Tag: high court

Cabinet to discuss request to rename Thinadhoo next week

The cabinet will discuss a request by the council of Thinadhoo in Gaaf Dhaal Atoll to rename the island ‘Havaru Thinadhoo’ at its meeting next week, Press Secretary Mohamed Zuhair confirmed today.

Zuhair said that legal advice has been sought following the request and that the cabinet will make a decision at its next meeting on Tuesday, August 3.

Speaking to Minivan News today, Thinadhoo Council Chair Ahmed Naseer said that the council sent a letter requesting the name change to President Mohamed Nasheed because “a lot of citizens asked it of us.”

“For hundreds of years the island was called Havaru Thinadhoo,” he explained. “And when the name was changed by former President Maumoon [Abdul Gayoom] in 1979, no reason was given for that decision and it was not requested by the people of Thinadhoo, either.”

Contrary to popular belief, said Naseer, Thinadhoo did not earn the title ‘Havaru’ for its its part in the short-lived secession of three southern atolls and subsequent depopulation by Prime Minister Ibrahim Nasir on February 4, 1962.

The term ‘Havaru’ originally referred to the six divisions or companies of the public of Male’, which functioned as militia or army units. The word has since earned the connotation of ‘mob.’

In the late 16th century, Sultan Mohamed Thakurufaanu sent the six militias or the ‘Havaru’ to recapture Thinadhoo upon learning that the islanders had re-converted to Buddhism.

Following their victory, the island was endowed to the six companies, which continued to exact an annual tax from islanders until the practice was abolished by Ibrahim Nasir when he became Prime Minister.

Thinadhoo MP Mohamed Gasam of the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) meanwhile suggested that the “best way to decide the name change” would be through a public referendum.

“Some people in Thinadhoo want the name to be changed but others want it to stay the same,” he said. “There is some disagreement about this. We should find out what the people want.”

Councillor Naseer said that he had “no problem” with a referendum, but suggested that an election would be a costly affair.

“I think that even if there is an election [the name change proposition] is very likely to get passed,” said Naseer, who is also a member of the ruling party.

In the local council elections in February, the MDP made a clean sweep of the seven-seat Thinadhoo council.

Ibrahim Nasir International Airport

Thinadhoo Council Chair Naseer however insisted that the council’s request had “no connection whatsoever” to the announcement last week that the Male’ International Airport would be renamed ‘Ibrahim Nasir International Airport’ on Independence Day (July 26) in honour of the former President.

“We had been thinking about sending the letter [requesting the name change] for some time now, long before that announcement” he said, adding that the timing of the council’s letter was a “coincidence.”

MP Gasam meanwhile suggested that the council might have made the request last week as Independence Day would be an auspicious date for the change.

Naseer stressed that the letter to President Nasheed only sought legal advice as well as his opinion: “We would have no problem if the cabinet decided that changing the name would not be the right thing to do,” he said.

Asked about the renaming of the airport due to take place tomorrow, Naseer speculated that “no one who is from Thinadhoo” would support the change as the former President had ordered the “brutal destruction of the island” in 1962.

Meanwhile as the country prepares to celebrate its 46th Independence Day tomorrow – secured by Nasir on July 26, 1965 – local media reports that the former President’s eldest son, Ahmed Nasir, filed a case at the Supreme Court yesterday, appealing a High Court ruling in 1986 to confiscate the property and estates of his father.

The High Court at the time found that Nasir had misappropriated state funds and decided that his property and estates could be sold by the state to recoup the allegedly stolen money.

After resigning in 1978, Nasir moved to Singapore, where he passed away on November 22, 2008, just weeks after his successor Maumoon Abdul Gayoom was ousted in the country’s first multi-party election.

Nasir’s lawyer, “Gnaviyani” Ali Shareef Ibrahim, told Sun Online yesterday that neither the judicial system under Gayoom nor the prevailing political environment 25 years ago made such an appeal possible.

Under the old constitution, which did not feature separation of powers or independent institutions, the President was both head of state and supreme authority on justice, with the power to overrule verdicts and dismiss judges.

The Supreme Court of the Maldives was established in September 2008 following ratification of the new constitution on August 7, 2008.

Shareef explained that Nasir was sentenced in absentia while angry mobs, including school children, were protesting on the streets.

The Nasir family lawyer also alleged in comments made to newspaper Haveeru today that the new administration of Maumoon Abdul Gayoom began selling Nasir’s property before the High Court verdict on January 30, 1986.

“[Proceeds of the sales] were deposited at Nasir’s SBI [State Bank of India] account, which was frozen by the government,” he said. “When the verdict was delivered, they took all the money out.”

