offered MVR 4 million (US$260,000).

He said that 200 items were collected as forensic and digital evidence.

“Over 500 hours of CCTV footage have been analysed, more than 100 people have been interviewed and about 13,000 phone call recordings have been analysed out of which 12,000 were from one single tower,” Riyaz said.

Afrasheem was killed on October 1. His wife discovered the body lying on the staircase of their home.

Dr Afrasheem was elected to parliament in 2009 as a member of the then-opposition Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP). Following the opposition’s split, Afrasheem sided with the Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, and faded into the political background.

Widely considered an Islamic moderate, Dr Afrasheem took outspoken and controversial positions on issues such as the permissibility of playing music, and praying next to the deceased.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

MPs can be arrested at crime scene, High Court rules

The High Court on Thursday ruled that MPs could be arrested at crime scenes despite a provision in the parliamentary rules stipulating that MPs could not be arrested while there was a pending no-confidence motion.

The ruling (Dhivehi) was made after the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) appealed a decision by the Kulhudhufushi Magistrate Court to release MPs Abdulla Jabir and Hamid Abdul Ghafoor, who were arrested on an uninhabited island on charges of alcohol consumption.

While it overruled the magistrate court decision to release the suspects, the High Court however ruled that there were no grounds to detain the MPs any further.

In its appeal, the state had requested authority to arrest the MPs again. But the High Court noted that the only reason police had given for requesting extension of detention was that the suspects might attempt to influence witnesses, ruling that such a possibility no longer existed.

In separate rulings referring to the constitution, the Police Act and Islamic Shariah, the High Court determined that despite the provision in the parliamentary standing orders, MPs could be arrested from crime scenes or if the arresting officer observes a crime being committed.

The article in the parliamentary rules was intended to protect MPs against arbitrary arrest, the High Court noted, but did not preclude arrests under any circumstances.

Section 202(d) of the house rules state that MPs cannot be arrested while there is a no-confidence motion before parliament to impeach the president or remove a cabinet minister, judge or member of an independent commission from his or her post.

Parliament on Wednesday meanwhile approved amendments to section 202 with 27 votes in favour and 18 against.

“The amendment proposed to Article 202 (b) states that if in the event of the arrest of a Member of Parliament under a circumstance that excludes allegations of criminal offense, and where immediate interrogation is not possible, then either the Speaker or the Secretary General of the People’s Majlis must be notified of the arrest in 15 minutes at the most,” according to the Majlis secretariat.

At the time of their arrest on November 16, no-confidence motions were submitted against President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik and Civil Service Commission (CSC) Chair Mohamed Fahmy Hassan.

While Speaker Abdulla Shahid had instructed police to abide by the rules and release the MPs, police had refused and contended that it was up to a judge to determine the legality of the arrest.

During the hearings on the appeal, the High Court rejected a request by the state to abolish the provisions in the parliamentary rules as the appeal concerned extension of detention and not the constitutionality of a clause in a specific regulation.

Following an emergency meeting in the wake of the arrests, parliament’s Privileges Committee passed a motion to ask the Prosecutor General to press charges against Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz for arresting the MPs in violation of the law, and disregarding the Speaker’s instructions to release them.

The committee also passed a motion to ask the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) to investigate allegations of police brutality against the MPs.

Meanwhile, in a statement at the time, police said 10 people were arrested during a ‘special’ operation on the island of Hodaidhoo in Haa Dhaal Atoll.

In addition to ruling coalition Jumhoree Party (JP) MP Abdulla Jabir and Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor – also the party’s international spokesperson – those arrested included former SAARC Secretary General and Special Envoy to the former President, Ibrahim Hussain Zaki, former Press Secretary Mohamed Zuhair and his wife Mariyam Faiz.

The others arrested were Jadhulla Jaleel, Hamdan Zaki, two Sri Lankan nationals named Raj Mohan and Anoor Bandaranayk as well as a Bangladeshi named Suhail Rana.

