high court – Page 2 – Minivan News

High Court says Nasheed can still appeal

Former president Mohamed Nasheed can still appeal a 13-year terrorism conviction at the High Court despite the end of the 10-day appeal period, the court says.

However, Nasheed’s lawyers say they believe they have no legal route through which to launch an appeal, and the ex-leader’s only hope for release is a clemency procedure initiated by the president.

The legal team says Nasheed is seeking a political solution involving President Abdulla Yameen, saying he has no faith in the judicial system to treat his case fairly.

Nasheed’s conviction last month was met with outrage from the opposition, which has been holding daily protests, while his trial was heavily criticised by several international bodies.

Late appeals

High Court judges are authorized to accept a late appeal if a “reasonable justification” is given, court media official Ameen Faisal said.

These include the lower court’s failure to provide detailed reports into court proceedings on time, as had happened in Nasheed’s case.

However, a lawyer on Nasheed’s team says there is no legal avenue to file an appeal, because the Supreme Court has removed the High Court’s discretionary power to accept late appeals.

This change was made in the same January ruling that shortened a 90-day appeal period to 10 days, shortly before Nasheed’s trial.

Only President Abdulla Yameen can now resolve the impasse, Nasheed’s lawyer Ibrahim Riffath said. The president can reduce Nasheed’s sentence through special powers granted in the Clemency Act.

In January, the Supreme Court voided Article 42 of the Judicature Act which set out appeal deadlines and gave judges discretionary powers in accepting late appeals.

The 90–180 day appeal period obstructed justice, the Supreme Court said. A new 10-day appeal period was set out, but the apex court was silent on procedures for late appeals.

Riffath said the High Court must now seek the Supreme Court’s instruction before accepting an appeal.

Political solution?

In any case, Nasheed’s team on March 19 announced that the former president desired a political solution and would not seek an appeal, stating he had no faith in the judiciary.

His lawyers believe such an appeal would inevitably fail, because they do not believe the High Court judges to be independent.

Six of the nine High Court judges are to be relocated to two new High Court branches with reduced powers in the north and south. The government-controlled judicial watchdog has not yet decided which judges will be relocated, and the threat of this demotion has silenced the judges, Nasheed’s lawyers believe.

President’s spokesperson Ibrahim Muaz Ali last week suggested President Yameen could consider granting a pardon if Nasheed asked for it, saying the office had not received a letter yet.

But Riffath said the normal clemency procedures do not apply in Nasheed’s case, as the president cannot pardon offences relating to terrorism. However, the president on his own initiative could reduce sentences or postpone them indefinitely under special procedures listed in Article 29 of the Clemency Act.

Article 29 states that the president can reduce sentences depending on the age, health or special circumstances of the convict.

Yameen has so far insisted that the court process is independent from his government and that he is not personally involved.

Daily protests are ongoing across the Maldives, and opposition leaders last Thursday reiterated calls for President Yameen to initiate talks.

The government last week stripped Nasheed of membership of the main opposition Maldivian Democratic Party, by using its parliamentary majority to pass a law banning prisoners from political party membership.

Separately, the ruling PPM has also submitted an amendment to the law on privileges for former presidents stripping any president who resigned – as Nasheed did, although he said it was under duress – from army protection and financial privileges.

Nasheed was convicted in a trial condemned by the UN, Amnesty International and the EU, US and UK over lack of due process. Amnesty called the trial a travesty of justice, while the UN said it made a mockery of the constitution and international treaties.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Nasheed to wait on appeal until Criminal Court provides full case report

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has decided to wait on appealing a 13-year jail term until the Criminal Court provides both a full transcript of court proceedings and sufficient time to prepare, despite a looming appeal deadline of Thursday (March 26).

The Criminal Court has so far only provided a judgment summary, and not a full case report as requested by lawyers.

The court today blamed the delay in issuing the full report on Nasheed and his lawyers’ alleged refusal to sign statements they had made during court hearings.

Another unnamed individual had also failed to sign off their statements, the Criminal Court said, adding that it could not release full proceedings without the required signatures.

“We hereby publicly announce that if there is a delay in releasing the detailed case report, it is not because this court has failed in its duty, but because Mohamed Nasheed and his lawyers have not cooperated with the court,” the court said in a statement.

But Nasheed’s lawyers said the former president had refused to sign the statements only because they contained serious errors, which they say the Criminal Court has so far refused to correct.

