The Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), which is headed former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, has leaked the report composed by the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) into the police mutiny and controversial transfer of power that led to ousting of former President Mohamed Nasheed.
Details from the report were leaked by PPM interim Deputy Leader Umar Naseer at a press conference yesterday. The report itself has not been released to the public.
However, the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has raised concerns that, contrary to claims in local media, it had not yet received a copy of the findings from the HRCM that were detailed by the PPM. The now opposition party has claimed it is presently awaiting a copy of the report to be sent by the People’s Majlis following a written request.
HRCM’s report claimed that Nasheed gave “unlawful orders” to the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) and police officers at the Artificial Beach area on the evening of February 6, during a confrontation between then-opposition protesters and Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) demonstrators.
According to Umar Naseer, the HRCM report stated that the MNDF and police officers at the Artificial Beach area were “unlawfully” ordered to leave the area, which led to a breakdown in command and control of the security forces.
Consequently, citizens were injured and huge damage was caused to the state, Naseer stated, citing the report.
The HRCM report said the order of Nasheed to leave the area violated article 245 of the constitution, by obstructing security forces from fulfilling their lawful duties.
The report also stated that there was no chain of command inside Republican Square that night, but that some individual officers obeyed Nasheed’s orders and a group of MNDF officers attempted to arrest police gathered in the square.
“A confrontation occurred between security forces and citizens, and officers of the security forces were severely injured,” HRCM reportedly claimed.
The report concluded saying that the investigation did not find that Nasheed’s life was in danger that day while he was inside MNDF headquarters, or that anyone tried to kill Nasheed, Naseer claimed.
Umar Naseer told the press that the HRCM’s report was “very true” and thanked the commission for “revealing the truth”.
On February 7, Former President Mohamed Nasheed resigned after several elements within police and MNDF officers joined a then-opposition protest and demanded his resignation.
MDP Spokesperson and MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor today told Minivan News that despite having received a report from the HRCM “late last night” regarding an investigation into the events occurring on February 8, it had not been given findings concerning the events leading up to the power transfer.
“We have a situation where the MDP, as a stakeholder in this process, has not received a copy of this report,” he said. “We have been made aware that a copy has been sent to the Majlis and we also have the PPM talking about this.”
Ghafoor claimed that it was “very important” for the party to be updated on the HRCM’s findings to address what he alleged were “blatant lies” spoken by Umar Naseer.
“We also have concern about the legal implications here. Independent institutions and their findings are playing a key part in the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) investigation,” he said.
Ghafoor added that parliament had since responded to a request by the MDP that was made late yesterday for a copy of the HRCM report leaked by Naseer.
HRCM President Mariyam Azra was not responding to calls by Minivan News at the time of press.
The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has filed a case in Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) alleging corruption involved in Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM)’s delay in releasing its findings concerning a police crackdown on protesters on February 8.
In a press statement released (Dhivehi) yesterday, the MDP alleged that HRCM was “deliberately delaying” the release of its findings for “political interests”, despite stating in local media that it had completed the investigation process.
“Human Rights Commission of the Maldives has stated in the media that they have finished compiling the report following their investigation into the violent police crackdown on protesters on February 8, after the toppling of the legitimate government by a coup d’état,” the party said.
“This party condemns the commission’s delay in releasing the report, which we believe is because of political interests,” read the statement.
The MDP alleged that the actions of HRCM were in violation of the regulation on right to information, and claimed that despite the commission’s statement to local media stating that it had released the report, it was not publicised anywhere.
“When [we] requested a copy of the report, the commission responded saying that a copy of report would only be made available after the commission decided on the matter during a meeting held on Wednesday, August 15, and said that they had sent the report to MDP office. But as of now, no such report has been received,” read the statement.
The MDP in the press statement said that these actions suggested that “members of the commission are involved in corruption – the use of power and authority for the benefit of certain parties”, and that therefore MP Ibrahim Rasheed would submit the case to the ACC on behalf of the party.
The MDP also called on the commission to immediately release its report to the public without delay.
HRCM response
Following MDP’s statement, the HRCM released a counter statement explaining the procedures it follows after releasing a report.
“This commission acts in accordance with the stipulations of article 24(c) and 24(d) of the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives Act. Therefore, it includes issuing of the investigation report to the party that filed the case, and we also share a copy with those that we feel are responsible and the authorities,” read the statement.
Article 24(c) states: “The commission should present a report of the investigation to the party that filed the case to the commission and to those which the commission believes should take responsibility.”
Article 24(d) states: “The commission should present its investigation report to the relevant authorities, and must advise them on way to which issues concerned in the report be not repeated again.”
HRCM in the statement said that the publicising of an investigation report would be decided after meeting held by the members.