Shareef revealed that the appeal was lodged at the Supreme Court in May as regulations gave the highest court of appeal the discretion to hear such cases in spite of the length of time between the original verdict and the appeal.

The elderly lawyer claimed that the previous administration vilified Nasir by “spreading lies to make him out to be an enemy of the country, a mercenary, a corrupt person.”

“The state media was constantly mocking President Nasir and showing all sorts of cartoons of him,” he said. “[Nasir] did not return at the time because he feared for his life.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court orders stay of Thulhaadhoo by-election

The High Court yesterday ordered a stay of the by-election announced by the Elections Commission (EC) for August 20 to replace dismissed Councillor Umaira Abubakur.

The appeal court ordered EC to postpone the by-election until the court ruled on the legality of her dismissal, which was contested by the opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) on behalf of its councillor.

Umaira was dismissed for failing to attend ten consecutive council meetings while she was attending a training workshop for newly-elected councillors.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Opposition expects government will transfer state media assets in spite of High Court ruling

Opposition MPs remain confident that the government will eventually hand over key assets of the Maldives National Broadcasting Corporation’s (MNBC) TV and radio operations, despite a High Court decision yesterday to suspend an existing lower court ruling requesting such a transfer.

Back in May, the Civil Court appeared to have ended a year-long tug of war between opposition MPs and the government over state media by ordering the MNBC to transfer assets and staff from its radio and tv operatons to the parliament-established Maldives Broadcasting Corporation (MBC).

Despite Yesterday’s High Court ruling to withhold the Civil Court’s earlier verdict on transferring Television Maldives (TVM) and Voice of Maldives (VOM) to MBC, Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Dr Abdulla Mausoom believed the government would in the long-run have to hand over the broadcast assets.

“The government has to follow the rule of law on this issue,” he said. “I think ultimately the government will have to hand over the [MNBC assets] as has been required under the [Majlis] legislation.”

The High Court had now ruled in favour of the government over the dispute, announcing that any transfer of assets from the MNBC would be withheld until it ordered otherwise.

According to Mausoom, the High Court’s decision was presently being seen as a temporary ruling, claiming the judiciary had already had the final say on the fate of TVM and VOM after the lower court ruled that the MNBC was legally obligated to hand over the assets.

However, online local news service Sun has reported that upon passing the High Court judgement, Chief Judge Ahmed Shareef claimed he had acted on “legal” and “equitable considerations” in withholding the Civil Court decision, a decision he claimed was made on the basis of reasons provided by the MNBC.

The case had been ongoing for over a year and become an increasing contentious issue following an initial government decision to transfer the assets and staff from Television Maldives (TVM) and Voice of Maldives (VOM) to the 100 percent government-owned corporate entity MNBC.  TVM is now broadcast as the MNBC One channel.

By April 2010, the opposition-majority parliament had taken action to create MBC and passed an order for the government to transfer MNBC’s assets and staff to this body.

MNBC has been labelled pro-government by critics, while proponents argue that as most other mass media is owned by senior opposition political figures and favours the opposition, the government had no alternative voice. In being formed by parliament, the MBC has a board appointed by the Majlis, to which it is also answerable. The government has claimed this structure serves only to ensure political influence in the running of the state broadcaster and refused to comply with the legislation on these grounds.

Opposition figures and high profile political activists such as Umar Naseer, a dismissed Deputy Leader of the DRP, have held protests requesting the “freedom” of state media from what they allege is government control and influence.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court orders rearrest of businessman charged with drug trafficking

The Supreme Court has ordered the rearrest of Abdulatheef Mohamed, a businessman who was last year charged with drug trafficking after police discovered more than one kilogram of illegal narcotics inside his car, but was found innocent by the Criminal Court last week due to lack of evidence.

The Prosecutor General has appealed at the High Court claiming that the Criminal Court’s verdict was unfair.

Delivering the verdict last week, the Criminal Court said the Prosecutor General had been unable to prove that Abdulatheef and another businessman, Hassan Ali, were guilty of drug trafficking, due to lack of evidence and witnesses presented to the court.

The court also claimed that no evidence was presented to the court suggesting that the illegal narcotics were imported with the knowledge of both Hassan and Abdulatheef. The Criminal Court then ruled that there was no reason to suspect that Abdulatheef and Hassan had an intention to traffic drugs, and freed the pair.

In May, the Criminal Court summoned and ordered the release of Abdulatheef a day after the High Court invalidated a letter sent by the Criminal Court to the police instructing them to release him to house arrest.

The Criminal Court first asked police to keep Abdulatheef, of Gnaviyani Atoll Fuvamulah, in detention as determined by the Home Ministry, until his trial reached a conclusion. However the Criminal Court later sent a letter to the police changing the court’s first decision and asking police to move him to house arrest.

