Tag: Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court

JSC member Sheikh Rahman criticises JSC decisions on Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court in parliament committee

Parliament’s Independent Commission’s Oversight Committee on Thursday separately questioned two members of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) about the legality of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court and the appointment of the panel of magistrates to the case against Nasheed, for his detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Of the nine members currently serving in the judicial watchdog, Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman – the member appointed from among the public – attended the first committee session on Thursday.

Arbitrary appointment of magistrates

In response to questions posed by committee members, Sheikh Rahman stated that the JSC had arbitrarily appointed three magistrates from courts across the Maldives to Nasheed’s case, after dismissing the three names first submitted to the commission by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

“Moosa Naseem (from the Hulhumale’ Court) initially submitted names of three magistrates, including himself. This means that he had taken responsibility for overseeing this case. Now once a judge assumes responsibility for a case, the JSC does not have the power to remove him from the case,” Sheikh Rahman explained. “However, the JSC did remove him from the case, and appointed three other magistrates of their choice.”

Sheikh Rahman stated that the commission had referred to Articles 48 to 51 of the Judge’s Act as justification.

“But then I note here that the JSC breached Article 48 itself. They did not gather any information as per this article. They stated that it is due to the large number of paperwork that needs to be researched that they are appointing a panel. However, this is not reason enough to appoint a bench,” he said.

“Later, when Mazeed assumed responsibility for the Hulhumale’ Court, I remember seeing a letter he sent saying that the Hulhumale’ Court had a huge number of cases and that they needed additional magistrates to oversee the cases. However, this was after the panel was already appointed,” Sheikh Rahman stated.

“The surprising thing here is that this court has been functioning with two magistrates serving there. There have never been workload complaints. It was only after the appointment of the panel, and Mazeed going there, that this problem has arisen. This itself is a questionable matter,” Sheikh Rahman alleged.

Responding to a question posed by Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ali Waheed, Sheikh Rahman spoke of the “questionable moves” within JSC which led to the removal of Moosa Naseem from the case.

“Two members of the JSC, if I remember correctly it was Abdulla Didi and Saleem, asked for Naseem to be removed from the panel, stating as a justification that he was ‘disturbing’ the panel. Somebody even submitted a letter to the commission saying so. The majority of the committee however dismissed this as it was believed to be not enough of a reason,” Sheikh Rahman said.

“If a Head Magistrate goes on leave, or is unable to attend work, then the JSC can appoint someone in his stead. This used to be my responsibility. Then suddenly, this responsibility was taken away from me and handed over to Saleem and Abdulla Didi. The next thing I heard was that they had replaced Naseem with Mazeed,” Sheikh Rahman alleged.

“This is in direct breach of the law. They cannot appoint someone else to the post unless it becomes vacant.”

Hearing this response, Ali Waheed then alleged conflict of interest inside the commission.

“I think it is all becoming very clear now. The MDP’s competitor, Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) prospective presidential candidate Abdulla Yameen’s close friend, and Deputy Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Nazim’s former lawyer Ahmed Saleem is on the JSC as [President] Waheed’s appointee. They are working from inside the JSC to eliminate the candidacy of Mohamed Nasheed,” MP Waheed alleged.

Vice Chair of the parliamentary committee MDP MP Ahmed Sameer stated that according to the Judicature Act, only the Supreme Court and the High Court preside over cases with panels of judges as a norm.

He explained that it is only under rare and special circumstances that magistrate courts are allowed to form panels, and that even in such cases it is the Head Magistrate of the particular court that is mandated to make a decision on the matter.

Sameer then proceeded to ask Sheikh Rahman if, in light of these laws, he believed it was legitimate for the JSC to exclude Kaafu Atoll Huraa Head Magistrate Moosa Naseem, who was in charge of the Hulhumale’ Court, from the bench for Nasheed’s trial. He further inquired if the member believed it was a politically motivated move on the side of the JSC.

“In case a court requests more magistrates, the JSC can appoint additional judges to a court. However, I am not aware that the commission is under any circumstances allowed to assign judges to particular cases,” Sheikh Rahman responded.

“As for politicisation, I wasn’t at the meeting where this particular decision was made, so it is difficult to comment on the motivation behind it. However, I did notice from the recording that once one member proposed this idea, there was immediate approval and no amount of discussion was further carried out.”

JSC role in running “illegitimate court”

Referring to the provisions in the Judicature Act, Sameer further asked Sheikh Rahman if he believed that the JSC had acted in breach of the constitution and laws to maintain the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, which must be automatically liquidated following the ratification of the said act.

“At the time, I too was lacking the necessary information and voted in favour of running the Hulhumale’ Court. The documents provided by the JSC did say that there was a magistrate court in Hulhumale’ even in 2007. On later review, this too turned out to be untrue,” Sheikh Rahman stated. “I cannot say what their objective was, but there certainly was a lot of misinformation.”

“It is the JSC who decided to run the Hulhumale’ Court despite the Judicature Act. The decision was made with four votes, including that of Ahmed Rasheed. This member’s wife serves as a magistrate in the Hulhumale’ Court. This matter was then submitted to a lower court for review. However, Adam Mohamed redirected the case to the Supreme Court. He then cast the deciding vote in the Supreme Court. Do you believe this proceeded in a fair and just manner?” Sameer asked of Sheikh Rahman.

“Adam Mohamed should not have been there. I have raised the matter even in the JSC. I have also spoken with the Chief Justice about this,” the member responded.

“He said there is nothing he can do about this, and said that it had been a decision of the Supreme Court bench. I insisted that regardless of who had made the decision, there is no way a wrong can be considered otherwise,” he continued.