The commission also claimed that the investigation into the events that took place on February 8 was “not an investigation that was initiated following a case filed to the commission” but rather a “self-initiated investigation”.
The commission also claimed that the report had been sent to concerned parties on May 28, and had also shared “necessary information” with the public during a press conference on July 18.
Minivan News understands that the report has been submitted to the government, but has not been otherwise circulated.
February 8
On February 8, thousands of protesters who took to the street in peaceful protest following the controversial toppling of former President Mohamed Nasheed were met by a violent crackdown by police.
The political chaos was triggered after Nasheed rallied MDP supporters, declaring that his resignation had been under duress, and called for the freshly-appointed President Mohamed Waheed Hassan to step down and call for elections.
“Yes, I was forced to resign at gunpoint,” Nasheed told foreign reporters after the rally. “There were guns all around me and they told me they wouldn’t hesitate to use them if I didn’t resign.”
Nasheed’s supporters then clashed with police and military forces near Republic Square, and were repeatedly tear gassed by the police. Dramatic footage of the crackdown has been shared on social media. More videos uploaded showed police kicking and beating protesters on the ground.
A Minivan News reporter was injured following what he described as a baton charge by former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s ‘Star Force’ officers.
“They were beating old women with batons,” he said. “It was just like the old days.”
Police also confirmed at the time that there had been injuries to protesters.
“We highlight the fact that a lot of civilians and police officers have inflicted injuries of varying degrees during the demonstrations organised by the MDP, which became a confrontation between police and protesters,” a statement read at the time. “With regards to the demonstration, this commission is in the process of investigating the matters under its mandate.”
Addressing police forces and the public, the commission requested both parties to safely support the rights guaranteed in Article 32 of the constitution, which provides for the freedom of assembly.
“We advise the police to maintain their actions to standards that would not lose the public trust on the police service and we call the public to support and assist the police in executing their duties,” read the statement.
On May 29, HRCM stated that it had completed the investigation of the event and stated that its findings were sent to the authorities including the Prosecutor General’s office and parliament.
HRCM member Jeehan Mahmoud at the time said all but one of its investigations into the government changeover in February, and the events that led up to it, had now been completed.
One more report into the alleged human rights abuses conducted by police on the day of February 7 was left to be completed, she added.
The Maldivian government has expressed “disappointment” over a “misleading” statement by the Canadian Foreign Ministry, which accused it of threatening to arrest its political opponents with a view to eliminating former President Mohamed Nasheed’s candidacy in an upcoming election.
Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird, a member of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG), issued a statement on July 27, in which he stated “It is clear that the arrests of senior officials of the Nasheed government are politically motivated. Such actions are completely unacceptable and must be reversed.”
“The threats of the present government to arrest its opponents, including former President Nasheed – the only democratically elected president in the last four decades – so as to prevent his candidacy, undermine that government’s credibility and violate its undertakings to the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group,” Baird said.
“The Maldives has been given the benefit of the doubt by the Commonwealth so far. Continued intimidation, illegal arrests and other authoritarian tactics by the present government may require the Commonwealth to consider a different approach, in our view.”
Canada’s statement preceded a rally by former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s government-aligned Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM), at which senior party figures blasted the government for not being able to “put down” Nasheed “and his 200 hounds”, and called for the ousted President to be “put in solitary confinement”.
On July 24, former Justice Minister under Gayoom and current Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel, described Nasheed, his party and the Raajje TV station as “enemies of the state.”
“We will take action against whoever incites violence against the police, no matter who it is or what kind of position they hold or have held in the past,” Jameel vowed.
Following Nasheed’s resignation under controversial circumstances on February 7, the Criminal Court issued a warrant for Nasheed’s arrest.
Nasheed’s government had detained Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed, accusing him of “taking the entire judicial system in his fist” in order to protect the remnants of Gayoom’s administration from prosecution for corruption and human rights abuses.
The warrant was never acted on by the police, amid tense confrontations outside Nasheed’s residence.
However police this week ordered Nasheed to attend police headquarters on August 2, to answer allegations in a tapped phone conversation that he had request supporters “fight back” against police.
“The Waheed administration is currently demonstrating a clear pattern of abuse of power and tactics aimed at removing President Nasheed from the upcoming Presidential race,” claimed MDP Spokesperson, MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor, who was himself recently arrested.
“The letter to summon President Nasheed is baseless and fails to state any specific charges. The letter refers indirectly to attacks on police, vandalising of police property and claims that their observations have led them to believe President Nasheed is responsible for such events.
“This summons is an attempt by the Government to thwart the progress of the Commission of National Inquiry and former President Nasheed’s participation in upcoming elections. Furthermore, members of the security forces have openly issued death threats to President Nasheed.