The police then appealed at the High Court seeking for the letter to be invalidated. The High Court judges determined that the order in the letter was not consistent with the applicable laws concerning detention, and overruled it.

The Prosecutor General at the time appealed at the High Court challenging the Criminal Court’s ordering the release of Abdulatheef.

However, the High Court bench ruled that the order of release was lawful and that judges had the authority to order the release of suspects.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Prosecutor General requests police investigate ‘Reeko’ Moosa comments

Police have confirmed receiving a request by the Prosecutor General’s (PG) Office to investigate the nature of comments allegedly made by Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Parliamentary Group Leader and MP ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik.

Police Sub-Inspector Ahmed Shiyam confirmed that law enforcement officials had been asked to investigate unspecified comments made by Moosa reportedly regarding the country’s judiciary and its decision making. Shiyam added that media would be updated on the exact details of the investigation at a later date, while Moosa was himself unavailable for comment by Minivan News at the time of going to press.

Just last month, the Maldives High Court issued a statement condemning comments attributed to the MDP Parliamentary Group Leader over its decision to order the release of former chief prison warden ‘Isthafa’ Ibrahim Mohamed Manik following his arrest in a torture inquiry.

The High Court accused Moosa of falsely stating that the court had ruled that Manik was innocent, in an attempt to mislead the public.  The court hit back claiming it had only ruled on a case claiming that a court warrant to extend Manik’s detention issued by Maafushi Court in Kaafu Atoll, Maafushi, was unlawful.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Criminal Court again orders release of high profile drug case suspect, despite High Court overruling decision

The Criminal Court has last night summoned and ordered the release of a suspect in a high profile drug case, a day after the High Court invalidated a letter sent by the Criminal Court to the police asking to release him under house arrest.

The Criminal Court first asked  police to keep Abdul Latheef, of Gnaviyani Atoll Fuvamulah, in detention as determined by the Home Ministry, until his trial reached a conclusion. However the Criminal Court later sent a letter to the police changing the court’s first decision and asking police to switch Latheef’s detention to house arrest.

The police then appealed at the High Court to invalidate the letter. The High Court judges determined that the order in the letter was not consistent with the applicable laws concerning detention, and overruled it last Tuesday.

Latheef was arrested last year in December, as he was about to drive off in his car after loading some vegetables into the trunk.

Police officers attended the area, stopped his car and unpacked the loaded items in his presence and discovered 1083.4246 grams of illegal narcotics containing the substance Tetrahydrocannabinol (found in cannabis).

Police Sub-Inspector Ahmed Shiyam said Latheef was presented to the court prior to the custodial deadline upon a request by the Criminal Court.

‘’We have not noticed anything unusual about it,’’ he said. ‘’The court just requested police to summon him and we did, then the court ordered his release and so we released him.’’

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Moosa misleading public over court’s ruling on Isthafa’s arrest, alleges High Court

The High Court has issued a statement regarding condemning comments made by Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Parliamentary Group Leader and MP ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik, concerning its decision to order the release of former chief prison warden ‘Isthafa’ Ibrahim Mohamed Manik following his arrest in a torture inquiry.

The High Court accused Moosa of falsely stating that the court had ruled that Manik was innocent, in an attempt to mislead the public.

High Court said it had only ruled on a case filed in the court claiming that the court warrant issued by Maafushi Court, in Kaafu Atoll Maafushi, to extend Manik’s detention was unlawful.

‘’He was released by the court as there was no witness or evidence presented to the court that the court could weight in favor of keeping him in detention, and the court finds that the warrant issued by Maafushi court was against the Supreme Court’s procedures followed in such situations,” said the High Court.

The High Court also stated that the court wanted to make it clear to the public that the trial was not conducted to determine whether Manik was guilty of a crime or not, and asked for the public to respect its rulings.

Moosa made his remarks during a special rally held last night, where former opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Abdulla Abdu-Raheem signed with the MDP.

Speaking at the rally, Moosa said the day that MDP won a majority in parliament would be a day “that members of the independent commission members and judiciary should bear in mind.”

The High Court bench, consisting five judges, was appointed by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) in March this year.

The five judges included the lawyer of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, Abbas Shareef, former Juvenile Court Chief Judge Shuaib Hussein Zakariya, former Law Commission member Dr Azmiralda Zahir, Former Civil Court registrar Abdu Rauf Ibrahim, and Former Civil Court Chief Judge Ali Sameer.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court upholds Civil Court’s ruling in favor of CSC regarding salary issue

The High Court has today ruled that Finance Ministry does not have the legal authority to overturn the salaries and allowances of civil servants against the will of the Civil Service Commission (CSC).