“The Chief Justice then said that Adam Mohamed may perhaps recuse himself from the case. However, Adam did not do so either.”

JSC Chair Adam Mohamed has responded to the committee’s summons through an official letter, refusing to be answerable to the committee as the matter in hand referred to an “ongoing case”.

However, JSC Vice Chair Abdulla Didi and Speaker Shahid spoke against the Chair’s decision, stating the commission must be answerable to its oversight body at all times, adding that Adam Mohamed had made a unilateral decision without consulting the majority members of JSC.

Shahid left on a trip abroad despite having agreed to attend Thursday’s parliamentary committee meeting.

At the committee meeting, Sheikh Rahman also stated that he did not find Adam Mohamed’s justification acceptable.

“It is the JSC which has the powers to look into complaints about this bench in question. It is also the JSC that holds the powers to dismantle the bench should need be. Hence it makes no sense to say we cannot discuss the matter at any point in time,” he stated.

Sheikh Rahman also criticised Adam Mohamed’s decisionto not attend the committee summons without consulting other members of the commission.

He further said that he did not believe the serving members of the JSC were able fulfil their duties as per the pledges they had taken, alleging that the commission had become subject to political influences.

Sheikh Rahman made similar remarks in a live television appearance last week. He is the second JSC member to blow the whistle. The first, Aishath Velezinee, challenged the JSC’s “unconstitutional” reappointment of poorly educated and ethically dubious judges in August 2010. She was subsequently stabbed three times in the back in broad daylight on Chandeenee Magu, Male’s main tourist strip.

The JSC is currently comprised of Chair Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed, Vice Chair Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed, Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid, High Court Judge Abdulla Hameed, MP and government aligned Jumhooree Party (JP) Leader, MP and Presidential Candidate Gasim Ibrahim, lawyer Ahmed Rasheed, Attorney General Azima Shakoor, Presidential Appointee Mohamed Saleem and Member appointed from the public Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“JSC politicised, trying to eliminate Nasheed and MDP from elections”: JSC Member Shuaib

Judicial Services Commission (JSC) member Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman has spoken out against the judicial watchdog body, declaring it as politicised and attempting to eliminate former President Mohamed Nasheed from the September 7 elections.

The JSC has not only created the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court in which the former President is being tried, but has appointed the three-member panel of judges overhearing the case. The JSC’s membership includes several of Nasheed’s direct political rivals, including Jumhoree Party leader and resort tycoon Gasim Ibrahim, one of Nasheed’s rival presidential candidates.

Sheikh Rahman, the member of the commission appointed by the public, said political influence of the commission had heightened after Gasim had been appointed.

He is the second JSC member to blow the whistle on the Commission, echoing the concerns of JSC member Aisthath Velezinee who was stabbed in the street in early 2011.

Sheikh Rahman made the remarks during a live appearance on local TV channel Raajje TV, just over a week after UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul also aired concerns over the JSC in a statement following a fact finding mission to the Maldives.

Speaking on the show, Sheikh Rahman said the JSC had openly discussed their intent to ensure the elimination of the Maldivian Democratic Party and presidential candidate former President Mohamed Nasheed from the upcoming elections.

Sheikh Rahman alleged that Chair of the Commission, Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed, had abused his post and powers as the chair to try and eliminate Nasheed from contesting the elections, and alleged that Adam Mohamed had “used the commission as a political tool”.

“The politics of the majority control the commission, hence the rule of law, due process and due diligence do not exist in the JSC,” Sheikh Rahman stated. “The commission has no amount of respect for constitutional principles.”

“It is common now to hear a lot of MDP and Nasheed bashing in commission meetings. This was not how things usually were before. I believe politically biased comments like this have increased since Gasim joined the JSC as a representative of the parliament,” Sheikh Rahman continued.

“Gasim even went to the point of asking the UN Special Rapporteur Knaul when she held a meeting with us to state in her report that it was MDP who torched the courts. I heard him say exactly that,” Sheikh Rahman said.

JSC Chair abuses power to continue running unlawful Hulhumale’ Court

Sheikh Rahman further revealed that the JSC had “handpicked” magistrates to preside over the case against Nasheed, for his detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

He said that the JSC’s intention in assigning the case at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court to the three specific magistrates was for the explicitly stated purpose of “sentencing Nasheed”.

According to Sheikh Rahman, the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was initially established through misinformation and manipulation of the commission on the part of JSC Chair Adam Mohamed.

“The Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court is actually abolished automatically with the concept of judicial districts coming into effect upon the ratification of Judicature Act on 10 August 2010. And yet, they continue to run the court,” Sheikh Rahman stated.

He went on to say that as the constitution defines Hulhumale’ and Villingili as parts of the capital Male’ city, there was no authorisation to set up separate magistrate courts on these islands.

Sheikh Rahman alleged that despite these facts, JSC Chair Adam Mohamed had invoked the theory that Hulhumale’ and Villingili were separate islands and were therefore qualified to have their own magistrate courts.

Appendix 2 of the Constitution of Maldives which defines administrative divisions, states that Male’ is inclusive of Villin’gili and Hulhumale’.

Sheikh Rahman revealed that he had, as a member of the JSC, submitted a complaint to the commission to review the decision regarding the court on the grounds that it was unlawfully established. He stated that his attempts were in vain as Chair Adam Mohamed had once again abused his powers and refused to schedule the matter during the commission sessions.

Sheikh Rahman stated that he had made multiple requests for a decision on the Hulhumale’ Court, all of which was rejected by the chair. He confirmed that he had not received any written or official responses to the motions he submitted on the matter.

