Tag: high court

Civil Court rejects Nasheed stay order on Hulhumalé Court bench changes

The Civil Court has decided “there are no grounds” to grant a stay order asking the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) to halt the process of reappointment of the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court.

The order was requested by former President and opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) leader Mohamed Nasheed, who is challenging the assembly of the bench tasked with trying him for the detention of judge Abdulla Mohamed while in office.

In the hearing held yesterday (February 15) at 4pm, the presiding judge stated that the stay order cannot be granted as the court has not found that the JSC is bringing changes to the Hulhumalé Court bench.

Meanwhile the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales (BHRC) has expressed concern over the “sudden resumption” of Nasheed’s trial, noting that the committee is closely monitoring the developments.

The BHRC said it had closely followed the case for almost two years. Previous observation of the case led the committee to describe the Hulhumalé court bench as “cherrypicked to convict”, prompting calls for “fundamental reform of the judiciary and its administration in the Maldives”.

In answering Nasheed’s stay order request, the JSC has previously denied that it is bringing any changes to the court, also claiming that it does not currently exist as the two out of three of the magistrates first appointed have now been promoted to superior courts.

Saturday’s trial saw the JSC raise a procedural issue, stating that while the commission has the authority and power to allocate and transfer judges, the Civil Court does not have the jurisdiction to deliberate on the legality of the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court bench as the bench was appointed on the Supreme Court’s advice.

The JSC lawyers also contended that the decision was not made by the Judicial Council as claimed by Nasheed’s lawyers, as the responsibilities and authority of the council have been taken over the Supreme Court.

Procedural issues

Nasheed’s lawyers asked whether the JSC is claiming that the Civil Court cannot deliberate on the matter because the commission interprets the Supreme Court’s advice on appointing the bench as a court ruling or because the JSC does not believe Civil Court has jurisdiction on the matter.

The JSC lawyers responded by stating that the “procedural issue is based on Supreme Court’s decision”.

In Nasheed’s challenge at the High Court regarding the legality of the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court bench, the JSC raised a similar jurisdictional issue, with the High Court deciding that it did not have jurisdiction to look into the matter, saying it could only deliberate on decisions taken by lower courts.

In reply, Hisaan Hussain from Nasheed’s legal team explained that Article 43 (C) of the Constitution afforded every citizen the right to appeal against any administrative decision and that “therefore we are appealing JSC’s administrative decision to convene the magistrates panel”.

Subsequently, the JSC clarified that the procedural issue was based not on jurisdictional grounds but because the commission believes that the Supreme Court’s advice on appointing the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench is the court’s ruling.

At that point, the presiding judge stated that the Supreme Court had issued a circular that “changes the composition of the Civil Court by 12am tonight (by 15th February)”, explaining that “I cannot assure you that I will be sitting on this appeal after the said changes; therefore I cannot give out court summons for the next hearing.

Nasheed’s legal team also requested more time to discuss the case with the legal team and lawyers based outside Maldives.

The controversial court was formed specifically to oversee Nasheed’s trial for the January 2012 detention of Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed. Legal challenges to the court have seen the case stalled since April 2013.

Nasheed’s lawyers have previously challenged – unsuccessfully – the establishment of a magistrates court in the Malé suburb, arguing that Hulhumalé is considered to be part of Malé City under the Decentralisation Act and therefore does not require a separate court.

United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul has also noted that the “appointment of judges to the case, has been set up in an arbitrary manner outside the parameters laid out in the laws”.


Related to this story

High Court cannot deliberate on Hulhumalé court bench

Nasheed’s request for halt to Hulhumalé court appointments denied

Nasheed requests reappointments to Hulhumalé court be stopped

Nasheed trial part of drive to eliminate President’s opponents, says MDP

Fair trial for Nasheed “difficult to see” when judicial bench “cherrypicked to convict”: BHRC trial observers

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Judicature amendments to appeal process come into force February 15

The High Court has announced that lower court and tribunal decisions can only be appealed under the new process established by the Supreme Court from Sunday (February 15)

The instructions referred to by the High Court – published on January 27 – state that the request for appeal must be submitted by filing the necessary forms to the  lower court or tribunal that deliberated on the case, within 10 days of its conclusion.

