Tag: high court

Supreme Court instructs High Court to suspend hearings on former President Nasheed’s appeal

The Supreme Court has instructed the High Court to halt its hearings on an appeal lodged by former President Mohamed Nasheed, challenging a ruling by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court on procedural points raised by the former President’s legal team.

The High Court on Sunday granted an injunction or stay suspending the former President’s trial at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, pending a ruling on the procedural points raised by Nasheed’s legal team, which included determining the legitimacy of the magistrate court.

Nasheed’s lawyers were informed by the High Court this morning that a hearing scheduled for 10:15am was cancelled because a judge was “on sick leave.”

An official from the High Court initially told Minivan News that the hearing was cancelled because the judge was on sick leave. However, asked which of the three judges on the panel had taken ill, the official said she would have to clarify.

The High Court official said later that the case had been suspended based on instructions from the Supreme Court. A letter from the Supreme Court was received in the late afternoon yesterday, she said.

“The judge took the sick leave [this morning] after the Supreme Court ordered the case to be halted. It wasn’t cancelled because he took ill,” she claimed.

Nasheed’s lawyers were at first unaware of the Supreme Court order.

Abdulla Shair from Nasheed’s legal team said that the High Court has since informed the lawyers of the Supreme Court’s instruction to halt the case.

However, it was unclear whether the Supreme Court’s order was a writ of prohibition or “just a letter telling the High Court to halt the case until the Supreme Court ruled on the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court,” he explained.

The High Court official said that the instructions were made in a letter from the apex court.

A media official from the Supreme Court was not responding at the time of press.

However, the official told local media today that the High Court was asked to halt hearings on the appeal because one of the procedural points involved the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ court, which the Supreme Court had been asked by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to determine.

The Supreme Court also informed the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court on Wednesday to resume proceedings on other ongoing cases, pending a ruling on the magistrate’s court legitimacy.

Following the High Court’s injunction, the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court announced that it had suspended all ongoing cases in light of the questions raised over its legal status.

In an announcement a day after the High Court granted the injunction, the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court said it has suspended proceedings on cases involving marriage, divorce, guardianship, family matters, property lawsuits, civil cases, criminal cases involving extension of detention periods as well as other matters that could be affected by the questions raised over its legal status.

The Supreme Court media official told newspaper Haveeru today that the decision by the highest court of appeal would not affect the High Court injunction suspending the former President’s trial.

Former President Nasheed is facing criminal charges over the military’s controversial detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Speaking to press after the High Court hearing on Sunday, Nasheed’s lawyer Hisaan Hussain claimed that the state was unable to offer valid arguments to defend the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, which the former President’s legal team contends was formed in violation of the constitution and Judicature Act.

At Sunday’s hearing of Nasheed’s appeal, the JSC revealed that it had filed a case at the Supreme Court to determine the legitimacy of the court.

Local media reported on Monday that the Supreme Court ordered the Civil Court to send over all files and documents on a case submitted by a lawyer, Ismail Visham, over a year ago challenging the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

The Supreme Court had issued a writ of mandamus ordering the lower court to suspend its hearings and had taken over the case. The apex court had however not conducted any hearings on the case.

Meanwhile, writing in his personal blog last month, Independent MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed explained that a magistrate court could not legally be established at Hulhumale’.

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.

At Sunday’s hearing of Nasheed’s appeal, the three-judge panel heard arguments on the procedural issues from both the claimant and the state, represented by the Prosecutor General’s Office and Attorney General’s Office.

Adjourning the hearing, Judge Shuaib Hussain Zakariya had said that the judges would try to ensure that the next hearing would be the last before issuing a ruling.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court suspends all cases

The Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court has announced that it has suspended all ongoing cases following an injunction issued by the High Court on Sunday halting the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed.

The High Court granted the temporary injunction or stay of the former President’s trial pending a ruling on procedural points raised by Nasheed’s legal team, which included the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

In its announcement on Monday, the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court said it has suspended proceedings on cases involving marriage, divorce, guardianship, family matters, property lawsuits, civil cases, criminal cases involving extension of detention periods as well as other matters that could be affected by the questions raised over its legal status.

Meanwhile, at Sunday’s hearing of Nasheed’s appeal at the High Court, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) revealed that it had filed a case at the Supreme Court to determine the legitimacy of the court.