“Another false justification that Adam Mohamed used is that the matter cannot be discussed in the commission as it referred to an ‘ongoing case’,” he said.

UN Special Rapporteur Gabriella Knaul also criticised the ‘arbitrary appointment’ of judges to Nasheed’s case. She also stated that the Hulhumale’ Court did not have the constitutional mandate to oversee the specific case.

Former JSC member Velezinee also repeated her concerns about the politicisation of the JSC at a recent press conference held to share her remarks on the preliminary findings of UN Special Rapporteur Gabriela Knaul.

Incumbent JSC Member Gasim Ibrahim, meanwhile called Knaul’s findings ‘lies and jokes’ at a JP party rally.

The Hulhumale’ Court meanwhile on Wednesday refused to delay Nasheed’s trial until after the elections, despite the prosecution stating they had no objection to such a decision.

Gasim Ibrahim was not responding to calls at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Court bans former President Nasheed from travelling abroad

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has said that the travel ban imposed against him will hinder his political campaign and party work.

Speaking to the Times of India, Nasheed stated that despite ending his 11-day stay at the Indian High Commission in Male’ last month, he was still not entirely free, adding that he “fears” an arrest warrant will be issued against him “any day”.

The former President sought refuge inside the High Commission building on February 13 after Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court ordered police to produce Nasheed at his trial hearing scheduled for later that day.

Nasheed has maintained that the charges against him – of detaining the Chief Criminal Court Judge during his final days in office – are a politically-motivated effort to prevent him contesting the 2013 elections.

Nasheed spent 11 days inside the commission building before making an unannounced exit on February 23, after a “deal” had allegedly been brokered between both Indian and Maldivian governments.

Despite Nasheed’s exit from the commission, the former President has now stated that the travel ban imposed by Hulhumale’ court – prohibiting him from leaving Male’ – shows the “politically motivated nature of the court”.

“I believe the Indian government is worried that if there isn’t a free, fair and inclusive election, there will be instability in the Maldives.

“However, if I am not allowed to travel outside Male and campaign, it means that there is no firmness to the understanding brokered by India. I fear the court might even issue a warrant against me any day,” Nasheed was quoted as saying in Times of India.

The former President claimed that there had been an understanding – rather than a deal – between the two governments that he would be able to conduct a peaceful political campaign and would participate in an inclusive election.

“The charges would not be dropped against me, but even if I became the president after the elections, the law would take its course. On my part I would create space for the Indian and Maldivian governments to settle the issue,” Nasheed said.

Despite Nasheed’s claims, an official from the Judiciary Media Unit told local media last month that the court had denied Nasheed’s request as he had not cooperated with the court on previous instances.

Responding to a question about President Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik’s stance on the matter, Nasheed told Times of India that the President has yet to say anything.

“As president, he [President Waheed] should say clearly that the case against me is deferred. This deliberately created situation of suspended animation is going to harm our campaign,” Nasheed said.

President’s Office Spokespeople Masood Imad and Ahmed ‘Topy’ Thaufeeq were not responding to calls from Minivan News at time of press.

An official from the Judiciary Media Unit told Minivan News that he would attempt to find out more information regarding the length of Nasheed’s travel ban, however he was not responding to follow-up calls at time of press.

The former President was invited to be the guest of honour at the opening of the Cultural Season 2013 in Abu Dhabi in the UAE, by Sheikh Nahayan Mabarak Al Nahayan, Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research.

Nasheed was also due to meet Commonwealth Secretary General Kamalesh Sharma, and was to visit Denmark on the invitation of the Danish government.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

UN Special Rapporteur criticises “arbitrary” appointment of judges in Nasheed trial

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, has criticised the appointment of judges presiding over the case against former President Mohamed Nasheed, for his controversial arrest of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in 2011.

“Being totally technical, it seems to me that the set-up, the appointment of judges to the case, has been set up in an arbitrary manner outside the parameters laid out in the laws,” Knaul said, while responding to questions from media after delivering her statement on Sunday.

Nasheed is currently facing trial at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, the legality of which has been much contested in recent weeks.

The Special Rapporteur commented on the matter of Nasheed’s trial being conducted by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

“According to the law, the constitutional court which has jurisdiction to hear this case is the Criminal Court. While I understand the concerns of the Prosecutor General’s (PG) Office regarding the possible eventual conflict of interest since Judge Abdulla sits in the court, it is not for the prosecutor to decide if the judge will be impartial,” Knaul stated.

“It is the duty of the judge or judges to recuse themselves when they feel they would not be impartial in presiding over any case,” Knaul said.

Speaking about the case of the detention itself, Knaul stated that judging by the briefings received in her meetings in the country, the detention seems to have taken place outside the parameters laid down by the constitution.

“Regardless of the merits of the allegations of corruption or misconduct on the judge, I do believe that proceedings against judges should also be fair and impartial,” Knaul said.

“I think in disciplinary proceedings, especially disciplinary hearings, a judge should have the right to a fair trial. And all decisions taken should be subject to an independent review.”

In presenting her preliminary findings after the eight day fact-finding mission, Knaul stated that she found the concept of independence of the judiciary has been “misconstrued and misinterpreted” by all actors, including the judiciary itself.

Knaul also spoke about the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) – the body mandated with appointment, transfer and removal of judges – stating that the commission is politicised, subject to external influence, and hence unable to fulfill its mandate effectively.

Knaul also highlighted the lack of transparency in the assignment of cases and the constitution of benches in all courts, including the Supreme Court.

