Tag: high court

Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court re-accepts ex-President Nasheed’s prosecution case

Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court has decided to re-accept the prosecution case of former President Mohamed Nasheed, who has himself called for any trial against him to be expedited.

Nasheed along with former Defence Minister Tholath Ibrahim kaleyfaan and three Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) officers are being charged for their alleged role in detaining Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Abdulla Mohamed, who was a central figure in the downfall of former President Nasheed, was brought under military detention after Nasheed’s government accused him of political bias, obstructing police, stalling cases, having links with organized crime and “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist” to protect key figures of the former dictatorship from human rights and corruption cases.

The three MNDF officers facing charges are former Chief of Defense Forces Moosa Ali Jaleel, Brigadier-Retired General Ibrahim Mohamed Didi and Colonel Mohamed Ziyad.

General Didi, who was serving as the Male’ area commander at the time of Judge Abdulla’s arrest, penned his“premature” resignation” after 32 years of service in the military upon the PG’s decision to prosecute him.

Ex-Chief of Defence Force Jaleel had also retired following the controversial transfer of power on February 7, while Colonel Ziyad has maintained he would be present in his uniform to defend himself in the court.

Initially the magistrate court refused to proceed with the trial stating that it did not have the jurisdiction to deal with such cases under the Judicature Act.

Magistrate of the court, Moosa Naseem at the time told Minivan News that they had “studied” the case and had identified that the court “did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the case” referring to article 66 of Judicature Act.

According to article 66(b) of the act, Naseem contended that the Hulhumale’-based court could only accept the case after the Chief Justice issued a decree in agreement with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and the Judicial Council.

Article 66(b) of the Judicature Act states that: “in accordance with section (a) of this article, if additions or omission to the jurisdictions stipulated in schedule 5 of this Act has to be carried out, the modification has to be done in agreement with the Judicial Service Commission and the Judicial Council and by a decree issued by the Chief Justice.”

The Magistrate court’s decision to overturn its initial refusal follows the High Court’s invalidation of its decision, following appeals from the authorities.

In invalidating the magistrate court ruling, the High Court stated the case was based on the “unlawful detention” of a person, adding that magistrate courts in the country had the jurisdiction to proceed with such cases.

The ruling also said that as the incident occurred in Male’ area, the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court again had the jurisdiction to proceed with the case.

An official from the Prosecutor General’s Office told Minivan News today that the case was submitted yesterday afternoon along with that of the other MNDF officers.

The Judicial Administration department today announced that the hearings of the case will be conducted in the Justice Building, located in Male’.

An official from the department told local media that the decision was made after considering the fact that holding the trials in the Justice Building would ease the administrative process and that the facilities available would also be an advantage.

“The trials will proceed at the hall in the ground floor of the building,” he added.

The letter

Following High Court’s decision, ex-President Nasheed stated in a press conference held last Friday that he had sent a letter requesting the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court to expedite the case.

Initially, the magistrate court denied the receipt of Nasheed’s letter but later in a press statement acknowledged the reception of the letter and stated that steps were being taken to commence the trial as soon as possible.

Nasheed maintained that he is willing to be present at court to defend his decision to arrest the Judge, reiterating that if he should return to power again, he would still do the same, alleging that Judge Abdulla was central to the flawed criminal justice system of the country.

In April, Nasheed told the UK’s Guardian that he did not like arresting a judge, but he “just couldn’t let him [Abdulla Mohamed] sit on the bench.”

“There is a huge lack of confidence in the judiciary, and I had to do something and the constitution calls upon me to do that. It’s not a nice thing to do. And it’s not a thing that I would want to do. And it’s not a thing that I liked doing. But it had to be done,” he added.

Nasheed, who is also now the presidential candidate of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), stands charged with violating Article 81 of the Penal Code, which states that the detention of a government employee who has not been found guilty of a crime is illegal.

If found guilty, Nasheed and Tholhath will face a jail sentence or banishment for three years or a Rf 3000 fine (US$193.5), a sentence that would bar him from contesting the elections.

The opposition MDP has claimed that the case is politically motivated by Nasheed’s opponents in an attempt to bar him from running for future elections.