“For example, the statement of witness testimony from the Chief of Defence Force contains statements he did not make in court. Further, the Criminal Court omitted President Nasheed’s request for medical attention at the first hearing on February 23,” lawyer Hisaan Hussein told Minivan News.

She also noted the statements were not a transcript of all that was said at court, but a summary, which had resulted in omissions and paraphrasing of the actual comments.

In a statement issued today, Nasheed’s lawyers said the Criminal Court has been “repeatedly obstructing President Nasheed’s constitutional right to appeal and imposing administrative restrictions by failing to provide the court report to date.”

“The full case report would include the testimonies of prosecutor’s witness which was recounted by the Judge wrongly, submissions made regarding documentary evidence, closing statement submitted by the prosecution, detailed findings of the judges with reference to the evidences and conflicting rulings made on many aspects of procedural law which was contended during the trial.

“Additionally, since the first and last three hearings were conducted in the absence of legal representation, the arguments and submissions made by the prosecution regarding witness testimonies, documentary evidence and closing statement will be known only after we receive the full case report,” lawyers said.

A High Court appeal could be filed solely based on the judgment summary, but Nasheed’s lawyers said they would then only have the opportunity to argue within the parameters raised in the initial submission.

As issues contended in subsequent hearings would only be considered at the discretion of judges, it is imperative that Nasheed receives the case report to prepare his appeal, lawyers said.

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor claimed the Criminal Court is “using every procedural trick in the book to deny President Nasheed’s right to appeal.”

“The Criminal Court conducted a disgraceful and blatantly politicized trial, and now they are busy trying to hamper the appeal,” he added.

Nasheed was convicted of terrorism on March 13 over the January 2012 military detention of Judge Abdulla in a trial many international and domestic observers called a “travesty of justice.”

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein and the UN Special Rapporteur on Independence of Lawyers and Judges Gabriela Knaul last week urged the Maldives to guarantee that Nasheed’s appeal would respect the most stringent fair trial standards and observe due process, including adequate time for preparation.

The surprise trial began one day after Nasheed was arrested on February 22, and was completed after 11 hearings in 19 days.

“It is hard to see how such hasty proceedings, which are far from the norm in the Maldives, can be compatible with the authorities’ obligations under international law to conduct a fair trial,” Zeid said.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Government invites international experts to observe Nasheed’s appeal hearings

The government has invited experts from the United Nations Secretary General, the Commonwealth, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the European Union (EU) to observe the appeal hearings of former President Mohamed Nasheed.

Nasheed was found guilty of terrorism and sentenced to 13 years in prison on March 13 over the military’s detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

“On behalf of the Government the invitation was extended by the Minister of Foreign Affairs H.E. Dunya Maumoon,” read a press statement from the foreign ministry.

“President Mohamed Nasheed was sentenced on 13 March by Criminal Court of Maldives for abducting a sitting judge in 2012.”

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Hundreds urge Criminal Court to release Nasheed’s court proceedings

Hundreds of opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) supporters today urged Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed to release a transcript of court proceedings necessary for the appeal of former President Mohamed Nasheed’s 13-year jail sentence.

In a letter to Judge Abdulla, over a hundred signatories noted the ten-day appeal period would expire on Monday, March 23, and urged the court to release court proceedings without further delay.

The High Court subsequently informed Nasheed’s lawyers that the appeal period would expire on March 26 (Thursday).

Nasheed was convicted of terrorism on March 13 over the January 2012 military detention of Judge Abdulla in a trial many international and domestic observers called a “travesty of justice.”

Speaking to Minivan News today, Nasheed’s lawyer, Hassan Latheef, said the Criminal Court had only provided a summary of the judgment, and said the full court proceedings were necessary for a strong appeal.

Latheef said the High Court’s decision to discount weekends in the new appeal period demonstrated the judiciary’s extraordinary treatment of Nasheed’s case.

The Supreme Court in January issued new regulations reducing the maximum period of appeal from 90 days to ten days. On March 5, in an announcement online, the Supreme Court said the ten day appeal did not include weekends or the day the verdict was issued.

The MDP has previously accused the Criminal Court of deliberately thwarting Nasheed’s attempts to launch an appeal. Meanwhile, the legal team in a statement last week noted the Criminal Court contravened the Supreme Court’s appeal regulations by providing the judgment summary a week late.

Speaking to Minivan News today, MDP MP Eva Abdulla said the possibility of the judiciary providing Nasheed adequate time to prepare an appeal seemed “unlikely, to say the least.”