“When cases are assigned in a subjective manner, the system becomes much more vulnerable to manipulation, corruption, and external pressure. Information on the assignment of cases should be clearly available to the public in order to counter suspicions of malpractice and corruption,” she observed.

Knaul asserted again that the composition of the JSC must be revised. She has written in her statement that “an appointment body acting independently from both the executive and the legislative branches of government should be established with the view to countering any politicization in the appointment of judges and their potential improper allegiance to interests other than those of fair and impartial justice.”

Responding to a question posed by a journalist asking if the rapporteur believed it wise for such a ‘high-profile’ case to be delayed, Knaul said that the judiciary should be effective for everyone who seeks justice.

“According to the constitution, the judiciary should not choose cases based on X,Y, or Z person. It should be equal in applying or delivering justice. It is necessary to have an objective criteria for selecting cases and to assign cases in court. If you apply these processes, you make the system work in the least subjective manner possible,” Knaul stated.

Government responds

Attorney General Azima Shakoor received the preliminary findings from Rapporteur Gabriela Knaul on behalf of the government of the Maldives.

“In the discussion the Government also noted the responsibility of international partners in establishing a conducive environment where institutions of the the State, particularly the judiciary, are respected by the public,” an official statement on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website read.

The statement did not include any details of whether or not the government planned to take any action in response to the rapporteur’s findings and comments on the judicial system.

When the question was asked of President’s Office Spokesperson Masood Imad, he referred Minivan News to the Attorney General, saying “she is probably a more relevant person to talk about this matter.”

Attorney General Azima Shakoor said she was unable to speak on the subject once Minivan News posed the question to her.

The government also did not offer any response to the additional comments Knauls made regarding Nasheed’s trial after delivering her written statement.

MDP claims commitment to judicial reform

Responding to the Special Rapporteur’s findings, the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has said it is ready to work with other political parties to immediately begin work on urgent reforms to the judiciary and the judicial accountability mechanisms.

“Establishing a truly independent, professional and widely respected judiciary is central to ending the political turmoil in the Maldives and to consolidating democracy in our country. We have always accepted this. Yet Gayoom, Waheed and others who have benefited and continue to benefit from our current corrupt and biased judiciary never have,” MDP’s international spokesperson, Hamid Abdul Ghafoor, said in a statement.

“Today, as we digest yet another report by an eminent international body that clearly says our judiciary is not fit for purpose, it is time for all political parties to put aside their differences and work together to urgently reform our justice sector. This means immediately halting the political trials launched against President Nasheed and the hundreds of pro-democracy activists currently facing ‘terrorism’ and other trumped-up charges. It also means establishing a caretaker government to oversee judicial reform and to prepare the ground for genuinely free and fair elections,” Ghafoor said.

The party’s statement also noted Knaul’s concern over the system of appointment of judges, stating “the Special Rapporteur expressed support for the concerns repeatedly raised by Aishath Velezinee, a former member of the JSC and whistleblower (who, in 2011, was stabbed and almost killed because of her outspoken comments), who said that the very starting point of judicial independence – the post 2008 Constitution system of screening and reappointing judges – was marred by malpractice and corruption.”

Referring to the rapporteur’s comments on selectivity in case assignment, prioritisation and bench constitution, the MDP alleged it had led to “hundreds of important cases against allies of former President Gayoom and members of the current government being kicked into the legal ‘long grass’, while the Prosecutor-General, the judicial administration authorities and the courts enthusiastically pursue political trials against President Nasheed and other MDP members.”

MDP echoed Special Rapporteur Knaul in stating that these deep-rooted problems had led to the public having an alarming lack of trust in the judiciary.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Court denies former President permission to travel abroad

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has had his request to leave the country denied by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

An official from the Judiciary Media Unit told local media that the court had denied Nasheed’s request as he had not cooperated with the court on previous instances.

Nasheed, who had asked to leave the Maldives on Wednesday (February 27) until March 5, had received travel permission from the court when previously asked.

Nasheed had stated that he would be travelling abroad at the end of February, having accepting an invitation from the Commonwealth Secretary General Kamalesh Sharma, and to Denmark under an invitation from the state.

The former President’s request to leave the Maldives follows his exit from the Indian High Commission on Saturday (February 23) after he sought “refuge” inside the embassy building for 11 days.

Nasheed moved into the Indian High Commission after police were ordered to produce him at Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court on February 13 for his scheduled trial hearing.

Nasheed has maintained that the charges against him – of detaining the Chief Criminal Court Judge during his final days in office – are a politically-motivated effort to prevent him contesting the 2013 elections.

British-based publication, Daily Mail reported that Nasheed’s exit from the Indian High Commission came after the Maldivian government “brokered” a deal with the government of India.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has since denied the claim in a statement released on Sunday (February 24), stressing that there had been no deal made with “anyone” that would result in Nasheed leaving the high commission.

Speaking to press on the day he exited the Indian High Commission, Nasheed emphasised his desire for stability to be restored following eight days of continuous protests by the MDP, dozens of police arrests and a violent attack on a Maldivian journalist.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Trial hearing cancelled after police report failure to produce Nasheed

Additional reporting by Neil Merrett.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed’s trial hearing scheduled for 4:00pm today (February 20) was cancelled by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court after police were unable to present him to judicial authorities due to his presence in the Indian High Commission.

The High Court meanwhile threw out an appeal hearing into the first warrant issued on February 13, after Nasheed failed to appear at a hearing scheduled for 1:00pm this afternoon.

On Monday (February 18), the magistrate court issued a second arrest warrant requesting police present Nasheed on charges of illegally detaining Chief Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed during his final days in office.

