Tag: high court

Supreme Court ruling on Nexbis “doesn’t make sense”: Immigration controller

The case concerning the Nexbis border control system has grown increasingly complex this week after the Supreme Court deemed that the High Court bench which had ordered work on the project to be stopped had been unlawfully reconstituted, thereby nullifying its decision.

Reports in the local media say that the recently appointed Immigration Controller Mohamed Ali intends to seek his own legal guidance on the Supreme Court’s decision, claiming that he can make no sense of the decision.

“We don’t have a lawyer. I’m not a lawyer either. I can’t make any sense of it. Hence I’m trying to make sense of the Supreme Court’s order,” Ali told Haveeru.

The nullified decision relates to the High Court’s order to halt any further work being completed on the project whilst the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) appealed a ruling from the Civil Court that it could not order the termination of the project.

Local media have referred to the Supreme Court’s order as a ‘Mandamus’. Often termed a ‘writ of mandate’, this kind of order instructs a governmental body to perform an act required by law when it has neglected or refused to do so.

Meanwhile, Haveeru has reported that the ACC intends to investigate the relationship between Cheif Judge Ahmed Shareef and officials from the Nexbis company, after receiving a letter alleging a meeting in Bangkok.

Shareef was dismissed from the bench during aforementioned reconstitution deemed illegal by the Supreme Court.

The Immigration Controller told Haveeru that the project cannot move forward until legal experts have reviewed the latest decision by the Supreme Court.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

State appeals High Court ruling favouring Sultans of the Seas in US$8.5 million fraud case

The state has appealed a High Court judgment overruling a Civil Court verdict ordering luxury yachting company Sultans of the Seas to pay Rf110.2 million (US$7.1 million) in fines and unpaid duties.

In September 2009, Maldives Custom Service filed a case at the Civil Court to recover US$8.5 million in fines and unpaid customs duties from Sultans of the Seas – a company associated with the family of Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) Leader and Kendhoo MP Ahmed Thasmeen Ali – for allegedly defrauding customs to evade import duties for two luxury yachts.

At a press conference in June 2009, Director of Customs Abdul Rasheed Ibrahim revealed that Sultans evaded import duties for two Italian Azimut yachts, imported in December 2007 and March 2008.

“In the invoices, they said they purchased two used launches,” Rasheed explained, adding that an investigation by the customs internal audit discovered that Sultans had purchased two of Azimut’s latest models, which cost 12.3 million euros or Rf226 million (US$17.7 million).

However, the quoted price in the invoices and documents the company submitted to customs was Rf18 million (US$1.4 million).

While the Civil Court ruled in favour of customs in late 2009, the High Court overruled the verdict late last year.

According to local daily Haveeru, at the first Supreme Court hearing last Monday, State Attorney Ahmed Usham explained that the state decided to appeal the High Court ruling because the evidence was sufficient to establish fraud as documents submitted by Sultans claimed that the vessels were used when the two luxury speedboats were brand new.

The fraud was discovered when information was clarified through the Bank of Maldives Plc Ltd (BML), Usham added.

Sultan’s attorney Ibrahim Riza however argued that Sultans should not be held responsible for the actions of the former collector of customs and insisted that the Bank of Maldives documents did not clearly state that the vessels were new.

Adjourning the hearing, Justice Ali Hameed said a further hearing would only be held if the court wished to clarify certain matters after studying the appeal.

In May this year, former Principal Collector of Customs Ibrahim Shafiu, also ex-registrar of DRP until the 2008 presidential election, was charged with corruption for his role in the Sultans fraud case.

Shafiu had been living in Canada since former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s election defeat and returned to the Maldives following the controversial transfer of power in February.

Shafiu was charged with abuse of authority for allegedly helping change details of the yachts through his influence over the valuation committee to decrease duty payable for the vessels. The former DRP registrar pleaded not guilty to the charges.