Eva, MDP MP Ahmed Falah and Independent MP Ahmed Mahloof led the group delivering the letters to the Criminal Court. The crowd set out from the MDP offices towards the Criminal Court at noon, but were blocked at the President’s Office and the Supreme Court.

MP Falah rubs wrists after being handcuffed

Police detained Falah in a scuffle near the President’s Office. He was handcuffed and taken to the Police HQ, but was immediately released.

When the group reached the Criminal Court, they were pushed behind barricades in a narrow alleyway and police escorted each letter bearer separately into the Justice Building.

After submitting his letter, 27-year-old Shammoon Jaleel said he did not believe justice was possible in the Maldives at present and he had also put a suggestion into a suggestion box at the Criminal Court asking the judiciary to “tear down the justice building and build a park there.”

Shimla Adam, 45, pointed out Nasheed’s legal team did not have enough time to review court proceedings and lodge an appeal even if the Criminal Court provided the report today.

“I do not think President Nasheed will get any justice. I have no hope of things getting better in this country,” she said.

President Abdulla Yameen has previously called on all parties to respect the Criminal Court’s verdict, stating Nasheed had “a constitutionally guaranteed right of appeal” to challenge his conviction on terrorism charges at the High Court.

UN rights experts Knaul and Zeid have called on the Maldives to allow international observers including jurists to attend Nasheed’s appeal hearings.

This article was amended to include a statement by the Supreme Court which said the appeal deadline does not include weekends or the day a verdict is issued.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

High Court dismisses Nasheed’s arrest warrant appeal

The High Court today dismissed former President Mohamed Nasheed’s appeal challenging the legality of the Criminal Court’s February 22 arrest warrant, after the opposition leader asked for an open hearing.

The High Court denied Nasheed’s request, claiming neither members of the public nor journalists were allowed to observe appeal hearings.

The appellate court dismissed the case after the former president reportedly refused to enter the courtroom.

Hisaan Hussain from Nasheed’s legal team told reporters that the High Court had decided in a circular to hold closed hearings for appeals concerning arrest warrants.

She argued that the decision was in violation of Article 42 of the Constitution and Article 71 of the Judicature Act as circulars did not have the force of either laws or regulations that derived its authority from an act of parliament.

Nasheed’s lawyer, Hassan Latheef, told Minivan News that the legal team has decided to appeal the High Court’s decision at the Supreme Court.

Article 42 of the Constitution states that “trials of any matter shall be held publicly” while the presiding judge could exclude the public in the interest of public morals, order and national security, or where juveniles or the victim of the crime requires, and in cases where public interest would prejudice justice.

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) subsequently released a statement contending that the High Court did not have the legal authority to bar members of the public and journalists from observing hearings.

“By carrying out court proceedings in a manner that prevents constitutional rights and protection, the High Court is losing public trust, with the appeal process losing its meaning,” the MDP said.

Following the Criminal Court convicting Nasheed on terrorism charges on Friday night (March 13), Latheef said the legal team has requested the court report in order to appeal the 13-year prison sentence at the High Court within ten days.

A Supreme Court circular in January shortened the maximum appeal period from 90 days to ten days, claiming it would ensure the right to appeal in a timely manner.

“The Criminal Court informed us that the report will be provided in seven to 14 days,” said Latheef, noting that it would leave the defence team two days to prepare for the appeal hearing.

“Every aspect of this trial is very different from normal procedures followed by the courts,” he said.

President’s Office Spokesperson Ibrahim Muaz said yesterday that the government would ensure Nasheed’s right to appeal.

“I believe the Criminal Court would have afforded due process in the conduct of Nasheed’s trial. If you study this case, from the beginning to the end, it is clear the charges are not politically motivated,” Muaz insisted.

“We have a system of separation of powers. In a democracy, the head of state does not interfere in judicial proceedings and is not to blame for court proceedings,” Muaz said.

Nasheed was brought from the Dhoonidhoo detention centre to Malé around 1:30pm.

Hundreds of protesters were gathered near the High Court building, demanding the former president’s immediate release.

Police informed Minivan News that four individuals were arrested from the protest for allegedly obstructing police duties and for trying to harm police officers. Minivan News journalists observed police officers using pepper spray indiscriminately while making the arrests.

Throughout the Criminal Court trial, Nasheed maintained that he had been deprived of basic constitutional rights, including the right to legal counsel, right to appeal, and the right to be provided adequate time to prepare a defence. Judges also refused to hear defence witnesses claiming they did not appear to negate the prosecution’s case.