An official from the Judiciary Media Unit confirmed Nasheed’s hearing was cancelled after police said the former president could not be arrested while still inside the Indian High Commission.

“Police have said they won’t be able to bring Nasheed to Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court and so the hearing has been cancelled. A new hearing is yet to be scheduled by the court,” the official said.

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) have said Nasheed will remain inside the High Commission until an interim government is established ahead of the presidential elections in September.

Police have cordoned off the street outside the High Commission, but have so far taken a hands off approach towards the few hundred Nasheed supporters protesting at the barricades.

Police Spokesperson Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef was not responding to calls from Minivan News at time of press.

Stalemate

Nasheed and the MDP have maintained that the charges against him are a politically-motivated attempt to prevent the former president from contesting in presidential elections scheduled for later this year.

Nasheed’s lawyer Hassan Latheef said the former president’s team of lawyers were having to rely on the media to receive updates regarding the latest news from Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, and were not being officially informed of any decisions it was making.

“It is very unfortunate that we are not directly informed by the court regarding the developments in this case. Instead, we are having to contact the court for information,” he said.

“We are relying on the media for updates. Now that the court hearing has been cancelled, we have no idea what will happen,” Latheef said.

Asked whether about the possibility of the trial being conducted in absentia, Latheef added: “The constitution states clearly that no trial can be held with the defendant being absent.”

“However, knowing this particular court and the knowing the magistrates on the case, as well as the police and government, I do not doubt it could happen,” Latheef said.

Earlier today, MDP Spokesperson MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor said that the Foreign Ministry had already been in touch with the Indian High Commission to try get them to hand Nasheed over to police.

“I wouldn’t put it past the government to raid the Indian High Commission, partly because nobody expects them to do it,” Ghafoor said.

India’s Special Envoy arrives

India’s Special Envoy Harsh Vardhan Shringla visited Male’ today to try and resolve the stalemate, which has attracted widespread international media coverage, and extensive attention from the Indian media. No headway or details of meetings had been reported at time of press.

Meanwhile, a small police presence manned barricades around the the Indian High Commission building ahead of the scheduled trial.

Minivan News also observed a large UN contingent sitting in Traders Hotel opposite the High Commission. UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, is currently in the country for a scheduled visit until February 24.

A large number of tourists were passing through the barricades and having their photos taken with police officers controlling traffic outside the high commission. A row of 30 bouquets of flowers had been placed against the wall of the commission earlier in the day by a group of female Nasheed supporters. One had a card the read: “We will always be with our President (Anni) XX”.

As the time of the hearing neared, around 200 MDP supporters gathered outside the party office on Sosun Magu before moving to the Prosecutor General (PG)’s Office demanding the PG withdraw the charges against former President Nasheed.

As the 4:00pm deadline passed, a few hundered supporters and onlookers once again gathered on Sosun Magu, where they have been holding successive daily demonstrations since Friday (February 15).

Around 20 riot officers were deployed to control the crowd, remaining a few hundred yards away from the protesters.  The atmosphere was tense as supporters continued to heckle authorities, however at time of press police had taken no action to disperse the demonstration.

However police subsequently seized a yellow-painted pick-up truck equipped with a loudspeaker that was playing the party’s protest songs, claiming that it was disturbing nearby schoolchildren.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Former Defense Minister denies charges in Hulhumale Magistrate Court

Former Defense Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu has denied the charge of arbitrary detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdullah Mohamed, during the first hearing of his criminal trial held in the controversial Hulhumale Magistrate Court.

The Prosecutor General has charged Tholhath for arresting the judge in January 2012, during his tenure as the minister of defense under former President Mohamed Nasheed’s administration.

Others facing the same charges include former President Mohamed Nasheed, former Chief of Defense Force retired Major General Moosa Ali Jaleel, former Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) Male Area Commander retired Brigadier General Mohamed Ibrahim Didi and Colonel Ziyad.

During the first hearing of the trial held on this Monday, State Prosecutor Abdulla Raabiu claimed that following orders from the Commander in Chief – President Mohamed Nasheed – Tholhath had orchestrated the plan to arrest the judge and had arbitrarily detained Judge Abdulla Mohamed from January 16, 2012 until February 7, 2012.

Tholhath should therefore be charged for the offense of arbitrarily detaining an innocent individual as stipulated in article 81 of the Penal Code, Raabiu added.

The article 81 of the Maldives Penal Code states: “It shall be an offense for any public servant by reason of the authority of office he is in to detain to arrest or detain in a manner contrary to Law innocent persons. Person guilty of this offense shall be subjected to exile or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding MVR 2,000.00”.

Denying the charge, the former defense minister claimed that charge pressed against him was “not legitimate”, but did not state his reasons for the claim.

Speaking on behalf of Tholhath Ibrahim, his defense lawyer Mohamed Ibrahim argued that the trial lacked the necessary impartiality, contending that same charges should be pressed against former Home Minister Hassan Afeef and Commissioner of Police Ahmed Faseeh, as they were responsible for maintaining law and order within the state.

Detention of the judge

Minister Afeef at the time of the judge’s arrest accused him of “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist”, listing 14 cases of obstruction of police duty, including withholding warrants for up to four days, ordering police to conduct unlawful investigations and disregarding decisions by higher courts.

Afeef accused the judge of “deliberately” holding up cases involving opposition figures, and barring media from corruption trials, ordering the release of suspects detained for serious crimes “without a single hearing”, maintaining “suspicious ties” with family members of convicts sentenced for dangerous crimes, and releasing a murder suspect “in the name of holding ministers accountable”, who went on to kill another victim.