Home Minister Mohamed Jameel in a post on social media service Twitter has said the “historic criminal trial” is the “first step towards the national healing process.”

Meanwhile, the MDP claimed it expects the trial – whether in Hulhumale’ or another court – to go ahead regardless of legality.  The party has alleged the case serves solely as a mean to convict the former president and potentially prevent him from contesting in the next presidential election.

MDP Spokesperson MP Imthiyaz Fahmy did not respond to calls at time of press.

The Arrest

The chief judge was detained by the military, after he had opened the court to order the immediate release of the current Home Minister and deputy leader of the Dhivehi Quamee Party Mohamed Jameel Ahmed.

Jameel was arrested after President’s Office requested an investigation into “slanderous” allegations he made that the government was working under the influence of “Jews and Christian priests” to weaken Islam in the Maldives.

The judge’s whereabouts were not revealed until January 18.

As Judge Abdulla continued to be held, Prosecutor General (PG) Ahmed Muizz later joined the High Court and Supreme Court in condemning the MNDF’s role in the arrest, requesting that the judge be released.

The police are required to go through the Prosecutor General’s (PG) Office to obtain an arrest warrant from the High Court, Muizz said, claiming the MNDF and Nasheed’s administration “haven’t followed the procedures, and the authorities are in breach of law.They could be charged with contempt of the courts.”

He then ordered the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) to investigate the matter.

Judge Abdulla’s arrest sparked three weeks of anti-government protests, beginning in January, while the government appealed for assistance from the Commonwealth and UN to reform the judiciary.

As protests escalated, elements of the police and military mutinied on February 7, alleging Nasheed’s orders to arrest the judge were unlawful. A Commonwealth legal delegation had landed in the capital only days earlier.

Nasheed publicly resigned the same day, but later said he was forced to do so “under duress” in a coup d’état. Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has taken to the streets in recent months calling for an early election.

Judge Abdulla was released on the evening of February 7, and the Criminal Court swiftly issued a warrant for Nasheed’s arrest. Police did not act on the warrant, after international concern quickly mounted.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court invalidates Hulhumale’ court’s rejection of case against former president

The High Court has invalidated the decision of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court to rule it did not have the jurisdiction to proceed with lawsuits pressing charges against former President Mohamed Nasheed and certain defence figures serving under him.

The Prosecutor General (PG) initially submitted the cases against the Former President, former Defence Minister Tholhath Ibrahim and three Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) officers for their alleged role in the “unlawful detention” of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

The High Court ruling stated the case was based on the “unlawful detention” of a person, adding that magistrate courts have the jurisdiction to proceed with such cases.

The ruling also said that as the incident occurred in Male’ area, the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court again had the jurisdiction to proceed with the case.

On July 18, the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court rejected a case filed by the Prosecutor General’s (PG’s) office against former President Nasheed and former Defence Minister Tholhath Ibrahim as well as three other senior military officers over the arrest of the judge.

Hulhumale’ Court Magistrate Moosa Naseem told Minivan News at the time that the case was sent back to the PG’s Office after the court decided that it did not have the jurisdiction to deal with such cases.

“We studied the case and we found that we do not have the jurisdiction to deal with the case according to article 66 of the Judicature Act,” Naseem explained.

According to the Judicature Act, Naseem said, the Hulhumale’-based court can only accept the case after the Chief Justice issues a decree in agreement with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and the Judicial Council as stated in the article 66(b) of the Act.

Article 66(b) of the Judicature Act states that: “in accordance with section (a) of this article, if additions or omission to the jurisdictions stipulated in schedule 5 of this Act has to be carried out, the modification has to be done in agreement with the Judicial Service Commission and the Judicial Council and by a decree issued by the Chief Justice.”

On January 16, Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed was detained by the military, after he had opened the court to order the immediate release of former Justice Minister, current Home Minister and deputy leader of the Dhivehi Quamee Party (DQP), Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed.

In late 2011, Judge Abdulla was himself under investigation by the JSC, the country’s judicial watchdog, for allegedly politically biased comments made to private broadcaster DhiTV. The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) was due to release a report into Judge Abdulla’s ethical misconduct, however the judge approached the Civil Court and successfully filed an injunction against his further investigation by the judicial watchdog.