BML loans

Gayoom and ThasmeenMeanwhile in October 2011, the High Court upheld Civil Court verdicts ordering Mahandhoo Investments and Kabalifaru Investments – two resort businesses with close ties to DRP Leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali and running mate of former President Gayoom in 2008 – to repay millions of dollars worth of loans to the Bank of Maldives.

DRP MP Mohamed Nashiz, brother of the DRP leader and managing director of Kabaalifaru, and DRP MP Ali Azim, a loan guarantor, were among the appellants at the High Court.

Both MPs had signed ‘joint and several guarantee and indemnity’ agreements for the loans issued in mid-2008.

In the first case involving Mahandhoo Investments, BML had issued a US$23.5 million demand loan, a US$103,200 bank guarantee and US$30,090 letter of credit on July 10, 2008.

The second case meanwhile involved a US$3.3 million loan issued to Kabaalifaru Investment and the appeal of a Civil Court verdict on September 30, 2009 ordering the company to settle the debt in the next 12 months.

Both verdict were however appealed at the High Court and remained stalled for almost two years before the rulings in October 2011.

Moreover, in December 2009, the Civil Court ordered Sultans of the Seas to pay over Rf654 million (US$50 million) in unpaid loans, fines and accumulated interest to the Bank of Maldives in the course of one year.

Ruling in favour of the bank, Judge Aisha Shujoon said the company was liable for loans of US$15.3 million, US$8.7 million and €12.5 million as well as US$500,000 in combined credit limit facilities as agreed upon in June 2008.

The judge ruled that records and documents presented to court proved that as of December 7, 2009, Sultans owes US$18 million on the first demand loan, US$10 million on the second and €14 million on the third.

In a BML audit report released in January 2009, Auditor General Ibrahim Naeem warned that defaults on bank loans issued to influential political players could jeopardise the entire financial system of the country.

Over 60 per cent of the US$633 million worth of loans issued in 2008 was granted to 12 parties, the report noted.

According to the report, US$45 million was issued to Sultans of the Seas and US$36 million to Fonnadhoo Tuna Products, two loans which comprised 13 per cent of the total loans issued in 2008.

The report noted that Fonaddhoo was owned by DRP Leader Thasmeen while the owners of Sultans of the Seas were closely associated with the former minority leader of parliament.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

PG’s Office to send Nazim fraud cases to the High Court

The Prosecutor General’s (PG) Office has appealed cases concerning the alleged involvement of Deputy Speaker Ahmed Nazim in defrauding the Atolls Development Ministry to the High Court, reports Haveeru.

The case, which was dismissed by the Criminal Court in February, involves a 2004 deal to purchase harbour lights worth Rf1.95 million (US$126,000) on behalf of the now defunct ministry.

The PG’s office has told Haveeru that it intends to appeal a further four cases previously brought against Nazim.

The judge at the time of the dismissals concluded that Nazim’s “acts were not enough to criminalise” him legally.

If Nazim had been found guilty, he would have been ordered to pay a total sum of Rf5,315,618 (US$345,170) paid by the state for the projects and sentenced to between one to six years imprisonment.

Under provision 131 of the penal code, an extra month will be added to the jail sentence for every additional Rf1,000 (US$65)  if the fraudulent transaction exceeds Rf100,000 (US$6,493) .

In an interview with local media outlet Sun following the rulings, Nazim claimed the four cases were baseless and had been leveled at him by former President Mohamed Nasheed’s administration, using false evidence.

“Today we are guaranteed of the existence of an independent and trustworthy judiciary. Former President Nasheed and the MDP will now believe we have an independent judiciary, because they know that the four cases were schemed with manufactured evidence. These are are absolutely untrue and baseless cases,” he said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Criminal Court releases former police intelligence chief

The Criminal Court has ordered the release of former head of police intelligence Chief Superintendent Mohamed Hameed from custody, just a few hours after the High Court upheld its decision to keep him detained.

The five-day detention warrant granted by the Criminal Court expired on Tuesday at 2:00pm, and Hameed was brought before the court by the police with a request for further extension.

However contrary to its first decision, the court sanctioned Hameed’s release by concluding that it “does not believe the detention should be extended any further.”