Afeef also alleged that the judge actively undermined cases against drug trafficking suspects and had allowed them opportunity to “fabricate false evidence after hearings had concluded”.

Judge Abdulla “hijacked the whole court” by deciding that he alone could issue search warrants, Afeef alleged, and had arbitrarily suspended court officers. He also accused the judge of “twisting and interpreting laws so they could not be enforced against certain politicians” and “accepting bribes to release convicts.”

The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) itself had investigated Abdulla Mohamed but stopped short of releasing a report into his ethical misconduct, after the Civil Court awarded the judge an injunction against his further investigation by the judicial watchdog.

JSC whistleblower Aishath Velezinee has also contended that the JSC’s blanket reappointment of all interim judges and magistrates in 2010 violated article 285 of the constitution guaranteeing an ethical and qualified judiciary, and that as such, the case “is based on a false premise, the assumption that Abdulla Mohamed is a constitutionally appointed judge, which is a political creation and ignores all evidence refuting this.”

The JSC itself had investigated Abdulla Mohamed but stopped short of releasing a report into his ethical misconduct after the Civil Court awarded the judge an injunction against his further investigation by the judicial watchdog.

Military assisted police

During Tholath’s trial, his lawyer argued that the military did not conduct intensive legal reviews of requests for assistance from the police, and said his client fully believed that the military should act as quickly as it could to assist the police when required.

When the judges sought to clarify as to what part of the charge Tholthath was denying, his lawyer stated that his client had not done anything against the law.

In response to Tholhath Ibrahim’s denial of the charges, the state produced witnesses in support of its claim.

This list of witnesses included current Chief of Defense Force Major General Ahmed Shiyam, former Police Commissioner Ahmed Faseeh, former Vice Chief of Defense Force Farhath Shaheer, former Military Intelligence Chief Brigadier General Ahmed Nilam, former Deputy Commissioner of Police Ismail Atheef, Colonel Wise Waheed and Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) Media Official Colonel Abdul Raheem.

Along with the witnesses, the state also produced as evidence a list of text messages sent from Tholhath Ibrahim’s mobile phone, video footage of the arrest of the judge and a transcript of a cabinet meeting in which the issue was debated.

State prosecutor Raabiu said the state was willing to produce more witnesses and evidences to court if the need arises as the trial progressed.

When the evidence was produced in court, Tholhath lawyer requested the court give a period of one month to review the evidence put forth against his claim.

Dismissing the request, the sitting judges stated that the trial had been put on hold for a long time and that certain documents had already been shared with the defendants, therefore the next hearing would be scheduled for March 13, giving the defendant a period of 23 days.

An investigation led by Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) found the former President Nasheed as the “highest authority liable” for the military-led detention of the Judge. The HRCM also identified Tholhath Ibrahim as a “second key figure” involved in the matter.

In July 2012, Prosecutor General Ahmed Muizz pressed charges against the parties who had been identified in the HRCM investigation as responsible for the arrest.

Following the charges, former President Nasheed’s legal team challenged the legitimacy of the Hulhumale Magistrate Court in High Court, but the Supreme Court intervened and dismissed the claims by declaring the magistrate court was legitimate and could operate as a court of law.

The trial was heard by all three judges of Hulhumale Magistrate Court appointed to look into the case. The panel consists of Judge Shujaau Usmaan, Judge Hussain Mazeed and Judge Abdul Nasir Abdul Raheem.

Contentious court

The Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, which is also trying former President Nasheed for his detention of the Chief Criminal Court Judge during his final days in office, was created by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC).

The JSC, which includes several of Nasheed’s direct political opponents including rival presidential candidate Gasim Ibrahim, also appointed the three-member panel of judges overhearing the trial.

Parliament’s Independent Institutions Oversight Committee has previously declared that the JSC’s creation of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was unconstitutional.

However, the Supreme Court declared parliament overruled, issuing a statement that “no institution should meddle with the business of the courts”, and claiming that as it held authority over “constitutional and legal affairs” it would “not allow such interference to take place.”

“The judiciary established under the constitution is an independent and impartial institution and that all public institutions shall protect and uphold this independence and impartiality and therefore no institution shall interfere or influence the functioning of the courts,” the Supreme Court stated.

A subsequent request by the JSC that the Supreme Court bench rule on the court’s legitimacy resulted in a four to three vote in favour. The casting vote was made by Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed, also President of the JSC.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court issues second arrest warrant for Nasheed

The Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court has issued a second arrest warrant for former President Mohamed Nasheed, an official from the Judiciary Media Unity has confirmed.

Five days after Nasheed sought refuge inside the Indian High Commission, the Judiciary Media Unity confirmed to Minivan News that Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court has now issued a new arrest warrant, ordering police to produce Nasheed at the court on February 20 at 4:00pm.

Police Spokesperson Sub Inspector Hassan Haneef also confirmed that the Maldives Police Service had received the court order for Nasheed’s arrest.

The former president has been taking refuge inside the Indian High Commission building in Male’ since February 13 to avoid arrest, after Hulhumale’ court previously ordered police to produce him at his scheduled trial.

Nasheed and his party have maintained that the charges put forward against him – of illegally detaining Chief Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed during his final days in office – are a politically-motivated attempt to prevent him from contesting presidential elections scheduled for later this year.

The latest arrest warrant comes after Nasheed failed to attend the last two scheduled trial hearings on February 10 and February 13.

An official from the Indian High Commission told Minivan News they were waiting to see the arrest warrant and are “watching the current situation”.

The situation has contributed to an escalation in diplomatic tensions between India and the Maldives, which has accused the former of interference in internal Maldivian affairs.