In April last year the Civil Court ruled in favor of the Civil Service Commission in a case against the Ministry of Finance regarding civil servants’ salary cuts. The CSC successfully contended that the Finance Ministry did not have the legal authority to make amendments to civil servant salaries.

Delivering the verdict at the time, Civil Court Judge Aisha Shujoon said that the Finance Ministry was not authorised to order offices to prepare salary sheets according to its revised (lower) salaries, and also ruled that the Ministry could not issue an order narrowing the powers of the commission to decide the civil servants’ salaries under articles 6, 18(a) and 43 of the Civil Service Act.

The salaries of the Civil Servants were reduced in October 2009 for three months, after an agreement between the Finance Ministry and CSC, part of austerity measures favoured by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

After the three months duration was over, the Finance Ministry extended the duration for another three months without the consent of the CSC.

In January 2010, the CSC ordered permanent secretaries to submit the sheets with salaries at the levels prior to the government’s reductions in October, while the Finance Ministry threatened legal action against any civil servants who filled in salary sheets according to the restored amount.

Civil servants held protests in Male’ over the salary reduction, with the support of the opposition, after the government refused to restore the salaries to pre-cut levels citing the poor economic condition of the country.

The situation became especially heated that Feburary after the Finance Ministry filed a case against the CSC with police, alleging the commission was attempting to “to sow discord between the government and public”, and “bring the government to a halt.”

The Finance Ministry further claimed that certain members of the CSC were using the issue as a cover to attain “a hidden political agenda.”

“The CSC is making it difficult for the government to implement the necessary economic policies [and are therefore] indirectly trying to damage the economy,” the Ministry said in a statement, at the time.

“[The CSC’s actions] will result in an increased budget deficit, make it difficult to maintain the value of the rufiyaa against the dollar and will damage the Maldivian economy, affecting each and every citizen of this country.”

After the matter descended into the court system, the government appear to accept that it was unlikely to shake the CSC’s hold on the salary issue, as demanded by the IMF, and instead embarked on an ambitious program of corporatisation whereby entire departments were transformed into 100 percent government-owned corporate entities, outside the jurisdiction of the CSC.

More recently, cabinet launched a program to encourage civil servants to leave the government and enter the private sector or further their education, a move welcomed by the CSC.

Under the scheme, civil servants and government employees were eligible for one of four retirement incentive packages: no assistance, a one time payment of Rf 150,000 (US$11,700), a payment of Rf 150,000 and priority in the small and medium enterprises loan scheme (for those 18-50 years of age), or a lump sum of Rf 200,000 (US$15,600) and priority in government training and scholarship programmes (for those 18-40 years of age).

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Senior judges accuse Supreme Court of violating due process in High Court appointments dispute

Two senior judges have accused the Supreme Court of violating due process and rules of procedure by unfairly dismissing a case challenging the legitimacy of the Judicial Service Commission’s (JSC) selection and appointment of judges to the High Court.

Five judges were sworn in to the High Court bench by the JSC last night after the Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a case filed by Criminal Court Judge Abdul Bari Yoosuf at the Civil Court claiming to show procedural and legal issues in the JSC vetting process. Bari’s case was later entered into by Family Court Chief Judge Hassan Saeed as a third party.

On January 20 – three days before the judges were due to be sworn in – the Civil Court issued a temporary staying order halting the appointments by the JSC pending a final ruling.

The Supreme Court however transferred the case from the lower court a day later and conducted two hearings before dismissing it without issuing a verdict on Thursday (March 24) after neither Bari nor Saeed reportedly appeared at court.

The Supreme Court had announced on January 21 that it was taking over the case as it involved “a matter of public interest”.

Judge Bari, who was himself among the candidates for the High Court, however insists that section 23 of the Supreme Court regulations – which requires claimants to inform the court prior to leaving the country or face dismissal of their case – does not apply to him as he had filed the case at the Civil Court.

The Criminal Court judge claims that he had also informed the senior registrar of the Supreme Court of his departure on a personal trip. In an apparent violation of standard procedure, chits were reportedly sent out to the involved parties two hours before Thursday’s hearing began.

Moreover, under section 75(c) of the Supreme Court regulations, the court must give a maximum period of seven days for the claimant to file the case again. However, the JSC – chaired by Supreme Court Justice Adam Mohamed Abdulla – decided to hold the swearing-in ceremony on Saturday night, effectively preempting Bari from filing the case again.

In a letter sent to President Mohamed Nasheed today, Chief Judge Hassan Saaed writes that “that the case was dismissed in violation of legal principles and procedures came as a shock to the judiciary.”

Saeed added that as a result of the incident, “the growing confidence that I and ordinary citizens had in the judiciary is lost,” urging the President to “stop this process continuing unlawfully.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)