Delivering the guilty verdict Friday night, Judge Abdulla Didi said the prosecution’s evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that Nasheed as commander-in-chief ordered the arrest or “forceful abduction” of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

The former president was arrested on February 22 after Prosecutor General Muhthaz Muhsin personally sought an arrest warrant from the Criminal Court ahead of the surprise terrorism trial.

Related to this story

Former President Nasheed found guilty of terrorism, sentenced to 13 years in prison

Government will ensure Nasheed’s right to appeal conviction, says spokesperson

Respect Criminal Court verdict, says President Yameen

“This is not a court of law. This is injustice,” Nasheed tells the Criminal Court

MDP to launch national civil disobedience campaign to free Nasheed

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

High Court throws out Nazim’s search warrant appeal

The High Court today declined to rule on an appeal lodged by former Defense Minister Mohamed Nazim requesting the appellate court overturn a Criminal Court issued search warrant.

The police used the warrant to raid Nazim’s apartment in the early hours of January 18, and announced they had discovered a pistol and bullets in a bedside drawer.

Nazim was subsequently accused of plotting to overthrow the government and plans to harm senior government officials. The police arrested him on February 10.

The High Court today said a ruling on the search warrant at this time might effect an ongoing criminal trial against Nazim over illegal weapons possession, but said Nazim’s legal team could appeal the warrant at the Criminal Court.

The former defense minister has claimed the weapons were planted in order to frame him.

At the first hearing of Nazim’s criminal trial yesterday, state prosecutors accused the former defense minister of conspiring with the Villa Group – owned by opposition Jumhooree Party leader Gasim Ibrahim – to harm senior state officials.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

High Court overturns stay order halting seizure of Villa properties

The High Court today overturned a Civil Court stay order halting the seizure of three islands and two lagoons belonging to the Villa Group, a company owned by Jumhooree Party (JP) Leader Gasim Ibrahim.

The Tourism Ministry on February 5 ordered the Villa group to return Thaa Atoll Elaa, Raa Atoll Maanenfushi, Gaafu Dhaal Atoll Gazeera, Kaafu Atoll Maadhihgaru lagoon, and Vaavehdhi lagoon.

The islands and lagoons had been granted as compensation for the nationalisation of several development projects, including Kadhdhoo airport.

In its February 11 stay order, the Civil Court said the ministry’s termination of the settlement agreement could cause irrevocable damages to the company, and noted the properties had been granted due to the government’s inability to bear the burden of a financial or monetary compensation.

However, the High Court ruled that the lower court had not considered protecting the state from potential damages from the stay order.

“The interests of the state protected from not issuing the stay order is larger than the interests of Villa Hotels and Resorts”, the High Court ruling said.

The Civil Court’s injunction also violated “judicial and legal principles”, the panel of three judges unanimously ruled.

The Tourism Ministry’s Senior Legal Officer Faseeh Zahir said the ministry had not yet made any moves following the High Court order as they are yet to receive confirmation from the Attorney General’s Office.

Gasim has previously contended the ministry is punishing him for his recent alliance with the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) against what they allege to be President Abdulla Yameen’s repeated violations of the constitution.

The JP’s opposition to key government legislation last year saw Gasim suffer setbacks to his businesses, as well as physical threats against his person – both of which the party blamed on Gasim’s former political allies.

Speaking at a joint rally of JP and Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) on February 5, Gasim stated that “the Maldivian people will not allow injustice.”

“Forget it, nobody can push us back, we will be in the service of the Maldivian people. We will defend the fundamental rights and freedoms of the constitution,” Gasim said.

“You can seize everything, take it. Take it. After all, things can only be taken from people who have them,” he said.

President Abdulla Yameen has denied Gasim’s business reversals were a result of political events, stating that all businesses were treated equally under the law.

Meanwhile, the Tourism Minister Ahmed Adeeb claimed the Villa Group owes the government US$100million as rent and fines for properties leased to the company.

Gasim has denied the claim and called for Adeeb’s resignation.

Related to this story

Civil Court orders halt to seizure of lands allocated to Gasim’s Villa company

Gasim defiant as opposition sign agreement to defend Constitution

MDP and JP reach agreement on defence of Constitution

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Nasheed denied right to appoint lawyer and appeal “arbitrary” arrest warrant, contend lawyers

Former President Mohamed Nasheed is being denied the constitutional right to appoint a lawyer as well as the right to appeal the Criminal Court’s “arbitrary” arrest warrant ahead of a surprise terrorism trial due to commence today, contends the opposition leader’s legal team.