High Commissioner D M Mulay was summoned to the Foreign Ministry on Sunday and presented with a protest note from the government.

On Monday the High Commission released a statement “denying in entirety” allegations that it was being used by the former President “for political meetings and instigating street violence”.

Thousands of supporters of the former president have been protesting in the capital Male’ since Nasheed moved into the Indian High Commission last Wednesday.

On Saturday (February 16) over 5000 supporters marched through the streets of Male’ clashing with police, which resulted in 55 arrests during the night.

Nasheed’s decision to seek asylum in the Indian High Commission caught the attention of the international community last week. The US, UK, EU, UN and Commonwealth have since urged the Maldivian government to show restraint, whilst calling for “inclusive, free and fair elections” in September.

Arrest warrant is a threat to Nasheed’s life: MDP

Following the news of the latest warrant, Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor said that the party are “firmly” against the former President from standing trial in an “illegitimate court”.

“The party firmly believes that he should not go [to Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court] and we firmly believe that the arrest warrant threatens his life.

“The moment he steps out of the Indian High Commission, that will be the end of him. Even the international community have recognised this as a witch hunt,” Ghafoor told Minivan News.

When asked as to whether former president will comply with the court order, Ghafoor said “it is Nasheed’s call”.

“The question is, what do the Indians do now? The Maldives authorities will now have to approach the Indian High Commission and ask them to hand him over.

“The minute the Indian government gave him refuge, they took a position. I can’t see the Indian government dropping Nasheed like a hot potato,” Ghafoor added.

The MDP spokesperson claimed the government had alienated itself from the international community given their stance on the matter. Ghafoor further claimed that foreign governments and organisations “can see” that attempts to arrest Nasheed “are nothing more than a witch hunt”.

India’s involvement criticised by Maldives officials

India’s involvement in the political dispute has been criticised by members of the Maldivian government, with the Home Minister Mohamed Jameel Ahmed tweeting last week: “What’s happening now gives us an indication of the extent and level of interest some countries prepared to take in our internal matters,” he said.

“I would strongly urge everyone to let our institutions deal with the challenges, and allow the Maldives to uphold rule of law,” he tweeted.

President of the Maldives, Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik released his own statement yesterday condemning Nasheed’s actions on Wednesday.

“I am dismayed that the former President Nasheed sought refuge in the Indian High Commission in Male’ when he was summoned to the court. The court order which required the Police to arrest Nasheed and have him appear before the court was due to his refusal to attend court hearing. It had expired at 1600 hours on the 13 February 2013, and there is no reason for him to remain in the High Commission and to instigate street violence.

“The court order has nothing to do with my government. Upholding the rule of law means nobody is above the law. I would like to assure the people of Maldives that the law and order will be maintained,” the President’s statement read.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed “seeking advice” in Indian High Commission following court order for his arrest

Police have been issued a court order to produce former President Mohamed Nasheed at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court ahead of his trial, scheduled at 4:00pm today.

The former President, who is due to attend a hearing regarding his detention of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012, was inside the Indian High Commission at 1:00pm this afternoon following the announcement of the court order.

Police had set up barricades around the High Commission area at time of press.

Police Spokesperson Sub Inspector Hassan Haneef today confirmed that police had received an order to produce the former president at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

“We have received the order and we will be trying to carry it out in accordance with the Maldivian constitution and the order itself,” Haneef said.

The court summons follows Nasheed’s failure to attend his previously scheduled trial hearing at Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court on February 10.

The former President was on an official visit to India after being granted permission to depart the country by the court. Despite his permitted travel period expiring on February 9, Nasheed arrived back in Male’ on February 11.

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Mohamed Rasheed at 1:00pm said the former President was inside the Indian High Commission in Male’, “seeking advice” after news of the court order calling for his arrest was made public on Tuesday night.

“He went to the hospital in Male’ this morning and then returned back to his home. After a few minutes he went to the Indian High Commission with a couple of MDP MPs.

“[Nasheed’s] lawyers are not around at the moment, but from what I know they are attempting to appeal the order at the High Court,” Rasheed said.

Last night Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) members camped outside the former President’s residence in order to prevent police from entering the narrow street where Nasheed lives.

MDP Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor claimed  police had intended to arrest Nasheed in secret in order to present him at his court hearing today.

“They [Police] were going to pounce on Nasheed, but we received intelligence about it and let people know what was happening,” Ghafoor said.

“This is pre-2008 procedures. At least one hundred people were outside Nasheed’s residence last night throughout the night,” Hamid told Minivan News today.

Minivan News observed crowds of supporters still filling the street this morning at around 10:30am.

LIVE UPDATES: Refresh page for latest

1:15pm: The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) have issued a statement condemning the arrest warrant for Nasheed.

“The MDP reiterates its belief that the arrest warrant and the charges against him are politically motivated and calls on the international community to remain vigilant and immediately intervene to ensure a free and fair trial for President Nasheed,” the party said.

“President Nasheed’s legal team was informed by the Maldives Police Services that the court order was issued to arrest President Nasheed and summon him to the court on 13 February 2013. However, the court has not yet informed him or his legal team of the scheduled hearing.”

1:39pm: Maldives Police Service (MPS) were standing outside the Indian High Commission building in Male’.

The second hearing of the case was scheduled on 10th February 2013 while President Nasheed was on an official visit to India and was unable to return to Male’ due to a medical emergency.

The lawyers informed the court in writing as stated in the court’s regulations. According to the regulations, if the accused is unable to attend the hearing and after informing the court, documentation must be provided to the court within 2 working days.