The lower court or tribunal must then send the forms to the upper court within 7 days of the appeal request, before the upper court is then obliged to complete all administrative processes necessary within 7 days of receiving the appeal documentation.

High Court Spokesman Amin Faisal was unable to give further details, confirming only that the appeal process will be in accordance with the Supreme Court circular from Sunday onwards.

The amendments to the Judicature Act also mandate the formation of two additional branches of the High Court in the northern and southern regions of the Maldives. The two new branches can only adjudicate the rulings of the magistrate courts.

The nine-member High Court is to be divided among the three branches, with three judges in each branch.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Former Defense Minister Nazim’s remand appealed at High Court

Former Defense Minister Colonel (retired) Mohamed Nazim’s legal team has appealed the Criminal Court’s remand sentence at the High Court today (February 11).

Nazim was given 15 days detention yesterday (February 10), after being arrested in the early hours of the same day and taken to Dhoonidhoo Detention Centre.

Speaking at a press conference last night, Nazim’s legal team had said their client was being framed, implying the firearms found during a raid on his home were planted.

On January 18, police raided the former minister’s apartment and claimed to have found pistol, three bullets, and an improvised explosive device while confiscating a pen drive.

A police statement issued last night claimed to have found documents in the pen drive suggesting that Nazim “was plotting to physically harm senior Maldivian state officials”.

“In addition, police intelligence has received information that he was plotting with various parties to overthrow the government,” read the statement.

The police have maintained they were unaware the apartment they were raiding belonged to the former defense minister and said they had decided not to arrest him at the scene due to his high profile.

Hameed questioned the police’s decision to arrest Nazim after the completion of investigations, and claimed such an arrest can only be made through a PG order.

Jumhooree Party MP and former Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz accused the police of unprofessionalism, saying: “This was clearly done to frame Colonel Nazim.”

Nazim and his wife’s passports have been confiscated.


Related to this story

Police accuse Nazim of plotting coup, planning to harm senior government officials

Police raid Defence Minister Nazim’s home in early hours

Former Defence Minister Nazim remanded for 15 days

Former Defence Minister arrested on illegal weapons charge

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil Court concludes first hearing of Hulhumalé Court challenge

Former President and Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) leader Mohamed Nasheed’s case against the legality of the process in which the bench of the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court was heard by the Civil Court today.

Nasheed submitted the case to the lower court after the High Court decided on Monday (February 9) that it could not deliberate on the legality of the bench, citing jurisdictional grounds.

The High Court’s decision read that, under the regulation, the court can deliberate on decisions of the lower courts, but not on their composition.

According to Nasheed’s legal team member Ahmed Abdulla who spoke to the press outside the court, the trial today heard the case challenging the legality of the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court bench and also a stay order requested by Nasheed.

“We have received information the Judicial Service Commission plans to bring changes to the bench, we requested the court to order a halt to that”, Abdulla said.

He added that the JSC’s legal team requested more time to respond to the case regarding the legality of the bench but that it had responded to the stay order request.

“Firstly they stated that the bench is not in existence and then they said that we have brought no changes to the bench. Therefore what they are basically saying is that bench not being in existence is not a change. We were unable to comprehend what they were saying”.

Abdulla told reporters that in response to this, Nasheed’s legal team stated that the reason Nasheed had lodged cases in court against the JSC is because the commission insists it has powers to assemble court benches.

Nasheed’s legal team member Hisan Hussain stated that the reason the JSC is saying the bench does not exist is because magistrates who were initially appointed to the bench have now been promoted to superior courts.