“In the absence of any specific criminal charges, “we are of the opinion that the only safe course of action will be for President Nasheed to provide a written statement without physically entering the police station,” Ghafoor said.
However in its response to the Canadian government, the Maldives’ Foreign Ministry said it “would like to make it very clear to the members of the international community that the government has not arrested, nor has it made any threat of arresting, its political opponents.” the Maldives Foreign Ministry responded.
Instead, the Ministry stated, “it is the prerogative of the Prosecutor General to decide on whom and when to charge an individual of criminal offence.”
“As part of a reform programme launched in 2004, the Maldives adopted a new Constitution with clear separation of powers between the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government.
“The Constitution also established several new State-bodies, such as the Prosecutor General, and the Human Rights Commission of Maldives. These institutions are fully independent from the Executive branch of the government, and indeed assert their independence.
“Now that these institutions are independent, everyone, including our valuable friends in the international community, should be prepared to accept the decisions of these institutions,” the Ministry said.
The Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) has publicly revealed the names of those it considers responsible for the arbitrary arrest and detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed, despite previously stating that it did not wish to reveal the names for risk of prejudicing any court action.
In the shadow report on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in response to the Maldives initial state report submitted by the commission to UN Human Rights Committee in June, HRCM explicitly blames those responsible for the arbitrary arrest.
Article 71(iv) of the report reads: “It is conclusive to the investigation that the President and the Minister for Defense and National Security have to take the responsibility for arbitrary arrest and detention of the Chief Judge.”
Article 71(v) reads: “It is conclusive that it was the orders of the President to arrest Chief Judge as there was no action taken against the MNDF for disobedience to the orders of the Courts.”
However, in a press conference held on Wednesday, President of HRCM Mariyam Azra declined to give the names of those involved in the alleged abuse of the judge’s human rights. HRCM also declined to give any other details at present that it felt could influence any potential trials after charges were filed against Nasheed and several senior figures in the Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) this week.
During the press conference, commission member Dr Ali Shameem spoke of the importance of having at least a “presence” of international human rights organsations at a time where the country was seeing violent political turbulence.
“I think it is very important that international human rights organisations have a presence – at least an office here in the Maldives – which we could easily reach on matters regarding human rights,” he said.
However, commission President Azra spoke against the views of the commission member, stating that she was of the view that it was “a domestic thing which we want to tackle ourselves.”
“I do not think we need an international presence. I believe the matter is a domestic thing and I am of the view that a local can be found,” she said.
During the press conference, members of the HRCM stated that their investigation had uncovered evidence that the judge, who was detained during the administration of former President Mohamed Nasheed over allegations that he posed a threat to national security, had faced attempts to remove him from his post and send him abroad.
The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), who had been in government during the time of Judge Abdulla’s detention, today raised concerns over what it claimed was the “complicit irresponsibility” of the HRCM – a body it alleged was biased towards the political interests of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.
Furthermore, the commission used the press briefing to publicise its concerns that “efforts” had been made to “coerce” the judge to commit unspecified actions that would have contravened his human rights.
Speaking to Minivan News, Azra stated that she did had not declined to reveal the names of those who were found responsible, but said she had declined to suggest against whom the Prosecutor General (PG) should press charges.
“It is not my duty to say against whom the charges should be pressed. It’s the PG who will decide it,” she said.
“We have also sent a copy of the report to President Nasheed, the Defence Minister and all the concerned authorities,” she added.
She also stated that she had been unable to answer calls from Minivan News yesterday at time of press.
“Serious Concerns”
Responding to the press briefing, the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) – of which Nasheed is the current presidential candidate – said it held “serious concerns” in the selective nature of the HRCM’s investigations.
MDP MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor alleged that the HRCM’s investigation had now formed the basis of criminal charges filed against Nasheed. The case was yesterday returned to the Prosecutor General’s (PG’s) Office after the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court said it did not presently have jurisdiction to hear such a case.
In March, the Prosecutor General Ahmed Muizz told Minivan News that the completion of the Nasheed cases was being delayed whilst police reviewed certain aspects of the investigation.
Ghafoor claimed that the decision to move ahead with the charges this week raised questions about allegations of political influence on the HRCM and the information it made available to the PG’s Office.
“I believe there is a very strong link between the HRCM holding this media briefing today and Islamist factions linked to [former President] Gayoom,” he added. “This week this faction has been very active in lobbying the HRCM, the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) and even the president himself.”
Just last month, Deputy leader of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Umar Naseer has expressed his confidence that the Prosecutor General’s (PG) investigation into charges against former President Mohamed Nasheed will see his imprisonment before the scheduled elections in July 2013.