At a press conference this afternoon, Nasheed’s legal team revealed that the Criminal Court informed the lawyers this morning that they had to register at the court two days in advance despite being unaware of the trial until the former president’s arrest less than 24 hours ago.

“How can we submit forms two days ahead for a trial we did not know would take place two days before? It is clear to any sane person, this is absolute nonsense,” said Hisaan Hussain.

Nasheed was arrested at 2:30pm from his residence Yagoothuge yesterday (February 22). The warrant issued by the Criminal Court stated that Nasheed was being arrested on suspicion that he may abscond from trial.

Prosecutor General (PG) Muhthaz Muhsin filed terrorism charges against the former president yesterday over the military’s controversial detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

The court first informed Nasheed’s lawyers – Hisaan Hussain, Hassan Latheef and Ibrahim Riffath – that they could not advocate at the Criminal Court as neither were officially registered.

Hassan Latheef noted that the Criminal Court’s registrar also refused to meet the lawyers before 1:30pm.

Two other lawyers from the five-member legal team – Abdulla Shaairu and Ahmed Abdulla Afeef, prominent criminal defence lawyers who are both registered at the Criminal Court – were then told that they must register again to represent Nasheed.

However, the court subsequently informed the pair that according to court regulations they must submit registration forms two days in advance to be authorised to represent Nasheed at today’s trial.

“We only found out charges had been filed by the Prosecutor General yesterday. There is no way we could have submitted forms ahead of that two day period,” said Shaairu.

“The constitution clearly affords all citizens the right to legal counsel, from the moment they are first accused to the moment the suspicion is resolved. Here, we are speaking of a man who is a former president, a man who has the majority support of the public. If he is not treated justly, what hope is there for the ordinary man?”

Right to appeal

Under new regulations enacted by the Supreme Court this month outlining the appeal process, Nasheed’s lawyers explained that appeal forms must be sent through the trial court to the appellate court.

In order to appeal the arrest warrant, the lawyers explained, the appeal must be filed at the Criminal Court, which would then forward the case to the High Court within a seven day period.

However, the Criminal Court informed Nasheed’s lawyers this morning that the new appeal forms had not been provided to the court.

Hisaan noted that the Criminal Court was unlikely to expedite the process of appealing its own rulings, “especially in cases of unlawful arrest.”

The new regulations deny citizens the constitutional right to appeal court decisions, she asserted.

Ahmed Abdulla Afeef meanwhile suggested that the Criminal Court could use the sample form provided by the Supreme Court and copy the trial court’s letterhead, adding that the legal team was ready with all the paperwork to submit the appeal as soon as possible.

“Arbitrary”

Nasheed’s lawyers also expressed concern over “several irregularities” in the warrant signed by Judge Abdul Bari Yoosuf at 12:30pm yesterday, noting the absence of key information such as place and time period of detention.

Despite the Criminal Court scheduling the first hearing of the terrorism trial for 4:00pm today, the warrant does not state that Nasheed must be brought to trial today.

Moreover, under normal procedure, police request arrest warrants to detain a suspect in an investigation.

However, in Nasheed’s case, PG Muhsin personally went to the Criminal Court yesterday and obtained the warrant, the lawyers revealed.

“We have always noted the state in prosecuting President Nasheed, has previously acted unlawfully. In this instance, we see the Prosecutor General so clearly and publicly flouting the law for political motives. We call on the PG to show independence and to act within the constitution,” said Hisaan.

The legal team also revealed that the Criminal Court has issued a new warrant ordering police to present Nasheed at for the terrorism trial due to begin at 4:00pm.

The lawyers noted the lack of continuity between the warrants, arguing that Nasheed must be released immediately if yesterday’s warrant is now outdated.

“I think police themselves are not clear what to do next. There is no time period in the warrant, so should he be brought before court in 24 hours? But that is done when an individual is arrested in an ongoing investigation, if there is no court order,” explained Hisaan.

“And if there is a court warrant, then the time period in the warrant expires. This case, however, is not an ongoing investigation.
It is not clear to anyone what they are trying to do. All we know is that there’s been serious and several violations of the constitutions, law and norms in issuing this warrant and in arresting the former president.”

“Abscond from trial”

Nasheed was arrested on the grounds that he had attempted to abscond trial during proceedings at the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court last year. A police intelligence report was also submitted as evidence to obtain the arrest warrant.