“We must always assume that the JSC will assemble a bench, possibly even tomorrow and proceed with the case as long as the commission insists it has authority to do so,” she continued.

The judge will decide and rule on the stay order request in the next hearing to be held Saturday (February 14) .

While the trial continued supporters of Nasheed and the MDP gathered outside the Civil Court and expressed their discontent over the government’s “persecution and failures”.

Tensions between Special Operations police officers and those gathered grew as police started clearing the crowd from the main entrance of the civil court around 5pm.

Some pushing and shoving was observed along with heated exchanges of words between protesters and the police, although no arrests were made.

(PHOTO: LAWYER AHMED ABDULLA)


Related to this story

Nasheed predicts he will soon be jailed

High Court cannot deliberate on Hulhumalé court bench

Opposition alliance a “waste of time”, says Gayoom

MDP and JP reach agreement on defence of Constitution

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court cannot deliberate on Hulhumalé court bench

The High Court has decided today (February 9) that it does not have the jurisdiction to deliberate on the process in which the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court’s bench was formed.

The ruling was made with regards to a procedural issue raised by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) after former President and Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) leader Mohamed Nasheed had challenged the legality of the bench.

The judicial watchdog had raised a procedural issue, claiming that the High Court does not have the jurisdiction to oversee the case as the bench had been formed on the advise of the Supreme Court.

The controversial court was formed specifically to oversee Nasheed’s trial for the January 2012 detention of Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed. Legal challenges to the court have seen the case stalled since April 2013.

The opposition leader today urged Maldivians to take direct action against persistent injustices in the courts, while his legal team claimed today’s decision contradicted prior decisions by the High Court to consider related cases.

In the ruling, the High Court bench presiding over the case unanimously decided that under regulations governing the relevant procedure, “there are no grounds on which the case can proceed in this court any further”.

The High Court’s decision read that, under the regulation, the court can deliberate on decisions of the lower courts, but not on their composition.

Today’s hearing was immediately concluded after Judge Abbas Shareef – presiding over the case – read out the ruling.

Nasheed’s legal team has subsequently submitted the case to the Civil Court, again challenging the composition of the Hulhumalé court bench.

“It is not a trial that is being conducted here”: Nasheed

Speaking to press after the hearing, Nasheed said the “trial is being hastened without due process in order to prevent me from getting the protection of the new penal code which would be enacted in April”.

He also accused the government of using the judiciary to threaten and intimidate political opponents, stating that the Maldivian judiciary is unable to deliver a “free and fair trial, especially with regards to cases against me”.

Nasheed claimed that the father of one of the High Court judges was ordered by a lower court to pay a substantial amount of money owed, suggesting undue influence in the case to produce a specific ruling.

Nasheed told press that he will consult both his and other international lawyers regarding his impending trial.

“It is not a trial that is being conducted here,” commented Nasheed, urging Maldivians to stand up against injustice by “protesting and going on strikes” as “this might happen to anyone tomorrow, although it happened to me today”.

Meanwhile, a statement by Nasheed’s legal team argued that the decision of the High Court had contradicted its earlier ruling which found it had the jurisdiction to deliberate on the legality of the Hulhumalé Magistrates Court.

“The High Court had previously decided that the case can be heard in the court and the decision was announced during the trial,” read the statement, noting that two of the three judges present today had delivered the previous ruling.

Judge Ali Sameer and Judge Shuaib Hussain Zakariyya had presided over the case along with Judge Ahmed Shareef before the latter was demoted to the Juvenile Court in August 2014 and replaced by Judge Abbas Shareef.

Nasheed’s lawyers have previously challenged – unsuccessfully – the establishment of a magistrates court in the Malé suburb, arguing that Hulhumalé is considered to be part of Malé City under the Decentralisation Act and therefore does not require a separate court.

United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul has previously noted that the “appointment of judges to the case, has been set up in an arbitrary manner outside the parameters laid out in the laws”.