“We will make sure that the Maldivian state does this. We will not let him go; the leader who unlawfully ordered the police and military to kidnap a judge and detain him for 22 days will be brought to justice,” local paper Haveeru reported Naseer as having said.
The Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) has told local media that while Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed had “not been subject to any form of physical abuse“ during his controversial 22 day detention, attempts had been made to violate his fundamental human rights.
Haveeru today reported that HRCM President Mariyam Azra had said that its investigation had uncovered evidence that the judge, who was detained during the administration of former President Mohamed Nasheed over allegations that he posed a threat to national security, had faced attempts to remove him from his post and send him abroad.
The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), who had been in government during the time of Judge Abdulla’s detention, today raised concerns over what it claimed was the “complicit irresponsibility” of the HRCM – a body it alleged was biased towards the political interests of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.
Local media reports today claimed that HRCM President Azra had opted against giving the names of those involved in the alleged abuse of the judge’s human rights. HRCM also declined to give any other details at present that could influence any potential trials after charges were filed against Nasheed and several senior figures in the Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) this week.
Azra was not responding to calls when contacted by Minivan News at time of press.
The HRCM used today’s press briefing to publicise its concerns that “efforts” had been made to “coerce” the judge to commit unspecified actions that would have contravened his human rights.
“Serious concerns”
Responding to the press briefing, the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) – of which Nasheed is the current presidential candidate – said it held “serious concerns” in the selective nature of the HRCM’s investigations.
MDP MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor today alleged that the HRCM’s investigation had now formed the basis of criminal charges filed against Nasheed. The case was today returned to the Prosecutor General’s (PG’s) Office after the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court said it did not presently have jurisdiction to hear such a case.
In March, the Prosecutor General Ahmed Muizz told Minivan News that the completion of the Nasheed cases was being delayed whilst police reviewed certain aspects of the investigation.
Ghafoor claimed that the decision to move ahead with the charges this week raised questions about allegations of political influence on the HRCM and the information it made available to the PG’s Office.
“I believe there is a very strong link between the HRCM holding this media briefing today and Islamist factions linked to [former President] Gayoom,” he added. “This week this faction has been very active in lobbying the HRCM, the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) and even the president himself.”
Just last month, Deputy leader of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Umar Naseer has expressed his confidence that the Prosecutor General’s (PG) investigation into charges against former President Mohamed Nasheed will see his imprisonment before the scheduled elections in July 2013.
“We will make sure that the Maldivian state does this. We will not let him go; the leader who unlawfully ordered the police and military to kidnap a judge and detain him for 22 days will be brought to justice,” local paper Haveeru reported Naseer as having said.
The PPM was formed by former President Gayoom, who also serves as head of the party.
HRCM investigation
Former President Nasheed became the first Maldivian president to be summoned before the HRCM in March this year in connection to his alleged role in the controversial detention of Judge Abdulla.
Nasheed had been requested to attend a HRCM hearing filed to try and understand who was responsible for taking the decision to arrest the judge. The former president attributed the initial arrest call to his Defence Ministry, on the grounds of “protecting” national security relating to alleged ethical concerns about the judge.
The summons of the former president was the first of three cases filed at the HRCM involving Nasheed. These cases all relate to potential human rights abuses allegedly carried out both by and against Nasheed during the lead up and aftermath of a controversial transfer of power that saw President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan installed as his successor.
Representatives of Nasheed’s legal counsel at the time claimed Nasheed has used his testimony to claim that he had been informed by the Home Ministry that the judge had allegedly posed a “national threat” – prompting his eventual detention.
The MDP MP added that Nasheed then claimed that the Home Ministry had communicated with the Defence Ministry on the situation, which in turn led to the decision to arrest the judge after bodies like the Judicial Service Commission has raised alleged concerns over his ethical conduct.
“I was told Abdulla Mohamed would not comply with the police’s summons to investigate allegations [against him],” Nasheed later stated at a press conference following the meeting with the HRCM.
“The Home Minister wrote to the Defense Minister that Abdulla Mohamed’s presence in the courts was a threat to national security. And to take necessary steps. And that step, the isolation of Abdulla Mohamed, was what the [Defense] Ministry deemed necessary.”
Nasheed claimed additionally that he had sent representatives to Girifushi to check on Judge Abdulla Mohamed’s well-being during his detention, alongside allowing the HRCM to visit the judge.
In November, the national court watchdog, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), was ordered to cease an investigation into Judge Abdulla Mohamed by the Civil Court under an action the judge himself instigated.
MDP spokesperson and MP Imthiyaz Fahmy contended following Nasheed’s first HRCM summons on March 21 that it was ironic that a leader he claimed who had openly discouraged the use of torture and actively campaigned against human rights abuses, had become the country’s first former leader to have been called in front of the HRCM.