The Nasheed administration accused the judge of political bias, obstructing police, stalling cases and links with organised crime, describing him as “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist” to protect key figures of the former dictatorship from human rights violations and corruption cases.

Judge Abdulla’s arrest sparked three weeks of anti-government protests in January, leading the Nasheed administration to appeal for international assistance from the Commonwealth and UN to reform the judiciary.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

PG appeals Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court decision not to proceed with case against Nasheed

The High Court yesterday concluded hearings of an appeal by the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) against a decision by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court not to proceed with a case against former President Mohamed Nasheed over the military’s detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

On July 18, the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court rejected a case filed by the PGO against former President Nasheed and former Defence Minister Tholhath Ibrahim as well as senior military officers over the arrest of the judge.

Hulhumale’ Court Magistrate Moosa Naseem told Minivan News at the time that the case was sent back to the PGO after the court decided that it did not have the jurisdiction to deal with such cases.

“We studied the case and we found that we do not have the jurisdiction to deal with the case according to article 66 of the Judicature Act,” Naseem explained.

According to the Judicature Act, Naseem said, the Hulhumale’-based court can only accept the case after the Chief Justice issues a decree in agreement with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and the Judicial Council as stated in the article 66(b) of the Act.

Article 66(b) of the Judicature Act states that: “in accordance with section (a) of this article, if additions or omission to the jurisdictions stipulated in schedule 5 of this Act has to be carried out, the modification has to be done in agreement with the Judicial Service Commission and the Judicial Council and by a decree issued by the Chief Justice.”

According to local media reports, Assistant Public Prosecutor Abdulla Rabiu argued at the High Court yesterday that the magistrate court had jurisdiction to hear any cases involving criminal offences in the court’s judicial district.

The PGO lawyer requested that the High Court overturn the magistrate court’s decision and rule that the court has the jurisdiction to hear the case.

He noted that the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court had accepted a separate case involving threats made against Judge Abdulla Mohamed based on advice from the Supreme Court.

Adjourning yesterday’s hearing, High Court Judge Yousuf Hussain said that a verdict would be issued at the next trial date if there were no further issues to clear up after reviewing the appeal.

On January 16, Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed was detained by the military, after he had opened the court to order the immediate release of former Justice Minister, current Home Minister and deputy leader of the Dhivehi Quamee Party (DQP), Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed.

In late 2011, Judge Abdulla was himself under investigation by the JSC, the country’s judicial watchdog, for allegedly politically biased comments made to private broadcaster DhiTV. The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) was due to release a report into Judge Abdulla’s ethical misconduct, however the judge approached the Civil Court and successfully filed an injunction against his further investigation by the judicial watchdog.

The Nasheed administration accused the judge of political bias, obstructing police, stalling cases, links with organised crime and “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist” to protect key figures of the former dictatorship from human rights violations and corruption cases.

Judge Abdulla’s arrest sparked three weeks of anti-government protests in January, leading the Nasheed administration to appeal for international assistance from the Commonwealth and UN to reform the judiciary.

Back in February, a spokesperson for Catherine Ashton, the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs,  said the bloc remained committed to discussing judicial reform with the Waheed administration on the back of concerns raised by former President Nasheed about the nation’s judges.

“Shortly before the events of February 6 to February 7, we were asked for assistance [with judicial reform], as were the UN and Commonwealth. We were ready to look into this matter and hope to discuss the matter further with the Maldivian authorities,” added the spokesperson for High Representative Ashton at the time.

“Judicial interference”

During his inaugural address back in March, President Waheed claimed he would look to avoid “judicial interference”.

President’s Office Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza at the time said the government hoped to “strengthen” independent institutions like the parliament and the courts.

Riza claimed that the executive branch under former President Mohamed Nasheed was often involving itself in parliamentary and judicial affairs that were supposed to function independently as separate bodies under the constitution.