Related to this story

Nasheed’s request for halt to Hulhumalé court appointments denied

Nasheed requests reappointments to Hulhumalé court be stopped

Nasheed trial part of drive to eliminate President’s opponents, says MDP

Supreme Court declares Hulhumale Magistrate Court legitimate

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed’s request for halt to Hulhumalé court appointments denied

The High Court has ruled that there are no legal grounds under which a stay order can be granted against the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) regarding the appointment of judges to the Hulhumalé Magistrates Court.

The order was requested by former president and opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) leader Mohamed Nasheed during Tuesday’s (February 3) hearing into his case against the JSC over the legality of the appointment process.

Hassan Latheef, a member of Nasheed’s legal team, told Minivan News that the High Court gave its decision with no further explanation or reasoning.

“It just said that the court finds no legal ground on which such an order can be granted,” said Latheef.

Further, he revealed that representatives of Nasheed have been asked to attend the High Court to sign the statements given in relation to the case challenging the legality of the Hulhumalé Magistrates Court bench,

The case was first raised in 2012, and challenges the legality of the bench assembled to try the opposition leader for the detention of Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed during his presidency.

Meanwhile, Tuesday’s hearing saw presiding judges ask Nasheed’s representatives to submit the request for a stay order in writing despite their insistence that the court allow the request to be presented orally.

Nasheed lawyer Hisaan Hussain commented while speaking to the press after the hearing that the court must provide opportunities for the points to be presented orally, facilitating the illustration of connections between laws and facts of the case.

Expressing discontent over the time limits placed by the presiding judge and the refusal to allow the points to be raised in court, Hisaan said: “If the court is not providing enough time to orally present the case in detail, both parties involved can send the relevant documents to court and the court can deliberate on the matter”.

Responding to the request during Tuesday’s trial, JSC lawyer Hussain Ibrahim said he was unable to respond as he was not aware the process of appointing new judges to the Hulhumalé Magistrates Court bench was underway.

Nasheed and the MDP have suggested the case is being rushed through after a near two-year delay in order to conduct his trial before the introduction of the new Penal Code in April, which they argue does not include the offence under which he is being charged.

Hearings will resume next week.


Related to this story

Nasheed requests reappointments to Hulhumalé court be stopped

Nasheed trial part of drive to eliminate President’s opponents, says MDP

Supreme Court declares Hulhumale Magistrate Court legitimate

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed requests reappointments to Hulhumalé court be stopped

Former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team have requested that the appointment of new judges to the vacant positions on the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court bench be halted.

The stay order was submitted at today’s High Court hearing in Nasheed’s case against the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) over the legality of the appointment process to the magistrates court.

Despite Nasheed’s representatives insisting that the court consider the request during the hearing, presiding judges asked that it be submitted in writing, saying that the court will deliberate on the issue in a timely manner.

Responding to the request, JSC lawyer Hussain Ibrahim said he was unable to respond as he was unaware that the process of appointing new judges to the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court bench was underway.

Nasheed’s lawyers attempted to add new points to the original case, but the judges again asked that the new point to be submitted in writing, in spite of further protests.

“This hearing will only take arguments from both sides regarding the procedural issue raised by JSC. We will only allow this trial to be conducted as scheduled”, stated Abbas Shareef, the presiding judge.

The case was first raised in 2012, and challenges the legality of the bench, which was assembled to try the opposition leader for the detention of Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed during his presidency.

JSC’s procedural issue

The JSC lawyer stated that he had no points to add to the arguments made prior to the case’s suspension in April 2013. These included claims that the Hulhumalé bench had been appointed on the orders of the Supreme Court, meaning that the High Court could not deliberate on the decision.

Ahmed Abdulla, member of Nasheed’s team, noted that the letter regarding the appointment of the bench was sent by the Supreme Court in the capacity of the Judicial Council, despite it having been written under a Supreme Court letterhead.