A Maldivian government delegation sought to defend the Maldives’ human rights record and commitment to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) before the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) on Thursday and Friday.
The delegation was headed by Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel, former Justice Minister during the 30 year rule of President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and co-author of a pamphlet entitled ‘President Nasheed’s devious plot to destroy the Islamic faith of Maldivians’, published in January 2012. The publication was released at a time when the home minister’s 2300 member Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) was in opposition.
Dr Jameel was accompanied by State Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dunya Maumoon – Gayoom’s daughter – as well as the Maldives’ Permanent Representative in Geneva, Iruthisham Adam.
Adam and Dr Jameel first read out a prepared statement from the government in response to a list of issues raised by the UNHRC. The delegation then faced questions from the panel, and were given the opportunity to respond.
Dr Jameel began by briefly outlining the current political situation in the Maldives, noting that the country had seen “significant changes” in 2012, which had “clear implications for rights protected under the Covenant.”
He explained to the panel that President Mohamed Waheed had ascended to the presidency according to the constitution following the resignation of President Mohamed Nasheed on February 7, emphasising that this elevation was “not a change of government, but a continuation of the democratic government.”
He acknowledged “disagreement over the nature and sequence of events that led to Nasheed’s resignation”, noting that this had “led Nasheed and his supporters to question the legitimacy of the new government” and “perpetrate the political tensions in the country.”
The government wished to accommodate peaceful protests, he said, but added that “Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) activists harass fellow citizens at odd hours of the day, conducting political demonstrations late at night without notifying authorities.”
“The government opposes acts of violence, but these protests are violent in nature,” he claimed. “Despite this police have used minimum force and shown maximum restraint.”
The UNHRC panel began by observing that the government’s list of issues had been generated in 2011, “and as the delegation has conceded, there have been dramatic developments since then.”
The panel noted that the statement given by the government had noted that the provisions of the covenant were not treated as law in the Maldives unless incorporated, noting that this “could give the impression that the covenant did not have the status of law, whereas it has the status of international law.”
While Ambassador Adam had claimed that the Covenant was “adequately domesticated” in the Constitution, “we cannot say it has been adequately domesticated when the grounds for discrimination do not include language and religion,” the panel stated.
The panel also raised the “sweeping provision” in the Constitution that no law could be enacted contrary to a tenant of Islam, and what the ramifications of this were for the government’s commitment to the Covenant.
“Forms of torture and ill-treatment included the use of suspension, lengthy use of stocks, being beaten with fists and bars, kicked, blindfolded, handcuffed, the dislocation of joints and breaking of bones, being forced to roll and squat on sharp coral, being drowned or forced into the sea, being put in a water tank, being burned, having bright lights shone in eyes, being left outside for days while tied or handcuffed to a tree, being covered in sugar water or leaves to attract ants and goats, and in one case being tied to a crocodile’s cage. Sexual assault and humiliation was also routinely used. Many testimonies suggest the only limit to the torture and ill-treatment imposed was the imagination of those whose control they were under,” a UNHRC panel member read.
“Surely this is something that refers to before 2008,” the panel member stated, “but the [present government] has a responsibility to pursue and investigate and bring to justice if these [allegations] are indeed correct. If there is an atmosphere of impunity regarding torture, I would offer that the present situation would not be treated differently by those who would want to violate the office they have, and abuse those under their care, or those going peacefully about their business.”
The panel member also raised the question of judicial flogging, and asked the delegation to identify what crimes were punishable by flogging, and to what extent it was used.
“You say you identify a notion of discrimination because more women are flogged than men, but you don’t say what you intend to do about it,” the panel member stated. “To me the easiest way to do that is to abolish flogging.”
Another panel member questioned the delegation as to whether Dr Waheed had been publicly announced as Vice President before the 2008 Presidential election, whether his name had appeared on the ballot, and asked why the government had retreated from promises of early elections.
“I am aware that at the time of the transfer of government – and I’m not using the word some others would use – there was an undertaking for new elections to be held this year. And that undertaking was withdrawn. I can certainly see why, whatever the constitutional provision, there is a sense that a retesting of the government’s legitimacy might be a good thing,” the panel member stated.
He asked Dr Jameel to clarify a contradiction in his opening statement, in which he claimed that the government was involved in diagloue to generate consensus and that as a result Maldivians had been able to “enjoy their daily lives as normal”, but then went on to describe violent protests “which are making normal life in the capital impossible.”
The panel member also raised the “troubling role of the judiciary at the centre of many of these [recent] developments.”
“The judiciary – which is admittedly in serious need of training and qualifications – is yet seemingly playing a role leading to the falling of governments,” he observed.