“We want to empower institutions, not interfere with the decisions they are taking,” the spokesperson said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court upholds acquittal of police officer accused of assaulting Hussain Solah

The High Court has upheld a Criminal Court verdict acquitting a police officer of charges over assaulting an inmate in 2007, who was later found dead floating in Male’ harbour.

Corporal Ahmed Shah (Haa Dhaal Vaikaradhoo, Prim Rose) was accused of assaulting inmate Hussein Solah (Seenu Hithadhoo, Naazukeege) on April 12, 2007, three days before Solah was found in the harbour near the Atolhuvehi Detention Centre in Male’.

Shah was prosecuted on request of the Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM), which obtained witness statements from three detainees who claimed Corporal Shah assaulted Solah in custody.

A seven-month investigation by the HRCM found that there was “not enough evidence to say for certain that Solah was [ever] released from custody.”

Police denied any wrongdoing and claimed Solah was released on April 13, informing HRCM that the inmate was suicidal and exhibited symptoms of heroin withdrawal.

In November 2009, more than a year after charges were pressed against the police corporal, the Criminal Court ruled that Shah was not guilty on the grounds that the witness statements were not sufficient evidence for a conviction.

The court noted that as Corporal Shah was in charge of the jail at the time, the witnesses were likely to be prejudiced against the senior officer.

Following the verdict, Head of the HRCM Legal Department Mohamed Shafaz Wajeeh told Minivan News that the court had a set a precedent of not considering witness statements from detainees without corroborating evidence.

Shafaz said he believed the case represented progress as it had been the first time such charges were pressed against a serving police officer.

The state however appealed the Criminal Court verdict at the High Court, which ruled (Dhivehi) yesterday that the verdict could not be overturned as the prosecution was unable to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

History

Hussain SolahHussein Solah, 27, was arrested on drug related charges in Hithadhoo on April 9, 2007 and brought to Male’. Police claimed he was released on April 13, but he did not contact family or friends, and was found dead in the harbour outside the detention centre on the morning of April 15.

In January 2008, the HRCM requested criminal charges be filed against Corporal Shah, based on its findings and three witness statements.

In June 2009, the HRCM expressed concern that the case remained stalled at court as no hearings had been held for a year at the time.

Deputy Prosecutor General Hussain Shameem told Minivan News in June 2009 that a total of three hearings were conducted by the Criminal Court since March 2008.

At the last hearing on October 21, 2008, said Shameem, the issue of transferring proceedings to a court house near the Hathifushi low risk jail for a witness who was serving a sentence there was discussed.

HRCM Media Official Jeehan Mahmood, currently a member of the commission, told Minivan News at the time that the HRCM considered the case a custodial death.

A police media official meanwhile confirmed that Corporal Shah was serving in the police force and had not been suspended.

Under normal procedure, he said, a police officer who had a complaint filed against him or was involved in an ongoing court case would be suspended.

“But this is the Human Rights Commission’s allegations and it’s based on witness statements from three prisoners,” he said. “They don’t have any other evidence besides that.”

Waiting for justice

The discovery of Hussain Solah’s body sparked protests in the capital and Addu by the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

Former President Mohamed Nasheed, then-chairperson of MDP, was beaten and arrested by police near the Aasaharaa cemetery  in Male’ on April 15, 2007, the day Solah’s body was found in the harbour.

Solah’s family meanwhile rejected the findings of a postmortem conducted in Sri Lanka, which showed that the cause of death was drowning.

On April 28, Solah’s body was buried in the Aasaharaa cemetery without the consent of the family.

Speaking to Minivan News in June 2009, Hassan Zareer and Waheeda Ahmed, Solah’s parents, said they were still waiting for justice for their son’s “murder”.

Zareer said police called on the night of April 13, 2007 and said his son was going to be released.

“When the HRC checked the cell they found his bag, his clothes and a chit that he had with him,” Zareer said.

Zareer said he was convinced that his son was killed by police.

“I was surprised because it was a holiday and the court usually doesn’t finish cases that soon,” he said.

Police asked him where Solah should be sent to in Male’ and he told them to send him back to Addu.

Zareer found out his son was dead when he saw the news on TV on April 15, he said.

He added he did not accept the explanation from police or the post-mortem conducted in Sri Lanka.