Police have accused the former intelligence chief for “threatening the internal security” or jeopardizing domestic harmony of the country following his contribution to the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s report (Dhivehi) into the controversial transfer of power on February 7.

As Hameed walked out of the court, he was greeted by former President Mohamed Nasheed who welcomed him and shook hands, while eager MDP supporters circling the area hailed Chief Superintendent Hameed as a “national hero”.

High Court’s “ridiculous” ruling

Following the Criminal Court’s previous decision to keep Hameed detained for five days, his family appealed the case in High court, contesting the legitimacy of Criminal Court’s decision to extend his detention.

On Tuesday morning the three judge panel presiding over the case – Judge Abdu Rauf, Judge Shuaib Hussain Zakariyya and Judge Abdul Ghanee – unanimously ruled that they “found no legal grounds” to declare the criminal court’s decision unlawful.

Hameed’s lawyer Ismail Visham argued in court that his client had been subjected to discrimination.

Visham told the court that there were police officers accused of more serious crimes who had not been detained, alleging that in one instance a senior police officer stood accused of attempting to rape a woman and in another incident, influence a judge in a case involving the police officer’s interest.

He further contended that the Criminal Court judge had extended Hameed’s detention period not based on what the police told the judge, but based on the judge’s own view, and that Hameed had therefore lost the right to respond to the accusations.

In response, the state attorney said that Hameed was accused not of a disciplinary matter but a criminal offence, and argued that the Criminal Court judge had declared Hameed a threat to society because police told the judge he might seek to “intimidate witnesses” and “destroy evidence”.

The High Court judges concluded that the defense had not provided enough evidence to substantiate discrimination claims.

The ruling also stated that the constitution does not prohibit the presiding judge from considering reasons in addition to what is provided by the police, in cases concerning the extension of a suspect’s detention.

Following the High Court decision, Hameed’s family today called the ruling “ridiculous” as his detention period was due to expire at 2:00pm today.

“The five day extension will come to an end at 2:00pm today and he will be brought to court again to either have his custody extended or be released. The timing of the High Court verdict on his appeal is ridiculous since his five days are up today anyway,” a family member said.

Witch-hunt against police whistleblowers

In a statement released today, police have said the investigation against Hameed is continuing.

Police allege the Chief Superintendent “distributed information obtained pertinent to his tenure as Head of the Intelligence Department, police matters and internal security, along with [providing] misleading information to certain individuals for reaping benefit out of it to cause divisions between police officers and the community.”

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) meanwhile held protests last weekend calling for Hameed’s immediate release, claiming that is arrest is “further evidence of the Maldives’ rapid descent into a police state” and that it is a “witch-hunt” against honest officers revealing the criminal offenses committed by rogue police officers on February 7.

“Brave men and women who wish to stand up for the rule of law, for democracy and for human rights are today subjected to constant threats and intimidation. This purge of police officers who the Government considers possible opponents demonstrates President Waheed’s growing paranoia and the fact that his coalition Government are determined to rule by fear,” MDP’s Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor said in a statement released last week.

“MDP calls on the EU, the US, the UN Human Rights Council and others to urgently enquire into the well-being of these police officers and to hold this illegal government accountable for their growing use of violence and intimidation for political means,” he added.

President’s spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza told Minivan News today that government has no plans of intervening in the case as it is a “police matter”.

“But if police find a case against him” Riza said, “the government will support the any decision to uphold the laws and constitution.”

He further added: “The Police Act governs conducts of police officers and treatment of information individual receive as officers. It is the policy of the government that no civil secret be released.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court verdict on Usfasgandu case to be issued Tuesday

The High Court today held hearings on the Usfasgandu dismantling case after the government appealed the matter, following a Civil Court injunction to halt the dismantling operation.

The government appealed to cancel the Civil Court order to stop dismantling of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) protest site, and to return all items confiscated from the area by security forces.