One panel member raised the concern of the current push in the Maldives towards the cessation of the practice of the President commuting the death penalty.
Another, identifying himself as from a Muslim country himself, asked whether the universal recognition of rights guaranteed by the ICCPR “ fully coordinated” with the status of religion accorded by the Constitution in the Maldives, and asked about the ramifications this had towards the Maldives’ treatment of women, criminal sanctions, citizenship and freedom of expression.
“We face two trends: the universalist trend which places emphasis on human rights, and the cultural trend, which places the emphasis on Islam. The problem lies in reconciling the two,” he said, asking whether the Maldives was seeking the “modernist” approach of reconciliation.
In response, Dr Jameel said human rights in the Maldives streamlined with Islam “with very few minor exceptions.”
“The general acceptance of Muslim jurists is that Islamic human rights were there long before we subscribed to universal human rights,” he said.
“We declare that there are no apparent contradictions between human rights and what is there in the Maldives constitution.”
Dr Jameel observed that on the subject of religion and language, “As I highlighted, the Maldives as a Muslim country clearly stipulates that the rights enshrined in the constitution should be interpreted in a way that do not contradict Islamic Sharia.”
The Maldives was, he said, a homogenous society that spoke one language, was of one race and one religion, and therefore there was “no debate in society calling for the removal of the provisions [relating to] language or religion, because of the characteristics of the Maldives as a society.”
Dunya noted that “being a Maldivian and being a Muslim have become interlinked and inseparable. There is strong public support for the Maldives being and remaining a 100 percent Muslim country. Indeed if anything, the introduction of democracy have intensified [this perception].”
There were no plans to withdraw the reservation, Dunya said: “This is not dogmatic government policy or preference, but rather a reflection of the deep societal belief that the Maldives always has been and always should be a 100 percent Muslim nation. Laws, like government, should be based on the will of the people.”
On the subject of justice, Dr Jameel emphasised that any citizen could bring their grievances before the judiciary, over which the executive had “little or no influence.”
Regarding the “very useful” REDRESS report containing torture victims testimonies, “I admit we have a history that we need to go back and study to avoid what we have witnessed in the past. That was the reason why the Maldives has always been a very progressive society,” Dr Jameel said, noting the improvement in consecutive constitutions.
In the light “of many unfortunate incidents in the Maldives”, Dr Jameel noted, the Maldives had no period of limitation – and that therefore incidents such as the Addu and Huvadhoo uprising and the 1988 coup would also be open for victims to seek compensation.
“As a government we believe we have an independent judiciary. We leave it to the victims to invoke these instances before a court of law,” Dr Jameel said.
“We are a very poor country. Our budget for this year is in deficit, therefore any question of compensation will put the rights of many others in jeopardy.”
On the subject of the death penalty – which Dr Jameel himself has previously stated the government was prepared to implement – he noted that the Maldives was in the grip of a crime surge “which worries many”.
“For example, this year alone we have had seven murders in a country of 350,000. The country is really struggling to address this surge of crime. It is in the light of these occurrences that this debate has occurred. There is no official government discussion, but there are scattered debates across every section of society,” Dr Jameel said.
On the subject of the transfer of power in February, “if the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) find any criminal offences that occurred during that period they may draw these to the attention of the relevant institutions, such as the Maldives police services,” Dr Jameel told the panel.
“There are various elements, this includes the judiciary and the Prosecutor General, who can order a probe if it warrants a criminal investigation, and compel police to investigate. HRCM is also mandated to investigate and appear in trials,” he said.
HRCM had already produced a report on the former President Nasheed’s “abduction of the Criminal Court judge”, Dr Jameel noted.
Independent institutions play a pivotal role in a democracy. Their independence from political influences is one of the key reasons such institutions remain a vital part of democracy and a functional mechanism for check and balances of a democratic system.
One such institution established by the Maldivian constitution was the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM). An institution set up under the article 189 of the constitution to ensure that the Maldives has made the much needed necessary transition from the days of police brutality and human rights violations during the ‘Gayoom era’ to the present day, and to protect and uphold the values of human rights of all citizens.
But the tale seems to be going in the wrong way. It is going to be almost four months after the country’s first democratically elected president was ousted in what was an obvious coup d’etat. It is going to be four months from the day where a few petty politicians, with the financial backing of a few self-centered business tycoons and mendacious preachings of deceitful sheikhs, led to disillusioned patriots within the security forces make an absolute mockery of the people’s rule.
With the coup came not only a change of a regime, but a return to the nightmares of Gayoom’s 30 year long dictatorship that the Maldivians never ever wanted to see again. Nepotism has come back in full swing. Police brutality once again has become abundant. Reports of human rights violations are slowly re-surfacing.