Writing in his personal blog last month, Independent MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed explained that a magistrate court could not legally be established at Hulhumale’.

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.

Meanwhile, local media reported yesterday (November 5) that the Supreme Court ordered the Civil Court to send over all files and documents on a case submitted by a lawyer, Ismail Visham, over a year ago challenging the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

The Supreme Court had issued a writ of mandamus ordering the lower court to suspend its hearings and had taken over the case. The apex court had however not conducted any hearings on the case.

A court official told local media that a hearing on the case of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court’s legal status has not been scheduled.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC asks Supreme Court to look into legality of Hulhumale Magistrate Court

Former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team has stated that neither the Attorney General’s Office nor the Prosecutor General’s Office presented any arguments to confirm the legality of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court at Sunday’s hearing at the High Court.

Member of the legal team, Hisaan Hussain, however stated that the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) had used the opportunity to present its case.

At a press conference held Sunday, Hisaan further stated that they felt it would be unjust for the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court to be presiding over any case after Nasheed’s case was temporarily halted over allegations of the court being unlawfully established.

JSC lawyer Abdul Fahthah stated in court today that the JSC had lodged a case at the Supreme Court on the same morning asking the court to look into the matter of the legality of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Meanwhile, the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court has stated that along with Nasheed’s trial, the trials of the other four persons regarding the arrest of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed have now been temporarily halted.

In addition to Nasheed, former Minister of Defence and National Security Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfanu, former Chief of Defence Force retired Major General Moosa Ali Jaleel, retired Brigadier General Ibrahim Mohamed Didi and Colonel Mohamed Ziyad are also being tried individually for the same case.

The Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court held the first hearing of Nasheed’s case on October 9. The second hearing had been scheduled for November 4, which was cancelled following the injunction granted Sunday morning by the High Court.

Nasheed’s legal team has previously raised concerns about the legality of the Hulhumale’ court, citing Article 141 (a) of the Constitution and Articles 53 (b) and 62 of the Maldives Judicature Act.

Minivan News was unable to contact the PG Office and the AG Office at the time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court grants injunction suspending former President Nasheed’s trial

The High Court today granted an injunction (Dhivehi) temporarily suspending the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed at the contested Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, pending a ruling on procedural points raised by the former President’s legal team.

The former President is facing criminal charges over the military’s controversial detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

At a preliminary hearing on October 22, Nasheed’s lawyers requested an injunction halting the trial pending a ruling by the High Court on three procedural points dismissed by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court: a magistrate court holding a trial on a different island to where it was based; the constitutional legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court; and the legality of the arrest warrant issued by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, as such orders could only be issued by a court in the locality of the defendant’s permanent address.

At the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court’s first trial date on October 9, the court summarily dismissed the first two points and agreed to hear the last issue. The court however ruled that the warrant was issued legally as it was following a precedent established by the High Court.

The ruling was subsequently appealed by Nasheed’s legal team at the High Court.

Concluding the hearing on the appeal on October 22, High Court Judge Shuaib Hussain Zakariya said the three-judge panel would issue a ruling on the injunction at the next hearing on the morning of November 4.

Meanwhile, the second hearing of the trial at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was scheduled for 4:00pm today. Following the court order issued by the High Court however, it has since been cancelled.

In its ruling today, the High Court noted that the Prosecutor General’s Office had not objected to the court issuing the injunction at the October 22 hearing.

The High Court noted that continuing without “determining the legitimacy of the necessary procedural processes” and “ensuring the rights of the defendant” could cause irreparable injury to the claimant.

Moreover, if there was “a delay” in ruling on the request for an injunction, “the court believes that the purpose of the ruling [on the appeal] might not be achieved”.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court to decide on injunction for Nasheed trial

The High Court will decide on a request by former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team for an injunction halting his trial over the detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed at a hearing on November 4, the same day the trial at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court is set to resume.

Concluding today’s hearing of an appeal lodged by Nasheed’s legal team, challenging the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court’s ruling on three procedural issues raised at the magistrate court’s first hearing on October 9, High Court Judge Shuaib Hussain Zakariya said the three-judge panel would issue a ruling on the injunction at the next hearing on the morning of November 4.