While Hamdan Zaki – son of Ibrahim Hussain Zaki – was detained on orders of the magistrate court, he was released to house arrest on Wednesday after being taken to hospital. Hamdan’s family told local media that he suffered a seizure when he was taken to the hospital and accused police of ill treatment and negligence.

Hamdan Zaki was admitted at the ADK hospital and reportedly suffered another seizure on Thursday morning.

MP Jabir meanwhile alleged that police used excessive force during the arrest. Jabir previously told Minivan News police actions resembled “a terrorist killing operation.”

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

State to decide on President’s ability to grant clemency to death row convicts

The state has been given the opportunity to respond over annulling the President’s ability to grant clemency to convicts on death row.

The High Court hearing gave the state the opportunity to decide over the matter of dismissing the authority given to President Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik in accordance with the constitution.

The case submitted to the High Court states that the victim’s family has the power to pardon convicts in accordance to Islamic principles, while the death penalty can only be enforced with the unanimous consent of all heirs.

The case questioned why statements are taken from heirs if the President can ultimately decide on granting clemency to murderers, and that this could be considered as a violation of the rights given to the victim’s family.

The case states that article 268 of the constitution obliges all laws and regulations adhere to Islamic principles, while any law contradicting it will be void. It further states that under article 10 of the constitution, any law or regulation that defies the Islamic Shariah is forbidden.

Therefore, the case claims that the power afforded to the President to grant clemency is a violation of article 10 of the constitution. Furthermore, the clemency bill must not be a power afforded to the President under article 268 and that it must be annulled.

The case states that while the Maldives theoretically has a death penalty under Islamic Shariah, the last person to be judicially executed was Hakim Didi in 1953, who was executed by firing squad after being found guilty of conspiracy to murder using black magic.

State Attorney Usama Moosa said research has been conducted by the state and that the process is ongoing. Mossa added that because the case relates to capital punishment, the state had requested legal expertise from various persons.

Chair of the Judges bench Abdul Rauf said that the case is not specific to capital punishment but it relates to clemency.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

High Court concludes hearings of state’s appeal case over MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor’s arrest

High Court has concluded hearings of the appeal filed by the state following the release of Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor by Kulhudhuffushi Magistrate Court.

MP Ghafoor was arrested along with Jumhoree Party (JP) MP Abdulla Jabir and several senior opposition figures on the uninhabited island of Hodaidhoo on November 16, for alleged possession of drugs and alcohol. Police in a statement released following the arrests claimed that 10 people were arrested during a ‘special operation’ on the island.

Police claimed they found large amounts of “suspected” drugs and alcohol during the raid and stated that the arrests were made “based on information received by police intelligence”. Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef earlier told Haveeru that the suspects were arrested with alcohol and “hash oil”.

State requests order to re-arrest MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor

During Sunday’s appeal, the state prosecutors requested an order to re-arrest the MDP MP and invalidate article 202(d) of the Parliament Regulation that bars the police from arresting an MP ahead of a no-confidence motion in parliament.

The state prosecutors argued that Ghafoor should be kept under police custody or else he may “influence” the witnesses that the state wished to present to the court. They also claimed that some of those 21 people arrested might also have evidence.

State prosecutors said that police had informed them that Ghafoor possessed an ‘intoxicant’ when he was arrested but had refused to provide urine to police to conform whether he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

However, Ghafoor’s lawyer Hisaan Hussain said her client denied the charges levied by the state.

She also contended that Ghafoor did not possess the capacity to influence the witnesses by the state arguing that the only witnesses the state had produced were the police officers who made the arrests.

She also claimed that according to an earlier rule established by the Supreme Court, an institution cannot in their own capacity decide to not to adhere to a section of a law or a regulation on the grounds that it contrasted with the constitution, unless a court of law ruled such a section invalid.

She therefore challenged that police could not decide for themselves that the article 202(d) of the Parliament Regulation was invalid, and that thereby the arrest of MP Ghafoor was unlawful.

During the hearing, the judges posed several questions to the state prosecutor, Aishath Hana.