Attorney for the State Ahmed Usham contended that the Civil Court’s order was completely in favour of the MDP, and also contradicted normal procedures for issuing court orders. He further said the Civil Court had not granted sufficient time and opportunity for the State to respond to the court order.

In response, MDP lawyer Abdulla Afeef said the Civil Court gave the State ample time to respond considering the situation at the time.

A verdict on the case will be issued tomorrow, said High Court Judge Abdul Rauf.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court upholds sentencing of woman for being accomplice to son’s drugs business

The High Court of the Maldives has upheld a Criminal Court verdict to sentence Majidha Adam to 25 years imprisonment, after she was found guilty of being an accomplice to her son’s trade of illegal drugs.

The High Court ruling stated that she had given Rf 5000 (US$342) to her son to run his drug trade.

Majidha claimed in court that she had a mental illness, but the Criminal Court had not considered it in concluding the case, the High Court said.

According to the High Court the case was first lodged in the Criminal Court on 25 June 2007 and was concluded in November 2007.

On April 26, 2007, Majidha gave a statement to police stating that her son Ahmed Ihusan, studying at grade nine at the time, that she was aware that he was trading illegal drugs and that she provided funds for him to run the business on several occasions, the High Court’s ruling said.

The statement was however not signed by Majidha. Four senior police officers who investigated the case told the Criminal Court that the statement was as she gave it and no changes were brought to it, although she has declined that it was the same as the statement she wrote.

The High Court said Majidha has produced to the High Court a doctor’s statement that she had a mental illness, but that this was after the date the Criminal Court concluded the case. It dismissed the statement as the document was not produced to the Criminal Court at the time.

Majidha reportedly told the police that she was aware that Ihusan sold illegal drugs and that he kept it running by reinvesting the profits.

The High Court also ruled that the case was filed before the new constitution was ratified and so the courts had to follow the laws followed at the time.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil Court postpones MDP Raalhugandu trial until further notice from High Court

The Civil Court has decided to postpone the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s suit against police until further notice from the High Court, following the dismantling of the party’s protest campsite at ‘Raalhugandu’ on March 19.

The Civil Court’s decision followed a court order from High Court to postpone the trial until the Court had concluded a case lodged by the state challenging the legitimacy of MDP former President Dr Ibrahim Didi, according to local media outlets.

The State Attorney’s issue was that Dr Didi, who signed the form to file the case in the Civil Court, was elected as the president in accordance to an amended version of the MDP Charter which was not submitted to the Elections Commission (EC). That, the state contended, made the appointment illegitimate and Dr Didi ineligible to present the case to the court on behalf of MDP. As such, the state requested the trial be discontinued.

However, the Civil Court’s presiding judge decided that the laws did not state that the amended articles of the charter would be void if not presented to the Elections Commission, and decided to continue the trial.

The Attorney General (AG)’s Office then appealed the Civil Court’s decision to continue the trial. The High Court ordered the Civil Court to postpone the trial until it reached a conclusion.

A similar issue was raised by the State Attorney at the beginning of the trial of the case in which MDP Acting Chairperson and MP ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik signed the form to file the case in the Civil Court. The state at the time contended that Acting Chairpersons did not have the authority to file cases in court on behalf of MDP according to the MDP charter, and requested the court discontinue the trial.

The Civil Court then threw the case out of court. Then-President Dr Didi signed the form and resubmitted it to the Civil Court.

The MDP protest campsite at the ‘Raalhugandu’ area inside the Antenna Park, was granted to MDP by Male’ City Council, which  has a substantial MDP majority. The camp was dismantled by the police and military hours after President Dr Waheed Hassan Manik delivered his presidential address to parliament on March 19.

Many MDP supporters who had come to Male’ from the islands after the controversial transfer of power on February 7 had camped in the area.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court rules Deputy Solicitor General cannot represent state in ACC lawsuit

The High Court has ruled that Deputy Solicitor General Ahmed Usham cannot represent the Attorney General’s Office (AG) in a case forwarded by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) over the Nexbis border control contract.

