Tag: high court

JSC taking applications for six Judgeships

The Judicial Service Commission has opened applications for the vacant positions on the benches of the High Court, Civil Court, and Criminal Court.

In an announcement made today, the commission stated that applications will be open from today till 3pm on February 10, 2015, for one High Court judge, four Civil Court judges, and one Criminal Court judge. The application forms will be available on www.jsc.gov.mv.

High Court Judge Yoosuf Hussain retired from the bench today, reportedly due to poor health, while Civil Court judge Aishath Shujoon – one of the first female judges in the Maldives, resigned in late December of last year.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court Judge Yoosuf Hussain retires

High Court judge Yoosuf Hussain has retired today, with sources close to the court telling Minivan News the decision was made on grounds of ill-health.

According to a statement on the court’s website in Dhivehi, Judge Yoosuf served on the bench of the interim Supreme Court between 2008 and 2010, before being appointed to the High Court.

He had previously served as the chief judge at the Family Court, as a judge at Court No.1, and and as a legal officer of the now-defunct Ministry of Justice and Islamic Affairs.

Although this is the first time a High Court judge has retired, Ahmed Shareef – initially appointed as the court’s chief judge – was demoted to the Juvenile Court in August 2014 by the Judicial Service Commission.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court has removed right of appeal, claim legal experts

Legal experts have accused the Supreme Court of effectively removing the right of appeal after the bench shortened the time in which an appeal case can be filed at a higher court to 10 days.

In a ruling issued yesterday (January 27), the court revoked Article 15 and 42 of the Judicature Act and Article 85 of the Employment Act – which stipulates the current appeal durations – while a Supreme Court circular signed by Chief Justice Abdullah Saeed announced the new time frame.

The move has prompted legal experts to accuse the court of infringing upon the constitutional right to an appeal.

“They have taken out the appeal process,” says former Judicial Services Commission (JSC) member turned whistle-blower Aishath Velezinee. “Ten days for appeal will deprive people of the right to appeal.”

Another legal expert – who wished to remain anonymous – suggested that the new time frame would make it practically impossible for many people to lodge an appeal.

The Supreme Court ruling – signed by all five of the Supreme Court justices – said the current regulations are in violation of Article 42 of the Constitution which states the right to a “fair and public hearing within a reasonable time”.

The Judicature Act currently states that appeals to the higher courts will only be accepted within 90 days, while 180 days is allowed for cases adjudicated in island courts outside of the capital Malé.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court circular stated that the establishment of two regional High Court branches under amendments to the Judicature Act means all appeal cases should be appealed in the region of the court issuing the decision.

According to the amendments passed by parliament last month – which also resulted in the controversial dismissal of two Supreme Court Judges – the nine member High Court will be divided into three branches with three judges assigned to each.

The two regional branches in the North and South will be allowed to hear appeals against magistrate court verdicts while only the Malé branch will be allowed to hear challenges to laws and regulations.

Constitutional rights

Velezinee claimed that by changing the regulations, the Supreme Court is “taking over the functions of the legislator” in an “attack on the Constitution”.

“No right is guaranteed anymore,” said the outspoken critic of the judiciary. “Supreme Court is under the constitution, but now it has gone above the Constitution.”

Velezinee has previously accused the Supreme Court of dominating the entire judiciary, and compromising the independence of the lower courts, via its close oversight of the Department of Judicial Administration.

Similar suggestions made by the Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) to the UN Human Rights Council last year prompted the initiation of ‘suo moto’ proceedings on charges of undermining the Constitution and the sovereignty of the country.

Velezinee was barred from the public gallery during the proceedings of the HRCM case in October.

Meanwhile, a prominent legal expert said that by shortening the appeal period, the Supreme Court is “trying to limit a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution”.

“The right to a timely trial should not overlap the right to appeal,” he said. “It is going to be logistically and practically impossible for most people to prepare an appeal case and submit it within ten days.”

He pointed out that most atolls do not have the adequate transportation systems to the nearest court branch, saying that it might be easier for islanders to travel to Malé to file an appeal.

Both he and Velezinee suggested that it normally takes in excess of two weeks to acquire the court report required to adequately prepare for an appeal case.


Related to this story

Supreme Court controls the judiciary, says HRCM report to United Nations

Judicial administration brought under direct control of Supreme Court

Majlis removes Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz, Justice Muthasim Adnan from Supreme Court

Removal of Supreme Court judges will have “chilling effect” on work of judiciary: UN special rapporteur

A justice system in crisis: UN Special Rapporteur’s report

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Hulhumalé Magistrate Court case to resume hearings on February 3

The High Court has today informed both President Mohamed Nasheed and the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) as to how the case on the legality of the Hulhumalé Magistrates Court bench will proceed.