But the lawyers insist Nasheed cannot be held in detention because he “had never absconded from court, nor have taken the opportunity to flee or go into hiding, during numerous opportunities he had in the past few weeks to travel abroad, and that he had expressly informed the judiciary and Prosecutor General that he does not have any intention to abscond from Court or avoid charges being brought against him.”

PG Office Spokesperson Adam Arif told Minivan News that Nasheed’s arrest warrant was different from those issued in instances where an individual refuses to appear at court.

Nasheed had not previously been informed he would be prosecuted on terrorism charges.

Meanwhile, the PG office insisted in a statement yesterday that there was no legal “obstacle” to raising charges against former President Nasheed as a court had not ruled that the case submitted to the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court on September 1, 2012 could not be heard.

After withdrawing the case for further review on February 15, the Prosecutor General decided “the best way [forward] in this case is to change the charges raised against Mohamed Nasheed and the court in which it was filed”.

The PG pressed terrorism charges against the former president under authority granted by the constitution, the Prosecutor General’s Act, and High Court rulings, the statement added.

“Therefore, as the case against Mohamed Nasheed is in the court process, we note that it is not desirable for politicians, some members of the public, political parties, and some media to talk in a way that both creates anxiety among the public about verdicts issued by courts and causes loss of confidence in independent institutions created by the constitution,” reads the PG’s statement.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Nazim remains in custody as High Court rejects appeal

The High Court has upheld the Criminal Court’s decision to hold former Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim in remand custody for 15 days.

Nazim was arrested on February 10 on charges of treason and terrorism after police discovered a pistol and bullets during a midnight raid at the then-defence minister’s apartment on January 18.

Following the Criminal Court’s extension of his remand detention, Nazim’s legal team appealed the decision at the High Court.

“The High Court ruled that the decision by the Criminal Court to remand Nazim in custody is justified,” Maumoon Hameed, head of the legal team, told the press after today’s hearing.

“From Nazim’s side we are now working to appeal the decision in the Supreme Court next week.”

Nazim’s defense team argued in the appeal court that there was no substantial evidence to keep the retired colonel in pre-trial detention in accordance with the constitution, contending that the Criminal Court’s arrest warrant violated precedents set by both the High Court and Supreme Court.

The lawyers also argued that the Maldives Police Services has made inconsistent statements, noting that the police had claimed that the investigation was still ongoing after previously declaring that it had been concluded.

“Framed”

Supporters of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and Jumhooree Party (JP) alliance demonstrated outside the court as the hearing proceeded.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed and JP Leader Gasim Ibrahim have repeatedly called for Nazim’s immediate release from custody, accusing the government of “framing” the former minister.

Nazim is accused of plotting a coup and planning to harm senior government officials.

Nazim’s defense team has since submitted a complaint to the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) and filed a defamation case against Police Commissioner Hussain Waheed in the Civil Court.

While police claimed to have found an improvised explosive device (IED) at Nazim’s apartment, the former minister’s lawyers have dismissed the allegations, insisting that police also planted the pistol and bullets.

Two days after the 3:00am raid on his residence, Nazim declared that “no citizen has security” under President Abdulla Yameen’s rule. Since his arrest and dismissal from the cabinet, Nazim has also left the ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM).

Nazim faces a jail term between ten and 15 years if he is found guilty of terrorism.

Meanwhile, the allied opposition parties have accused the PPM government of authoritarianism, harassing political rivals and repeatedly violating the constitution by unlawfully dismissing the Auditor General and two Supreme Court judges.

On February 11, the MDP and JP launched nightly protests “in defence of the constitution” as the judiciary moved to resume a trial against former President Nasheed.

The MDP and JP have also condemned the government’s alleged economic sanctions against JP Leader Gasim Ibrahim after the tourism ministry annulled lease agreements of three uninhibited islands and three lagoons.

The properties were reportedly given to Gasim’s Villa Group under a settlement agreement when Kaadehdhoo Airport and some uninhibited islands were taken from the company and nationalised.

However, the PPM maintains the opposition has failed to demonstrate how the government had breached the constitution and were only attempting to disrupt public order.

“This party believes these protests are aimed at obstructing President Yameen’s administration’s successful work at establishing peace and security. [The opposition] is disrupting the economic, social and political order in the country,” the PPM said in a press statement today.

Related to this story

Former Defence Minister Nazim remanded for 15 days

Police deny framing Nazim as former Commissioner alleges politicisation

No forensic evidence against Nazim, says legal team

Police raid Defence Minister Nazim’s home in early hours

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)