Speaking to press after the hearing, Nasheed’s lead attorney Hisaan Hussain explained that a request was made for a temporary injunction to suspend the criminal trial pending a ruling by the High Court on the procedural points.

“Today we submitted in detail the reasons we are seeking a temporary injunction,” she said. “In response, the Prosecutor General’s Office said they did not have anything further to say about issuing the injunction and to proceed in the way the court decides. That is, they do not object to [the court] issuing the injunction.”

On the High Court scheduling its next hearing for November 4, Hisaan noted that the next hearing at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was scheduled for 4:00pm on the same day.

“We believe seeking an injunction is by its nature a matter of urgency,” she said. “So we have requested that the court expedite its decision on the injunction. We hope the court would make a decision before [November 4]. We will make such a request to the court in writing as well.”

At today’s hearing, Nasheed’s legal team raised the three procedural points dismissed by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court: a magistrate court holding a trial on a different island to where it was based; the constitutional legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court; and the legality of the arrest warrant issued by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, as such orders could only be issued by a court in the locality of the defendant’s permanent address.

At the October 9 hearing, the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court summarily dismissed the first two points and agreed to hear the last issue. The court however ruled that the warrant was issued legally as it was following a precedent established by the High Court.

Meanwhile, the High Court today allowed the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) and Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to enter into the appeal case as third parties on the issue of the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Lawyers from both institutions were present at today’s hearing. The state was represented by lawyers from the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO).

Requesting the injunction, Hisaan reportedly argued that failure to do so could cause irreparable injury to the rights of the defendant as the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court could conclude its trial and sentence the former President before the High Court ruled on the appeal.

While Deputy Solicitor General Ahmed Usham asked for an opportunity to respond to the request for an injunction, Judge Shuaib said that the three-judge panel had decided that the AGO attorney could not be allowed to argue regarding the injunction.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed also attended the hearing along with MPs, senior members and supporters of the formerly ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

Almost an hour before the beginning of the hearing, police assisted by officers of the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) cordoned off the area surrounding the High Court at the former presidential palace.

“Unfair and unjust”

The MDP secretariat meanwhile issued a statement in the wake of the hearing expressing concern with the High Court’s scheduling of its next hearing for November 4.

“The party believes that the result of conducting both hearings on the same day will be the defence attorneys losing the opportunity to prepare for the original case at the ‘Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court’,” the statement read.

The MDP statement contended that the defence attorneys could only prepare for the trial based on the decision on the procedural processes.

The party also noted that the High Court has in the past conducted hearings at night and on public holidays to issue temporary injunctions.

“However, while a week has passed since the appeal and request for an injunction on behalf of President Nasheed has been filed at the High Court when the hearing was held today, the party believes that the decision to issue a ruling on the injunction on the same day the original case is to be conducted at the ‘Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court’ is neither fair nor just,” the party said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MVR 500,000 paid to Gayoom’s parliament appointees

The state has paid approximately MVR 500,000 (US$32,425) each as compensation to eight MPs appointed to parliament by former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, following a Supreme Court ruling in March that their removal was unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court ruled on March 13 that the removal of the eight presidential appointees in late 2008 by incoming President Mohamed Nasheed – who replaced the eight with his own appointees – was unconstitutional and ordered the state to compensate the MPs for salaries and allowances due for the remainder of the last parliamentary session of the 16th parliament.

The Supreme Court ruling had overruled judgments by the Civil Court and High Court.

Local daily Haveeru reported yesterday that one MP had been paid MVR 407,000 (US$26,394) so far. The former MP, who wished to remain anonymous, was quoted as saying that the “Finance [Ministry] told some of the MPs that the amounts cannot be paid now due to the financial constraints of the state.”

“As far as I know, the state will pay them over a period,” the anonymous MP added.

The case was filed by former President Gayoom’s appointees Rozaina Adam and Ahmed Mahloof. While both were elected to the 17th parliament on a Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) ticket, MP Mahloof left the DRP to join former President Gayoom’s Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM).

The case reached the Supreme Court one and a half years ago after the Civil Court and High Court ruled that the Nasheed administration had the legal authority to dismiss Gayoom appointees.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court upholds lower court’s ruling to reinstate officer accused of rape

The High Court has upheld a Civil Court ruling to reinstate Police Lance Corporal Ali Nasheed to active duty, after he was accused of raping a young woman after abducting her in a police car in August 2010.