Nasheed’s legal team member Hassan Latheef told Minivan News that today’s meeting was conducted by High Court Judge Abbas Shareef, with the JSC and Nasheed’s representatives informed that a hearing of the case would be held on February 3.

They were also informed that each party would receive a ten minute opportunity to summarise their responses during this hearing, and to raise further points regarding procedural issues raised before hearings 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.

The resumption of the case, which challenges the legality of the bench assembled to try Nasheed for the January 2012 detention of Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed, was announced one week ago after repeated requests from the former president to expedite proceedings.

Hassan Latheef that Nasheed’s legal team raised several points today, including the small amount of time that each party will be given to present arguments in the next hearing and also the need for further time to review and research the case after recent developments in the judicial system.

“There have been significant changes to the whole judiciary, judges have been transferred, benches reduced and High Court now has two new branches. All this has an impact on the procedural issue raised by JSC. This is why we need more time”, said. Latheef.

He also said that judge Abbas Shareef has agreed to reconsider the request by Nasheed’s legal team for a one and a half month delay of the trial after discussion with the two other judges presiding over the case – Judge Ali Sameer and Judge Shuaib Hussain Zakariyya.

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)

High Court decides to conduct closed door detention extensions

The High Court has decided to conduct closed door hearings for cases of extension of detention.

As per the new regulation that will come into force tomorrow (January 28) presiding judges can decide on opening the court chambers for the public after considering the nature of the case – with the exception of murder, drugs and illegal substances, and child abuse cases, which are always closed.

In such instances where the court chambers are opened, only people closely related to the defendant and are not witnesses to the case will be allowed to observe the proceedings.

According to Article 42 (c) of the Constitution and Article 71 (b) of the Judicature Act, judges have the authority to conduct entire or parts of the trial proceedings without opening the chambers for public viewing.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court rejects Nasheed’s request to delay Hulhumalé court bench trial

The High Court has rejected a request from former President Mohamed Nasheed to delay the hearings of his case challenging the legality of Hulhumalé Magistrate Court’s bench.

The Maldivian Democratic Party leader had asked to delay the hearing, scheduled for Wednesday (January 28), by one and a half months as his legal team requires time for further research.

In the letter written to high court by Nasheed’s lawyer Hassan Latheef, it was noted that no hearings had been scheduled since April 1, 2013, and that during this period significant changes have been brought to the judicial system.

High court spokesman Amin Faisal told Minivan News that the court has informed Nasheed’s legal team it is unable to postpone the trial as requested.

A statement from Nasheed’s office expressed concern that a preliminary hearing has been scheduled for this week, despite the 2011 High Court regulations stating that the court’s registrar has the authority to schedule preliminary hearings only before the commencement of trial hearings.

“It was also requested that the High Court conduct hearings of the trial of the case submitted by President Nasheed instead of the scheduled preliminary hearings”, the statement read.

Full of Surprises

Speaking to Minivan News, Hassan Latheef revealed that although the summons chit specified that a preliminary hearing is scheduled on Wednesday, the court has since said that a meeting was to take place with the presiding judges to discuss how the trial will proceed.

“This is neither a preliminary hearing as stated in the summons nor a hearing but an administrative meeting of sorts,” said Latheef.

Latheef noted that such meeting were unheard of at this stage of proceedings, noting that Nasheed’s trial has been “filled with surprises that the legal history of this country has never seen before”.

The case itself will investigate the manner in which appointments were made to the Hulhulamalé Magistrates Court – a body created to conduct the trial of Nasheed and senior figures in his government for the 2012 detention of Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

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 Magistrates 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”.

Latheef today noted that the legal team required more time to do research on the case due to the changes brought to the Maldivian judiciary after recent amendments to the Judicature Act.

“While major changes have been brought to the judiciary from April 2013 up to this day, the High Court’s ruling on this matter is likely to have significant implications on the case in the lower courts regarding President Nasheed. This is why we need more time”, he said.

Amendments to the Judicature Act passed on December 10, 2014, changed the composition and structure of the High Court by establishing two additional branches in the northern and southern regions of the Maldives.

As per the amendments 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.


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)

High Court resumes Hulhumalé Magistrate Court appeal case

The High Court has scheduled a hearing for January 28 in former President Mohamed Nasheed’s appeal case into the legitimacy of the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court.

The case, which challenges the legality of the bench assembled to try Nasheed for the January 2012 detention of Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed, has been stalled since April 2013.