In one such question, the panel of judges questioned whether the court could decide on the validity of the article 202(d) of the Parliamentary Regulation, in an appeal that concerned extension of a detention.

Responding to the question, the state prosecutor said that the request to invalidate the article of parliamentary regulations was made because Kulhudhuffushi Magistrate Court had also referred to the same article in releasing the detainees.

Chair of the judges panel, Judge Abdul Ghanee Mohamed, responded stating that the court will consider Kulhudhuffushi Magistrate Court’s decision to refer to the concerned article when issuing the verdict.

However the court rejected the state’s request to invalidate the concerned article stating that the request was filed in contrast to the established procedures of the court.

The panel of judges also inquired about the progress of the investigation of Ghafoor’s case, to which the police who had been present in the hearings said that statements from all the officers involved in the arrests had been taken.

Police during the hearing also stated that while Hodaidhoo was an uninhabited island, it was questionable as to whether alcohol had been found on the island.

The court concluded the hearings and stated that a date would be announced later on which it would decide on the case.

“Attempt to frame” – MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor

Speaking to Minivan News, Ghafoor claimed the case was an attempt by the government to “frame” opposition politicians for attempting to impeach the President.

“I am a parliament member who is working to bring an end to this government through legitimate means. Now they want to frame me for possession of drugs and sentence me so that I would not be able to do that,” he said.

Ghafoor described the current developments as a “desperate” attempt by the government to unseat MPs opposed to the current government.

“After the coup, we have been working on ways to defeat this coup government through the parliament. Now we see even political parties that initially opposed us starting to support us. They have started to work with us as well. This is what this government fears most,” he explained.

Ghafoor claimed that the government had been monitoring each and every move of their political opponents including himself, and alleged that their phone calls are “continuously recorded”. This, he added, was what led the police to arrest them on the island of Hodaidhoo, where they had gone to “discuss our concerns about the government”.

“I don’t see it any other way. This is clearly a politically motivated case,” he contended.

Meanwhile, the MDP also claimed the arrests wer politically-motivated and stated that it was an attempt to disrupt parliament ahead of a no confidence motion against President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik, and an amendment to voting procedure to make such votes secret.

Last week an amendment to voting procedure to make such votes secret initiated by the opposition MDP MP Ahmed Shifaz was defeated in the parliament floor by 34 to 39 votes. However, MDP MP Ibrahim ‘Bondey’ Rasheed has again re-submitted the amendment to Parliament’s Privileges Committee.

“It is such a coincidence that whenever the Waheed government wants to frame those critical of their government, they come up with trumped up charges and very often it is something to do with alcohol,” said former MDP Chairperson Mariya Ahmed Didi, in a statement.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

High Court overturns Criminal Court’s July 2010 suspension of senior police officers

The High Court on Tuesday overturned the Criminal Court’s suspension of two senior police officers in July 2010, ruling that Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed’s decision to bar Superintendent Mohamed Jinah and Inspector Mohamed Riyaz from the court for six months was unlawful.

The pair was suspended after they appeared in court over the detention of then-opposition MPs Abdulla Yameen, Ahmed Nazim and Gasim Ibrahim on charges of bribery and treason.

The suspension for alleged contempt of court was appealed at the High Court by the Attorney General’s Office on July 21, 2010.

Police meanwhile filed a complaint against the chief judge at the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) alleging “obstruction of high-profile corruption cases.”

The JSC has however not completed an investigation of the complaint to date. The case is among 168 complaints that the commission has yet to conclude as of December 2011, according to the JSC annual report for 2011 (Dhivehi).

In January 2012, the JSC revealed that there were 11 complaints filed at the commission against Judge Abdulla Mohamed, including allegations of corruption and abuse of power.

Procedural fairness

In its judgment on Tuesday (Dhivehi) – more than two years after the case was registered – the High Court ruled that the administrative action against Jinah and Riyaz was neither procedurally fair nor in accordance with regulations on holding persons in contempt of court.