On February 6, the night before Nasheed was forced out of office, a police platoon broke the chain of command and came storming into the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) ‘Haruge’ and ran riot in the premises, beating down anyone that unfortunately came into their way – a direct violation of the article 246 of the Constitution of the Maldives. The HRCM failed to come up with anything substantial.
On February 8, the day after the toppling of Nasheed’s administration, the ousted president and senior officials of his administration and several MPs, along thousands of citizens who were convinced that their vote had been ‘robbed’ by ousting their elected leader, took to the streets exercising the constitutional rights of freedom of expression and freedom assembly entitled in the articles 27 and 32.
The protesters were met with one of the most violent crackdowns in the history of the country. But the HRCM merely concluded with a condemnation statement and the publishing of a report.
But alas, they found it an utmost priority to investigate the matter of the arresting of the chief Judge of the Criminal Court, the notorious man who is the root of the problems of our crippled judiciary. Yes, I do not disagree that arresting of a Judge was indeed a controversial move, given how flawed the check and balance mechanism is in our system is.
But when one protecting a notorious Judge with a history of ‘bending justice’ for his own personal interest becomes more of a priority than to looking into the human rights violations of hundreds of ordinary people beaten down ruthlessly by the police and the military, who were supposed to serve and protect them?
On March 6, a country that boasts of working to empower and uphold the rights of women and advocate against gender disparity, suddenly forgot what they had been preaching, and found the respect and dignity of the women they advocated for blasted by saltwater cannons. A group of female protesters went to the president’s office with an innocent intention of delivering a petition to the regime leader. Despite having a female in the presidency of HRCM, what a shame it was when it barely made a move. Where were the rights of women that day?
On May 29, another wave of police brutality struck again, as the coup regime’s unprecedented sudden nightmares over a ‘cursed rooster’ lead to police sieging into the MDP protest camp at ‘Usfasgandu’ under the excuse of alleged practice of black magic and sorcery, only to find no substantial evidence that gave rise to any criminal activities going on in the camp.
Furious protesters again began protesting in front of the barricades and yet again the police barged into the crowds with batons and pepper spray, beat down protesters and even pepper sprayed a cameramen of a local TV station who had tried to film the violent arrests.
But it seemed that the officials of HRCM present during the police takeover of the camp were either not in sane mind, or blinded and deafened as the commission issued a statement applauding the actions of police for their ‘professional handling’ the situation. What a fantastic way to mock the people again as the video footages revealed the extent of barbarity of the police. When did violent brutality become professionalism?
The Human Rights Commission is bitterly failing. They are far behind in following up with the police brutality and human rights violations of the coup regime. They have become a deaf and blind toady of Gayoom, Waheed and the senior officials of the coup regime instead of being the lions of the throne. They ought to have been defending and upholding the rights and liberties of the Maldivian constitution. Indeed a disheartening story to tell.
All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]
The Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) has completed investigations into alleged police brutality and retaliatory “acts of terrorism” alleged to have been conducted by anti-government protesters on February 8, 2012.
Two separate investigations related to the conduct of both police and anti-government protesters on February 8 were today sent to authorities including the Prosecutor General’s office and parliament. The completion of the investigations comes just 24 hours after the HRCM sent its findings concerning the controversial detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed to the same bodies.
HRCM member Jeehan Mahmoud said all but one of its investigations into the government changeover in February and the events that led up to it had now been completed. One more report into the alleged human rights abuses conducted by police on the day of February 7 was left to be completed, she added.
Despite not having yet seen the findings, representatives of the government-aligned Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) today welcomed investigations from national independent institutions such as HRCM. The now opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) meanwhile said it too would wait on the outcome of the investigations, but claimed that it remained sceptical about the independence of the investigation and the HRCM.
Nasheed investigation
The HRCM investigations, which saw former President Mohamed Nasheed become the first leader of the Maldives to be brought before the commission over the detention of Judge Abdulla Mohamed, also looked into acts perpetrated against the deposed former leader and his supporters following his controversial resignation. Nasheed claimed he was forced to resign from office on February 7 in a “coup d’etat.”
Jeehan Mahmoud said that aside from the investigation into Judge Abdulla Mohamed’s detention, additional reports had today been dispatched to the Prosecutor General’s Office, the government and the People’s Majlis for official responses as required under HRCM protocols.
“As well as the judge case, we today forwarded investigations into cases of alleged police brutality and also a separate review of the so-called “terrorism activities” carried out in Addu Atoll that saw police stations and other buildings attacked,” she said. “We have one more investigation to be completed on the alleged human rights abuses of February 7.”