Further, he referred to security cameras outside the detention centre, which police could have used to prove that Solah was released.

“We just want to know who is responsible,” said Zareer. “We don’t want money or anything like that.”

The family was planning to submit a petition to parliament requesting an inquiry into the death.

“I think about it all the time. It is in my heart every day,” said his mother.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

State failing to prove ‘Usfasgandu’ lease terms violated: Mayor ‘Maizan’ Ali Manik

Male’ City Council (MCC) Mayor ‘Maizan’ Ali  Manik has maintained the state has failed to provide clear examples of any laws or regulations violated in the leasing of the ‘Usfasgandu’ protest area to the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

Manik told Minivan News that the state’s allegations, presently the basis for a Civil Court case against the MDP-majority MCC, were politically motivated and had failed to take into account the site was being used by the wider public regardless of politics.

“We have not broken any rules or regulations on this matter,” he said. “Even if somebody takes this area away, people will instead take to the streets to have their voice heard.”

The mayor’s comments were made following the latest hearing on Tuesday (August 14) of a Civil-Court cased filed by the state against the MCC to hand over the ‘Usfasgandu’ area.  The case concerns allegations that the municipal authority had acted illegally in leasing the protest site.

Local media reported that the state had responded in the Civil Court by claiming the city council was in violation of both articles five and six of the agreement to lease the land – charges documents submitted along with the case were said to prove.

The state also alleged that the MMC was deliberately attempting to delay the ongoing case by claiming the charges “were not clear”, according to newspaper Haveeru.

Addressing the case, Mayor Manik claimed that no specifics had been given by the state as to where the council had violated its agreement in providing the land.

The case was reportedly adjourned Tuesday in order to provide the state time to respond to the MCC’s allegations. Manik claimed that a date for the next hearing of the case had not yet been set.

Minister of Housing Dr Mohamed Muiz was not responding to inquiries from Minivan News today regarding the case.  President’s Office Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza and Media Secretary Masood Imad were also not responding to calls at the time of press.

Legal wrangling

The case is the latest development in ongoing legal wrangling between the MCC and the Ministry of Housing over the Usfasgandfu site.

Earlier this month, the Civil Court ruled that the Maldives Police Service does not have legal authority to order the MDP to vacate its ‘Usfasgandu’ protest camp on May 29.

The court noted the same day that the a wider dispute between the MCC and Housing ministry over guardianship of the Usfasgandu area could only be settled once the Civil Court reached a verdict on the case being heard this week, which was filed by the ministry requesting the MCC be ordered to hand over the plot.

On May 29, police raided Usfasgandu with a search warrant from the Criminal Court and ordered the MDP to vacate the area before 10pm, after which the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) began dismantling the protest camp.

The Civil Court however issued an injunction ordering the security forces to halt the dismantling after the MDP challenged the legality of the operation. The injunction was to stand until the court reached a verdict and was later upheld by the High Court.

Police had obtained a warrant to search Usfasgandu on the grounds that the MDP was using the area as a hub for criminal activity and black magic.

MDP lawyers however argued at court that the warrant did not provide a legal basis to dismantle the demonstration area.

Following the dismantling of the MDP’s protest camp at the tsunami memorial area on March 19, the Male’ City Council (MCC) leased the Usfasgandu area to the former ruling party for three months, prompting repeated attempts by the government to reclaim the area.

The MCC – which has nine MDP councillors and two government-aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) councillors – however refused to hand over the area to the Housing Ministry despite a cabinet decision authorising the Housing Ministry to reclaim the plot.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court orders reinstatement of Police Chief Inspector Risheef Thoha

The High Court has overruled a decision made by the Civil Court regarding a suit filed against Police Chief Inspector Risheef Thoha, after he was dismissed by the Police Disciplinary Board over allegations that he raped a woman in a police car.

The court ordered that Chief Inspector Thoha be reinstated.

In August last year, a woman filed a case at police headquarters alleging she was sexually abused by a group of police officers, including the chief inspector.

In December 2010 Thoha appealed the decision of the Disciplinary Board at the Civil Court, which ruled that the Board’s decision was lawful and that there was enough evidence to dismiss Thoha from police duty.