Therefore Nasheed’s lawyers contested that the decision cannot be interpreted as a Supreme Court ruling but must be regarded “an administrative decision by an administrative body”, which would enable the High Court to deliberate on its legality.

The Judicial Council was created under the 2010 Judicature Act to oversee administration of the courts, but its duties were soon absorbed by the Supreme Court in what has been described as a centralising of judicial power.

Hisaan Hussain and Abdulla Shairu also spoke on behalf of Nasheed today, while Hassan Latheef also represented the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) leader in court.

Conclusion

The hearing was concluded after a brief statement by Nasheed in which he requested that the High Court grant him the permission to travel freely during the period in between hearings.

Nasheed also expressed his hope that the court had not expedited his case because “we are moving towards the shade of the new penal code, which does not include the article under which I have been charged”.

The presiding judge ended the session with the announcement that a hearing will be held next week in which the court will deliver its verdict on the procedural issues raised by the JSC, explaining to Nasheed that he will be granted permission to leave Malé after making requests in writing.

The MDP yesterday described Nasheed’s trial as the government’s attempt to eliminate President Abdulla Yameen’s political opponents and to prevent them from contesting in the 2018 presidential elections.

Nasheed’s lawyers have previously challenged – unsuccessfully – the establishment of a magistrates court in the Malé suburb, arguing that Hulhumalé is considered to be part of Malé City under the Decentralisation Act and therefore does not require a separate court.

United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul has previously noted that the “appointment of judges to the case, has been set up in an arbitrary manner outside the parameters laid out in the laws”.

(PHOTO: MINIVAN NEWS ARCHIVE)


Related to this story

Nasheed trial part of drive to eliminate President’s opponents, says MDP

High Court to rule in appeal on Hulhumale’ court legitimacy

Hulhumale’ Court rejects case against former President Nasheed

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

Supreme Court declares Hulhumale Magistrate Court legitimate

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Murrath tells court he was coerced into murder confession

Ahmed Murrath – the man sentenced to death for the 2012 murder of prominent lawyer Ahmed Najeeb – has told the High Court today that he was coerced into confessing by the police.

Speaking at his appeal hearing, Murrath was reported as saying that police threatened to arrest his parents before instructing him on what to say during his Criminal Court trial.

“The police even poked at my feet to remind me what to say while I was at the court chambers,” Haveeru reported the 29-year-old as telling the court today.

Murrath and his girlfriend Fathimath Hana, 18, were arrested and charged with Najeeb’s murder after his body was discovered by police stuffed inside a dustbin, badly beaten with multiple stab wounds.

Though she did not confess to murdering Najeeb, Hana was also found guilty of the crime and sentenced to death, less than a month after the murder. She has also filed an appeal case at the High Court and is awaiting trial.

Murrath had previously confessed to having killed Najeeb, saying the crime had been committed in a fit of rage, and under the influence of drugs, suggesting Najeeb had attempted to sexually assault his girlfriend.

His lawyer had previously told the High Court that Murrath confessed in order to escape punishments he received during the investigation period, including sleep deprivation.

In addition, the lawyer said his client’s responsibility was diminished due to the influence of drugs, and that he had the right to retract his confession as there were no witnesses to the crime.

Murrath’s appeal case was filed after the previous 90-day appeal deadline had expired, however the high court still chose to accept the case.

Meanwhile, in a ruling deemed unconstitutional by legal experts and the political opposition, the Supreme Court has shortened the appeal period to just 10 days.

Last year, the cabinet advised President Abdulla Yameen that there was no legal obstruction to implementing the death sentences, after Home Minister Umar Naseer ordered an end to the 60-year moratorium on executions.

The order closely followed the conclusion of the Dr Afrasheem Ali murder trial, in which Hussein Humam was sentenced to death. Similarly, Humam also claimed that his confession was given under duress.

Yameen’s government has since pledged repeatedly that it would not hesitate to implement the sentence, with the president reported as saying last week that it was only the lengthy judicial process that had prevented executions so far.