In a hearing Monday, the High Court said Ahmed Usham, appointed by the AG’s Office to defend the state, was a member of the tender evaluation board that originally awarded Nexbis the contract . It ruled that Usham’s involvement in the process therefore represented a “conflict of interest”.

The High Court added that having Usham as a representative for the government would not be appropriate to continue the case, which was related to the tender evaluation process of the contract.

The court body said the decision was made was by the three presiding judges Dr Azmiraldha Zahir, Abdulla Hameed and Yousuf Hussain.

The case was first filed at the Civil Court after the previous government defied an ACC order to discontinue the Nexbis border control system project.  The ACC claimed that there might have been corruption involved in awarding the contract to Nexbis and asked parties to re-submit their bid for the contract.  Nexbis denies the allegations.

In a previous ruling, the Civil Court issued a declaration that there was no legal grounds for the Immigration Department to follow the ACC’s order to stop the border system.  The case has now been filed by the ACC at the country’s High Court.

Meanwhile, newspaper ‘Haveeru’ reported that a hearing was held yesterday where the state attorney told the High Court bench that the Home Ministry had asked the Immigration Department to stop the border control project.

The state attorney told the High Court bench that the Home Ministry had sent a secret letter to the Immigration Department.  The letter could not be given to the ACC, but was able to be shown to the presiding judges, reported Haveeru.

The paper also reported that lawyers for the ACC contended that the Immigration Department was still continuing with the Nexbis project.

Legal authority

The Civil Court in January 2012 ruled that the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) did not have the legal authority to order the Immigration Department to terminate the agreement.  Judge Ali Rasheed said at the time that while the ACC Act gave the commission the authority to investigate corruption cases, it was not able to annul contracts.

Judge Rasheed asserted that it was “unfair” to contractors if the ACC could annul an agreement without their input, as this violated their protections under Maldives Contract Law.

In December last year, the ACC forwarded a corruption case against former – and now reappointed – Immigration Controller Ilyas Hussain Ibrahim to the Prosecutor General’s Office (PG).  The case, which also implicates Saamee Ageel, Director General of the Finance Ministry at the time, alleged that the pair had abused their authority for “undue financial gain” in giving US$39 million to Nexbis as agreed under the deal.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

No reason to continue suit against Kulliyya over banning face veil in class, rules High Court

The High Court has ruled that there was no reason to continue a lawsuit filed against the Kulliyathul Dhirasathul Islamiyya school by a student who was instructed to remove her face veil in class, or be expelled.

Rector of Kulliyathul Dhirasathul Islamiyya,Dr Ibrahim Zakariyya Moosa, reportedly told Mehenaz Hussein last year that her face veil should be removed in class or face being expulsion if she refused to do so.

The High Court said the Attorney General (AG) had advised the court that the article banning the face veil in class had now been removed from the regulation and the student, identified by the court as Mehenaz Hussein, was now attending classes wearing the face veil.

After the article banning the face veil was removed Mehenaz was no longer banned from wearing the face veil in class, the High Court ruling said.

The High Court Judges Shuaib Hussein Zakariyya, Abdulla Hameed and Ali Sameer were the presiding judges.

The case was first presented to the Civil Court and the Civil Court also ruled that there was no capacity to continue the case as a suit related to the same case was filed in the High Court at the time.

Dr Zakariyya reportedly told the girl that studying was compulsory under Islam, and that if wearing the face veil obstructed her from studying, she should not wear it even if it was a Sunnah.

Mehenaz told an online religious newspaper at the time that Dr Zakariyya had told her that in different parts of the country terrorists had used the hijab to hide weapons, and that there was “no way to identify the sex of a person wearing the full hijab”.

Speaking in a hearing of the case in February, current Attorney General Aishath Azima Shukoor told the court that up to date Kulliyathul Dhirasathul Islamiyya did not have a specific uniform to wear and that she believed that students should be allowed to attend classes wearing face veil.

At the time, Azima also told the court that the regulations would be amended within a week to allow students to wear the face veil in class.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)