Hisaan Hussain from the opposition leader’s legal team said that the former president and his representatives have received the chits from the High Court regarding the hearing.

“The chits from the high court said it was a preliminary hearing,” said Hisaan.

“However these kind of meetings are usually where documents are exchanged and do not happen in the middle of an ongoing trail, therefore we are regarding this as a hearing.”

Meanwhile, in a press statement today the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) said that Nasheed has been “receiving threats that he will be arrested as soon as he returns to the Maldives” from his visit to Abu Dhabi.

Nasheed – who has recently urged the government to expedite the trial – tweeted today that he will be cutting his trip short after hearing of the government’s intentions to arrest him and will arrive tomorrow afternoon.

The former president was arrested in October 2012 after the Hulhumale Magistrate Court issued a warrant following his failure to adhere to court summons.

Also charged with the detention of Judge Abdulla Mohamed were prominent figures from the Nasheed government, including Major General (retired) Moosa Ali Jaleel.

Jaleel was appointed as minister of defence yesterday following the dismissal of Mohamed Nazim, who is being investigated on suspicion of keeping illegal weapons in his home.

The Prosecutor General’s Office has subsequently said it will not be withdrawing with the charges against the new defence minister, while President’s Office Spokesman Ibrahim Muaz told Minivan News that the cases of Jaleel and Nazim are not comparable.

“There is a massive difference between security services finding dangerous weapons and an ongoing case intiated by a previous administration. The president has decided to trust Jaleel even with the pending case,” said Muaz.

Stalled case

In a statement today, the MDP noted that the threats to arrest Nasheed come at a time when “President Yameen’s government has been threatening various political figures while undermining the Constitution”.

Chief among the complaints levelled against the government are recent amendments to the Judicature Act which saw the removal of two of the Supreme Court’s seven judges.

Also included in the amendments was the division of the nine-member High Court into three regional branches, with only the Malé branch allowed to hear challenges to laws and regulations.

Speaking at a party rally last weekend, Nasheed suggested the president had been attempting to strike a deal regarding the charges related to Abdulla Mohamed’s detention. “I am the bad guy,” he reminded the president.

Last November, Nasheed also told the press that the judge’s detention had been wrong, blaming his former defense minister Tholhath Ibrahim for the decision.

Nasheed has appealed at the High Court against the legitimacy of the Hulhumalé Magistrates bench – assembled by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) – saying that judges on the bench on cases must be appointed by the senior judge of the court, arguing that such decisions were beyond the remit of the judicial watchdog.

He has also questioned 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 require a separate Magistrates Court.

Other critics of the court included then-JSC members Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman and former Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid, who argued that the judicial watchdog had acted unconstitutionally in assigning magistrates to a particular case.

United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul, noted at the time 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)

High Court frees drug kingpin Shafaz citing insufficient evidence

The High Court has freed ‘drug kingpin’ Ibrahim Shafaz Abdul Razzak today, stating that evidence submitted by the state for trafficking charges was insufficient.

Reversing the Criminal Court’s 18 year jail term and fine of MVR75,000, the High Court questioned the authenticity of documents submitted by the state claiming to prove Shafaz had transferred large amounts of money gained through drug trafficking.

Shafaz was arrested in June 2011 with 896 grams of heroin after the two year long ‘Operation Challenge’. At the time, the Maldives Police Services labeled Shafaz a high profile drug dealer suspected of smuggling and supplying drugs since 2006.

The police claimed Shafaz’s network had smuggled drugs worth MVR1.3 million (US$84,306) to the Maldives between February and April 2011.

In today’s ruling, the High Court noted that the state had failed to provide transaction records to substantiate claims that Shafaz transferred large sums of money to a Sri Lankan national through Western Union and A.G.E Emporium, and that  records from Western Union did not display any official seals or marks.

The court also said the state had failed to provide proof that evidence gathered regarding Shafaz’s money transactions was obtained legally, i.e. through court orders.

Additionally, the court noted that records of money transactions were dated from 2006, but phone call recordings and transcripts between Shafaz and the Sri Lankan national were from 2011, with the result that the relationship between the two pieces of evidence was weak.

Citing Article 24, Article 51, and Article 52 of the Constitution which guarantee the right to privacy including private communications and the rights of the accused, the High Court said any evidence obtained by unlawful means is inadmissible in a court of law.

Corruption charges

The Criminal Court had sentenced Shafaz in November 2013. He was released temporarily for medical treatment in Sri Lanka in February 2014, but failed to return to the Maldives after the allocated three month period. The Sri Lankan police caught Shafaz in Colombo and extradited him to Maldives in May 2014.