Most recently, the Criminal Court sentenced Mohamed Niyaz of Kaaf Thulusdhoo Redrose to death after he was found guilty of murdering 35-year-old Ali Shiham on the night of July 31 last year.

A recent report from Amnesty International estimated that around 20 individuals were currently facing the death sentence in the Maldives, though the Prosecutor General’s Office has yet to release official figures.


Related to this story

Convicted murderer retracts confession in High Court

Hanaa and Murrath sentenced to death for Najeeb’s murder

Humam appeals death sentence at High Court

Thulusdhoo murder suspect sentenced to death

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed trial part of drive to eliminate President’s opponents, says MDP

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has accused President Abdulla Yameen of manipulating the judiciary to remove opponents, as court proceedings related to former President Mohamed Nasheed’s trial resume tomorrow.

In a press conference held ahead of the High Court trial challenging the legality of the Hulhumalé Magistrates Court’s bench, MDP spokesman Imthiyaz Fahmy suggested that “a very unpopular government” was trying to “invalidate the candidacy of all of President Yameen’s competitors”.

The case will consider Nasheed’s appeal against the assembly of the court’s bench, appointed to try him for the detention of Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

Fahmy today suggested that the government’s attitude towards the judge’s detention – which stoked anti-government protests before Nasheed’s controversial resignation on February 7 – was reflected in the recent appointment of a fellow defendant in the case as defence minister.

“If the government believes that the case against President Nasheed is serious; if the case has any substance, why would the government appoint Moosa Ali Jaleel as the defence minister?” asked Fahmy.

Formerly the chief of defence forces, Jaleel retired after 32-years of service following Nasheed’s resignation, later telling parliament’s government oversight committee that he believed the MDP leader had “resigned under duress”.

Court proceeding

Fahmy today also suggested that the Supreme Court’s recent decision to reduce the period allowed for legal appeal was an effort to hastily sentence Nasheed before the implementation of the new penal code in April.

The court’s decision reduces the time allowed to file appeals in the higher courts from 90 days (180 for cases from the atolls) to ten, prompting legal experts to accuse the court of infringing upon the constitutional right to an appeal.

“The new penal code does not have the article under which President Nasheed is being prosecuted nor does it have a specified punishment,” continued Fahmy.

If convicted under the old legal code, Nasheed could face imprisonment or banishment for three years – leaving him ineligible for the 2018 presidential race, under Article 109 (f) of the Constitution.

Nasheed’s MDP has recently formed an alliance with the Jumhooree Party (JP) in defence of what it regards as persistent breaches of the Constitution. The eligibility of the JP’s leader, Gasim Ibrahim, is also under threat after the ruling Progressive Party of Maldives proposed constitutional amendments that would deem him too old to contest the presidency for a third time in 2018.

During tomorrow’s hearing, Nasheed’s legal team and the Judicial Services Commission – which assembled the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court’s bench – will be given ten minutes each to summarise arguments and raise further points regarding procedural issues raised before the case was halted in April 2013.

The judicial watchdog has raised a procedural issue claiming that the High Court does not have the jurisdiction to oversee the case.

After the announcement of the trial, Nasheed’s legal team had requested a one and a half month delay in the trials as further time was required to “review and research the case after recent developments in the judicial system”.

Nasheed’s lawyers have previously challenged – unsuccessfully – the establishment of a magistrates court in the Malé suburb, arguing that Hulhumalé is considered to be part of Malé City under the Decentralisation Act and therefore does not require a separate court.

United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul has previously noted that the “appointment of judges to the case, has been set up in an arbitrary manner outside the parameters laid out in the laws”.


Related to this story

High Court to rule in appeal on Hulhumale’ court legitimacy

Hulhumale’ Court rejects case against former President Nasheed

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

Supreme Court declares Hulhumale Magistrate Court legitimate

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)