A police media official told Minivan News at the time that court had “sent a letter signed by the Chief Judge of the court to Police Commissioner Ahmed Faseeh. The letter did not mention any specific reason [for the suspensions], only ‘ethical grounds’.”

The High Court noted that the Criminal Court did not reply to a letter from the Maldives Police Service – sent two days after receiving the letter from the Criminal Court on July 11 informing the Police Commissioner of the suspension – seeking clarification concerning the unprecedented action.

Police had asked the court to clarify the date the hearing in question took place, the nature of the contempt allegedly exhibited by the pair or the alleged violation of ethical codes, whether it had taken place outside the hearing and whether the police officers were given any warning prior to the administrative action.

While article 43 of the constitution guarantees the right to “administrative action that is lawful, procedurally fair and expeditious,” the High Court noted that due process was not followed by the Criminal Court as the officers were not informed either of the reasons for the action or “the date of the incident”.

The High Court ruling also referred to article 68 of the constitution, which states, “When interpreting and applying the rights and freedoms contained within this Chapter, a court or tribunal shall promote the values that underlie an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, and shall consider international treaties to which the Maldives is a party.”

“Obstruction of investigations”

Appearing on state broadcaster Television Maldives (TVM) on July 17, 2010, then-Deputy Commissioner of Police Ismail Atheef explained that Jinah and Riyaz had appeared in court on July 9.

However, the letter from Chief Judge Abdullah Mohamed informing police of the suspension was received two days later on July 11.

“If someone is in contempt of the court, action has to be taken immediately according to provision five of the court regulations,” he noted.

Atheef added that the detectives were not given any warning nor had their conduct in court been noted by the journalists who were present.

“So when this letter came to us, the way police interpret it is that this is an obstruction specifically of our investigation,” he claimed.

It was the first time that police officers were suspended from the Criminal Court, Atheef said.

The former Deputy Commissioner contended that the suspension was a deliberate obstruction because Riyaz and Jinah, as the two lead detectives and top police lawyers, would have had to appear at court to seek an extension for MP Nazim’s detention.

Meanwhile, Jinah was among a number of senior officers assaulted by mutinying police inside the police headquarters before the controversial transfer of presidential power on February 7, 2012.

Following the police mutiny at the Republic Square and violent clashes with military officers, Jinah was handcuffed and taken to the Dhoonidhoo detention island.

Local media reported this week that Jinah was demoted from the rank of chief superintendent to superintendent on November 19.

Jinah was reportedly demoted over remarks he made to the media following the arrest of Gassan Maumoon, son of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

However, in June this year, the Civil Court ruled in favour of Jinah in a case filed by Gassan claiming violation of his basic rights by the superintendent. In October 2011, Gassan was arrested on suspicion of hurling a wooden block into a crowd of Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) protesters outside the former president’s residence.

While the former head of the Drug Enforcement Department (DED) has reportedly decided to leave the Maldives Police Service, police have said the request made last month has not yet been granted as the disciplinary board was investigating a case involving the senior officer.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Nasheed requests intervention in Hulhumale Magistrate Court legitimacy case

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has requested the Supreme Court allow him to intervene in the case over the legitimacy of the Hulhumale Magistrate Court.

Nasheed is to face charges in the Hulhumale Court over the unconstitutional arrest and detention of Chief Criminal Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Procedural points regarding the legitimacy of the Hulhumale Court had been raised by former president Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team, the claims over the courts legitimacy were however dismissed by the Hulhumale Magistrate Court.

The Supreme Court issued an order over the High Court to cease its cases regarding the legitimacy issue of the Hulhumale Magistrate Court, until a decision had been reached.

The Supreme Court has confirmed the request made by Nasheed to intervene in the Hulhumale Court legitimacy case, however it is yet to respond to the request, court said.

The first hearing of the case is scheduled for 2:00pm today at the Supreme Court.

The case is being tried at Supreme Court upon request from the Judicial Services Commission to take over the case from the lower court.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Judicial Council decided Hulhumale’ court could not hear criminal cases, reveals Nasheed’s legal team

Members of the Judicial Council raised doubts over the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court at a meeting in late 2010 and decided that criminal cases were out of its jurisdiction, former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team have revealed.