The Civil Court noted at the time that Thoha’s call records showed he had contacted the other accused officers several times, and that the officers had also contacted him.

When the locations of the phones were determined, they showed that the car had travelled the routes the woman had said, the Civil Court’s ruling stated.

The ruling also said that the girl was thrown out of the car naked near Thoha ‘s house, Mainz in Maafannu, and that Thoha had admitted to being in the area a few minutes later.

However the High Court today ruled that Thoha be reinstated at the position of Chief Inspector of Police, and paid the salary he had not received during the time he was dismissed.

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

Former ‘Mr Maldives’ Police Constable Husham Hameed was also dismissed after being accused of the same crime, but in April last year the Civil Court ruled that his position also be reinstated.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

PG appeals MP Adil’s sex abuse case at the High Court

The Prosecutor General’s Office (PG) has appealed MP Hassan Adil’s sexual abuse case at the High Court, after the Criminal Court ruled that the state had failed to present sufficient evidence as per the requirement of Article 47 of the use of Child Sex Abuse (Special Provision)’s Act.

PG officials confirmed to local media that Adil’s case had been submitted to the High Court and the High Court had accepted it.

Police arrested Adil on 4th April 2011 with a court warrant, and on the next day extended his detention period for 15 days. He was later transferred to house arrest.

On June 12 last year 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 would face imprisonment for a period of between 10 to 14 years and would lose his seat in parliament.

Under article 73(c)(3) of the constitution, MPs found guilty of a criminal offence “and sentenced to a term of more than twelve months” would be stripped of their seat.

Police at the time alleged that Adil had sexually abused a 13 year-old girl belonging to a family with whom he was close friends. The family of the victim had raised concerns over the delays in filing the case in court by the Prosecutor General.

MP Hassan Adil was originally elected to the parliament under the ticket of Dr Hassan Saeed’s Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP), however he switched allegiance and defected to then ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

Following the change of power on February 7, he left the MDP and joined the pro-government Jumhoree Party (JP).

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

State appeals Hulhumale’ Court’s decision to reject Nasheed case

The Prosecutor General’s Office (PG) has appealed in the High Court a decision by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court that it did not have jurisdiction to proceed a case presented to the court against former President Mohamed Nasheed, and former Defense Minister Tholhath Ibrahim and three senior officers of the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF).

The case was submitted by the PG accusing Nasheed, Tholhath and the MNDF officers of violating article 81 of the Penal Code by detaining Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, Abdulla Mohamed, and “unlawfully arresting a person who hasn’t committed a crime”.

The Nasheed administration had accused the judge of political bias, obstructing police, stalling cases, links with organised crime and “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist” to protect key figures of the former dictatorship from human rights violations and corruption cases.

Elements of the police and military subsequently mutinied on February 7, alleging that Nasheed’s orders to arrest the judge were unlawful.

Nasheed publicly resigned the same day, but later said he was forced to do so “under duress” in a coup d’état. Judge Abdulla was released on the evening of February 7, and the Criminal Court swiftly issued a warrant for Nasheed’s arrest. Police did not act on the warrant, after international concern quickly mounted.

As well as Nasheed, the Prosecutor General has also pressed the same charges against former Chief of Defense Forces Moosa Ali Jaleel, Brigadier General Ibrahim Mohamed Didi and Colonel Mohamed Ziyad for their role in detaining the judge.

The Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court rejected cases forwarded by the Prosecutor General on July 18 after studying the case and learning that the case was beyond the jurisdictions of the magistrate courts. The PG had forwarded the case to Hulhumale’ because of concerns over a conflict of interest that would exist if it was sent to the criminal court.

‘’We studied the case and we found that we do not have the jurisdiction to deal with the case according to article 66 of the Judicature Act,’’ Hulhumale’ Court Chief Magistrate Moosa Naseem told Minivan News at the time.

Naseem said that the Hulhumale’-based court can only accept the case after the Chief Justice issues a decree in agreement with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and the Judicial Council as stated in the article 66[b] of the Judicature Act.