Last month, the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) revealed that six senior government officials conspired to allow Shafaz to leave the country despite no evidence that he required urgent medical care that was not available in the Maldives.

The ACC investigation found that former Deputy Minister of Home Affairs Mohamed Hanim personally paid a visit to a doctor’s home to obtain a signature confirming that Shafaz required urgent medical care abroad. However, the ACC said Shafaz had not consulted a doctor in the week before his release.

Hanim, who is now the deputy minister of environment, also oversaw the illegal preparation of Shafaz’s travel documents and allowed him to leave the country without obtaining formal approval from the Maldives Correctional Service’s (MCS) medical board.

The investigations also revealed former Commissioner of Prisons Moosa Azim had lobbied the medical board to approve Shafaz’s release despite knowing his paperwork was incomplete.

In addition to Hanim and Azim, the ACC has recommended corruption charges be filed against two members of the medical board, a technical officer at Indhira Gandhi Memorial Hospital (IGMH), and a staff member at the MCS.


Related to this story

Police arrest suspected drug kingpin after months of investigations

Convicted drug kingpin Shafa caught in Colombo

Six senior government officials abused power in drug kingpin’s temporary release, says ACC

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court claims “no jurisdiction” in Supreme Court bench reduction challenge

The High Court on Tuesday threw out a challenge to Judicature Act amendments that reduced the seven-member Supreme Court bench to five judges and resulted in the sudden removal of Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz and Justice Muthasim Adnan.

High Court Registrar Mariyam Afsha said the complaint’s original jurisdiction lay with the Supreme Court, and not the High Court.

The case lodged by Lawyers Shaheen Hameed, Hassan Ma’az Shareef and Mohamed Faisal, contended the revisions to the Judicature Act were unconstitutional as they forced the removal of sitting Supreme Court judges without due process.

Critics have pointed out the High Court registrar’s decision effectively means only the Supreme Court can now hear the challenge and have pointed to a Supreme Court’s conflict of interest in the matter.

According to Article 11 of the Judicature Act, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in controversies that may lead to a constitutional void, cases where two branches of the state or two institutions of the state disagree on interpreting the constitution, and in constitutional matters that affect public interest.

Article 37 of the Judicature Act gives the High Court original jurisdiction in controversies where a law or part of a law is unconstitutional or where regulations or part of a regulation is against laws and the constitution.

Removal of judges

According to Article 154 of the Constitution, a judge, once appointed, can only be removed if the watchdog Judicial Services Commission (JSC) found the judge guilty of gross misconduct and incompetence, and if the Majlis subsequently removed the judge by a two-thirds majority of MPs present and voting.

Within hours of the amendment’s ratification on Thursday (December 11), the JSC in an emergency meeting recommended the two judges unfit for the position.

However, the JSC’s reasons were not made available to the public or MPs when the vote to dismiss the two judges proceeded on Sunday.

Shaheen, also President Yameen’s nephew, told local media that the JSC had failed to afford Faiz and Muthasim the opportunity to speak in their defense.

“[The JSC] is saying that it is alright to dismiss these first two judges by flouting all procedures, but that due process must be followed in dismissing other judges. This is gross violation of equality before the law,” he said.

The MDP had also lodged a challenge to the JSC decision with the Civil Court, but the Supreme Court took control of the case on Sunday minutes after the first hearing started.

The Supreme Court’s writ of prohibition ordered the Civil Court to “to hand over case files, with all relevant documents, to the Supreme Court before 20:45 tonight, 14 December 2014, and to immediately annul any action that may have been taken on the matter.”

The decision followed a declaration by Civil Court Chief Judge Ali Rasheed Hussein, and Judges Aisha Shujoon, Jameel Moosa, Hathif Hilmy, Mariyam Nihayath, Huseein Mazeed, and Farhad Rasheed in which they declared the move to dismiss the two judges to be against principles of natural justice and several international conventions, and could “destroy judicial independence” in the Maldives.

“We believe we are obliged to comment on the issue for the sake of the democratic and judicial history of the Maldives, and we believe keeping silent at this juncture amounts to negligence” the bench said.

The Judicature Act amendments will also divide the nine-member High Court into three branches, with three members each.

The two regional branches in the North and South will only be allowed to hear appeals in magistrate court verdicts. Only the Malé branch will be allowed to hear challenges to laws and regulations.


Related to this story

Supreme Court takes control of MDP’s Civil Court complaint on Faiz, Muthasim dismissal

Abdulla Saeed appointed as new Chief Justice, dismissed Justice Faiz laments “black day”

Civil Court condemns move to dismiss Chief Justice Faiz and Justice Adnan

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)