Mahmoud claimed that no date had yet been set for the investigation to be concluded – due in part to ongoing difficulties in conducting interviews with various parties believed to be involved.
“So far this has been the most difficult investigation as not many people that we have requested to come to give testimonies have arrived. There are many high-profile political actors involved [in the investigation]. They have obviously prioritised what issues they need to address right now,” she said.
Mahmoud claimed that certain people that the HRCM wished to interview about the events of February 7 were not appearing after being requested to attend on numerous occasions.
“We are looking at human rights abuses right now. If someone in a uniform has committed acts of abuse, or whoever’s rights have been violated, we want to know. There has never been an investigation as complicated as this for us.”
Majlis response
PPM MP Ahmed Nihan told Minivan News that he welcomed any findings by independent institutions such as the HRCM that could shed light on the political unrest that had occurred both leading up to and after February 7.
In relation to both the investigations into former President Mohamed Nasheed’s alleged conduct in detaining Chief Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed, as well as human rights abuses claimed to have been carried out by police, Nihan said anyone found to have committed crimes should be brought to justice.
“Though I cannot speak for my party as a whole, it is my personal opinion that I welcome any independent investigations that can be viewed by all political parties here. Any investigations that are submitted to authorities should be fully probed,” he said.
With independent institutions having been appointed by parliament, Nihan added that it was right for groups like HRCM and their work to be accountable to the Majlis’ Independent Institutions Oversight Committee.
“Of all of these reports , it is the Majlis which has the authority to take proper action against anyone found of wrong doing,” he said.
Depending on the reports’ findings, Nihan claimed that if there was evidence to support such an action, former President Nasheed, police officers and any other party found to have acted illegally must face prosecution.
“Every person has the right to be innocent until proven guilty of a crime. However, whether a former president or a representative of the courts, no one is above the law,” he said.
MDP MP Hamid Adul Ghafoor told Minivan News that he had also not seen the HRCM reports that had been dispatched during the last few days and would wait to review any findings before commenting on them directly.
However, Ghafoor, who also serves on the Independent Institutions Oversight Committee, said that from his previous experiences of the HRCM’s conduct, he would take their findings “with a pinch of salt”.
“I wonder what these reports are going to say regarding the police brutality allegations. I have personally lost confidence in the institutions such as the HRCM,” he claimed. “Take for instance the time they summoned [former] President Nasheed. He was happy to be interviewed but they did not have a strategy in terms of their questioning. Let us see what they conclude, but I do not think it bodes well on their ability to conduct these investigations.”
Ghafoor alleged that the members presently sitting on the country’s independent institutions such as the HRCM, the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) and the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) had all been appointed at a time when now government-aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) had a majority within parliament.
“I do have to question the independence of a lot of these institutions, which have several outstanding motions against them relating to the Independent Institutions Oversight Committee,” he added. “Ultimately, the whole system is just so corrupt right now.”
According to Ghafoor, the HRCM had shown itself as a body in the past that had failed to be proactive in terms of investigating alleged abuses, particularly those claimed to have been commited under the tenure of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.
“The HRCM has not to date looked into the cases of abuse, torture and missing persons that occurred under Gayoom,” he claimed. “They have constantly failed in my eyes and have shown themselves to be very selective in the cases they have pursued. They have actively said they would not be investigating cases linked to the Gayoom government.”
Parliament’s Independent Commissions Committee has reportedly revoked an earlier decision to summon Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz for questioning over allegations of police brutality against anti-government protesters on February 8 this year.
Committee chair Mohamed Nasheed, an independent MP, today told local media that the decision to summon Commissioner Riyaz was deemed no longer necessary after the police chief said he had asked the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) to investigate reports of police violence. MP Nasheed claimed that representatives of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) had requested the commissioner be summoned before Parliament for questioning over the reasons why police were not investigating the allegations of violence.
“They [the MDP members] wanted to know why the Police decided against investigating the matter,” Nasheed told the Haveeru news agency. “But then the commissioner revealed that the Police had requested the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) to investigate the allegations so it was decided there was no need to summon the commissioner to clear out the reason behind the decision. So the committee did not summon him.”
Earlier this week, the Independent Commissions Committee announced it would be summoning Commissioner Riyaz for questioning over alleged police brutality.
The issue was submitted to the committee last Wednesday by Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ahmed Hamza.
Hamza said Riyaz had told him that he had requested the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) investigate the case.
I am interested to know why he has refused to investigate the case,’’ he said. ‘’HRCM and Police Integrity Commission (PIC) are also being summoned to ask about their investigations into police brutality that day.’’
Hamza said the committee furthermore decided to summon Prosecutor General Ahmed Muiz because some MPs were keen to ask him questions about the arrest of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.
(0)Dislikes
(0)