In a press statement, Nasheed’s legal team said that minutes from a meeting of the Judicial Council were among documents submitted by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to the High Court.

The JSC entered as a third party into an appeal lodged by Nasheed at the High Court challenging a ruling by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, which had summarily dismissed procedural points raised by the former President’s lawyers.

The procedural issues included the legal status of the magistrate court.

However, before the High Court was due to issue a ruling on Nasheed’s appeal, the Supreme Court instructed the High Court to suspend proceedings as the apex court had been asked to determine the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

The Judicial Council minutes meanwhile revealed that Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz, former Chief Judge of the High Court Abdul Gani, former Chief Judge of the Juvenile Court Shuaib Hussain Zakariyya, Magistrate Mohamed Niyaz from the north judicial district and Magistrate Ali Shareef from the south judicial district “all raised questions over the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ court.”

The Judicial Council was abolished after the Supreme Court unilaterally struck down articles in the Judicature Act concerning the council.

“Presenting the case [to the council], the Chief Justice said that following the enactment of the law on courts, members of the judiciary as well as lawyers were saying that the court in Hulhumale’ could not function under the law and that the Hulhumale’ court had been stopped following the passage of the [Judicature Act in 2010],” the press release explained.

The Judicature Act states that magistrate courts should be set up in inhabited islands aside from Male’ without a division of the trial courts (Criminal Court, Civil Court, Family Court and Juvenile Court).

According to appendix two of the constitution, Hulhumale’ is a district or ward of Male’ and not a separate inhabited island. The former magistrate court at Hulhumale’ – controversially set up by the JSC before the enactment of the Judicature Act in October 2010 – should therefore have been dissolved when the Judicature Act was ratified.

Moreover, the minutes revealed that the Judicial Council had decided that criminal cases were out of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court’s jurisdiction.

The Chief Justice had said at the Judicial Council meeting that the magistrate court had been dealing with civil cases and family disputes.

The press statement noted that it was the opinion on record of all judges at the council meeting that the Hulhumale’ court could not function as a separate court following the enactment of the Judicature Act.

Supreme Court intervention

Nasheed’s legal team also expressed concern with the Supreme Court ordering the High Court to suspend hearings on the appeal.

If the Supreme Court decides to take over the procedural point raised at the High Court, “President Nasheed would lose one stage of appeal,” the legal team said.

Following the High Court granting an injunction or stay suspending the former President’s trial at the Hulhumale’ court, the magistrate court announced that it has suspended all ongoing cases.

However, the Supreme Court last week instructed the magistrate court to resume the cases and took over a case filed at the Civil Court a year ago by a lawyer, Ismail Visham, contesting the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Speaking to press yesterday after a ceremony to open new offices for the Drug Court, Chief Justice Faiz criticized the JSC as “inept” and contended that “challenges faced by the judiciary would have been resolved” if the judicial watchdog body “properly” carried out its responsibilities.

Faiz also said that the case concerning the legitimacy of the Hulhumale Magistrate Court presently before the Supreme Court had not been addressed before because the JSC had not filed the case.

“When a case was filed in Civil Court contesting the legitimacy of Hulhumale Magistrate Court, the JSC sent a letter to [the Supreme Court] arguing that the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction to look into the case. We then asked the JSC to file a case as per the procedure and they only filed the case just a few days ago,” he explained.

The Chief Justice added that the Supreme Court would be considering the case as a “high priority”.

The JSC filed the case while Nasheed’s appeal was ongoing at the High Court.

Meanwhile, MP Mariya Ahmed Didi, former President Nasheed’s spokesperson, said that the Supreme Court deciding on the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court without allowing the High Court to rule on Nasheed’s appeal would “give weight to what many are saying about the politicization of the Supreme Court.”

The former Special Majlis MP urged the highest court of appeal to allow the High Court to issue a ruling as those unhappy with the judgment could appeal at the Supreme Court.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)