The High Court ruled there was not enough evidence to prove that Ali Nasheed was guilty of the crime and determined that he could only be relieved of duty if there was enough evidence to prove him guilty.

The state was unable to prove with the police investigation that Ali Nasheed was guilty of the crime, the court stated.

The High Court ruling stated that Ali Nasheed was dismissed by the Police Disciplinary Committee after allegedly violating the Police Code of Conduct and Code of Ethics.

The only evidence submitted to the court against Ali Nasheed was the call log of his cell phone on the night of the incident, and the areas in which the cell phone had been used that night. Those areas were related to the incident, the court was told.

The High Court noted that Nasheed had told the lower court that he was sleeping at the time of the incident and that his brother went out with his cell phone that night, and that he had nothing to do with the call log. Nasheed produced his brother to the court who confessed that he was the one who went out with Nasheed’s mobile phone.

The High Court said that when the Disciplinary Board investigated the case they did not obtain fingerprint evidence or DNA evidence from the police car S5241 that was alleged to be involved in the incident.

There was no evidence provided to the court to prove that Nasheed had met with or contacted the woman who was allegedly raped, the court stated.

Police Chief Inspector Risheef Thoha and Former ‘Mr Maldives’ Police Constable Husham Hameed alleged of being involved and playing a significant role in the incident.

The Police Disciplinary Committee relieved the officers of duty but the cases were then appealed at the Civil Court.

The Civil Court ruled that there was enough evidence to prove Police Chief Inspector Risheef Thoha guilty of the crime and upheld the Disciplinary Committee’s decision.

However, in August this year, the High Court overruled the decision made by the Civil Court and ordered that police reinstate his duties at the rank of Chief Inspector.

In August 2011 a close friend of the alleged victim told Minivan News the incident had occurred near the Seahouse restaurant in Henveiru.

“She would not be older than 22 years, she was friends with the police inspector,’’ the source said. “According to what she told me, she was partying with a group of four police officers, including a senior inspector, and they were all drunk.’’

He alleged that the incident occurred inside a police car.

“She said they threw her onto the street after sexually abusing her,’’ the source added.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court rules circumstantial evidence sufficient proof for child sexual offences

The High Court has ruled that in cases concerning sexual offences against children where there is not sufficient evidence as specified in the law,  the offence can be proven in court based on circumstantial evidence.

The unanimous ruling was passed by a panel of three judges who presiding over an appeal lodged by a defendant, who had been sentenced to 10 years in jail by the Baa Atoll Fehendhoo Magistrate Court on charges of sexual abuse involving a child.

Act number 12/2009, detailing special actions to be taken in cases of sexual offenses against children, states that a minimum of 5 out of 12 types of evidence specified in Article 47 must be presented for the crime to be proven in court.

An official of the Baa Atoll Fehendhoo Magistrate Court told Minivan News that the case had been concluded by the court on June 21, 2011.

She said the incident itself involved allegations that Ali Abdul Rahman of Blue House, B. Fehendhoo had sexually abused an underage boy from the same island on July 24, 2010.

She also confirmed that the case had been concluded regardless of the required five types of evidence not having been presented, on the grounds that there was enough circumstantial evidence to prove the offence had occurred without a doubt.

Minivan News reported earlier this month a case involving an underage girl who was was sentenced under Sharia law to 100 lashes and eight months house arrest for fornication with a 29 year-old man. The man was sentenced under common law to 10 years in prison.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MP Hassan Adil sex abuse case continues in High Court

The High Court appeal concerning the sexual abuse case of Jumhoree Party (JP) MP Hassan Adil has begun today, reports Haveeru.

Today’s session was held behind closed doors, the paper reported, which is constitutionally allowed for in order to protect the family involved.

Adil was acquitted in March of this year after the judge said the state had failed to present sufficient evidence as per the requirement of Article 47 of the Use of Special Procedures in Dealing with Child Abusers Act.

Police originally arrested Adil on 4th April 2011 with a court warrant.

On June 12 2011 the court granted the Prosecutor General (PG)’s permission to hold Adil in house arrest until the trial reached a conclusion.

If the court finds Adil guilty, he will face imprisonment for a period of between 10 to 14 years and would lose his seat in parliament.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)