Article 66[b] of the Judicature Act states that “In accordance with Section (a) of this Article, if additions or omission to the jurisdictions stipulated in schedule 5 of this Act has to be carried out, the modification has to be done in agreement with the Judicial Service Commission and the Judicial Council and by a decree issued by the Chief Justice.’’

The Chief Judge was detained by the military, after he had opened the court outside normal hours to order the immediate release of former Justice Minister and current Home Minister and deputy leader of the Dhivehi Quamee Party (DQP), Dr Mohamed Jameel.

On July 25, Deputy Prosecutor General (PG) Hussein Shameem said that Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court does have the jurisdiction to hear the case of former President Mohamed Nasheed over his role in the detention of a Criminal Court Chief Judge.

Shameem contended that should the court maintain its decision against hearing the case, there were few other judicial alternatives in trying to ensure a “fair trial”.

The Civil Court meanwhile recently dismissed a decision by its own watchdog body, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), to take action against Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdullah Mohamed for violating the Judge’s Code of Conduct.

The Civil Court overruled the JSC stating that Judge Abdulla was not given an opportunity to respond to the allegations during the investigation.

According to the decision, providing a chance to submit any complaints after the investigation was completed could not be deemed as an opportunity for the judge to present his defence.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“No legal barrier” to implement Nexbis system: immigration controller

Controller of Immigration and Emigration Dr Mohamed Ali has said there is “no legal barrier” preventing the implementation of a border control system (BCS) developed by Malaysia-based security solutions firm Nexbis.

Dr Ali told Minivan News today Nexbis could continue with introduction of a new biometric BCS system after the Supreme Court in June invalidated a High Court injunction blocking work on the project in May.

The controller made his comments after Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed maintained calls in local media to halt the BCS installation, citing allegations of corruption involving the deal.

Dr Jameel claimed a letter requesting work on the project to cease in line with the recommendations of Attorney General Aishath Azima Shakoor and the country’s Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) had been sent to the immigration controller.

“The government is also of the same view pertaining to the continuation of the project. We urge the project be taken forward with the recommendations of the AG and the ACC. As far as I’m aware, it is the stand of the government,” he was quoted as saying by Haveeru.

President’s Office spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza was not responding to calls at the time of press regarding the comments attributed to Dr Jameel.

The legal dispute between the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) and Nexbis escalated last week after the High Court ordered police to investigate claims made to the ACC that Chief Judge of the High Court Ahmed Shareef met officials from the company in Bangkok.

The dispute concerns the deployment of a border control system, specifically the installation of an electronic border gate system in Male’s Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA), bringing technological upgrades such as facial recognition, fingerprint identification and e-gates to the Maldives.

The Rf500 million (US$39 million) deal had stalled after the ACC alleged corruption in the bidding process, leading to a ongoing series of high-profile court battles and delays that led the Malaysian firm to threaten legal action against the Maldivian government should it incur losses for the work already done on the project.

In May 2012, the project was brought to a standstill by a High Court injunction and a raid on immigration offices by ACC staff. At the time the Rf10 million (US$650,000) first phase of the border control project had been completed, according to local media reports.

Speaking today, Immigration Controller Dr Ali claimed that, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision to overrule the injunction, Nexbis had continued its work to install the system from where it had previously been halted.

“In the absence of a legal order and unless I get a decision from the cabinet, there is nothing that I can do on this issue,” he said. “The government wanted a biometric system to stop the smuggling and trafficking of people.”

Dr Ali added that with the Maldives having already signed up to conventions pledging to try and more effectively combat Transnational Organised Crime like human trafficking, new systems were needed to help meet these aims.

“From our own experience, we have found people being trafficked back into the country even after they have previously been deported,” the controller claimed.  “A system like this should put a stop to that.”

Trafficking concerns

The Maldives last month featured in the US State Department’s Tier Two Watch List for Human Trafficking for the third year in a row.

Having “not demonstrated evidence of increasing efforts to address human trafficking over the previous year”, the country only narrowly avoided a descent to Tier 3 – the worst category – after presenting a written plan on its commitments, claimed a corresponding US State Department report.

According to the report, implementation of the government’s written plan, “would constitute making significant efforts to meet the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)