While time frame to produce the documents has not even passed, and when the documents were being processed, the court issued an arrest warrant on President Nasheed on 11th February 2013. The courts also have an option to fine the accused (MVR 75) for failing to appear before court.

1:59pm: ‘MDP News’ Twitter feed shows woman being apprehended by police outside the High Commission building.

“This highlights, once again, how biased the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court is against President Nasheed. This illegal court has no interest in the rule of law, it exists merely to serve the political aims of its paymasters. This trial is a thinly veiled attempt by Dr Wadeed, in cahoots with his friends in the judiciary, to prevent President Nasheed from contesting in the upcoming presidential elections. The regime is fearful of President Nasheed’s popularity, so they are pulling out all the stops to prevent his name appearing on the ballot paper. These forceful measures by the Court are contrary to their usual practice,” said MDP MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor.

2:43pm: Indian media ‘Times Now Live’ asks: “Will India protect Nasheed?”

3:30pm: Nasheed has tweeted confirming that he is seeking refuge in the Indian High Commission: “Mindful of my own security and stability in the Indian Ocean, I have taken refuge at the Indian High Commission in Maldives.”

Minivan News observed around 200 people gathered near the police barricades. The crowd appeared non-violent but the atmosphere was tense.

3:54pm: Indian media is reporting the Indian government as denying that Nasheed has sought refuge.

4:05pm: Minivan News has observed a police officer armed with a rubber bullet gun deployed outside the High Commission.

4:10pm: MDP MP Ghafoor has said Nasheed is discussing “a transition arrangement, where we can have a free and fair election in September.”

“We have a scenario now we can’t move ahead without a mediator. We prefer India because it is our neighbour and a democratic nation,” he said.

4:23pm: Minivan News understands that no formal request for refuge or asylum has been made at this stage.

4:26pm: An appeal hearing was cancelled after a summoning chit was not able to be delivered to Nasheed.

4:27pm: Riot police appear to have pulled a man out of the crowd and arrested him.

4:49pm: MDP MP and spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor has said he was not aware how long the former president planned to remain in the Indian High Commission building.

“This is the safest place for him to be until a solution is found,” he claimed. “I would speculate that a transitional arrangement for fresh elections is being sought.”

Without providing specific examples of how Nasheed’s life was in danger, MP Ghafoor contended there had been threats against the former president going back to when he was first elected in 2008.

“Right now we have militarised Special Operations (SO) police officers running the show. I do not believe [Nasheed] is safe,” he claimed. “50,000 MDP members do not trust the police either.”

After Nasheed was previously taken into police custody ahead of a court hearing back in October 2012, the former president was not reported to have been physically mistreated by authorities during his transfer to Dhoonidhoo detention facility.

President’s Office Media Secretary Masood Imad said at the time that despite allegations raised by the MDP concerning the alleged use of excessive force by police to seize the former president, authorities had insisted officers had acted with restraint.

“I’m told [Nasheed] asked for a box of cigarettes [in custody], a request that [officers] granted.  He was given Benson and Hedges as I understand,” Masood previously told Minivan News.

Ghafoor also alleged that SO officers also this week entered the home of Parliamentary Speaker Abdulla Shahid in what he claimed was an attempt to intimidate the Majlis representative.

Speaker Shahid was not responding to calls from Minivan News at time of press.

The Maldives Police Service has vehemently denied allegations it had threatened Shahid in a statement published Saturday (February 9).

5:16pm: Nasheed’s trial hearing scheduled for 4:00pm today has been cancelled after he failed to attend at the specified time.  The Department of Judicial Administration (DJA) confirmed the cancellation. It has yet to be rescheduled.

5:37pm: Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel has tweeted accusing India of meddling in Maldives’ internal affairs:

5:43pm: RaajjeTV reports that the government is to begin negotiating with the Indian High Commission.

5:53pm: President’s Office Media Secretary Masood Imad has said there has been no contact between the government and the Indian High Commission in Male’ today.

“All I know right know is that Mr Nasheed is in a meeting with Indian High Commissioner Dnyaneshwar M Mulay,” he said. Masood added that a message had been sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirming a meeting between former President Nasheed and the high commissioner was taking place.

6:16pm: Local media has reported that the Indian naval vessel ‘Kalpei’ has arrived in the country as part of a joint operation being conducted with the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF).

The ship is said to be taking part in a five day maritime security program that will see it help patrol the Maldives’ Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), according to the Sun Online news service.

6:58pm: Mohamed Aslam, former Minister of Housing and Environment in Nasheed’s government, has confirmed that the opposition MDP’s National Council has today approved taking “direct action” against the government.

Aslam said the term ‘direct action’ related to a wide programme of civil disobedience, rather than one specific strategy. “The whole situation is very fluid right now. Nothing will be ruled out,” he said.

“What we are demanding is a transitional government, as well as free and fair elections that would include [former President] Nasheed.”

Aslam claimed that following a march in the capital conducted by MDP supporters on Friday (February 8), there remained widespread public support for Nasheed to contest elections scheduled for September this year.

However, he stopped short of declaring the day’s developments a “turning point” in the party’s calls for early elections. “We always hope that we have reached a turning point, whether it is today or tomorrow,” Aslam said.

7:19: WikiLeaks tweets that Nasheed has done a ‘Julian Assange’ – a reference to the whistleblowing website’s founder who sought refuge in Ecuador’s embassy in London in a bid to avoid extradition to Sweden.

7:30pm: Official Spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ibrahim Muaz Ali has told Minivan News that it will not be seeking discussions with the Indian High Commission in Male’ over Nasheed’s presence on its property today.

“We have contacted the commission today. [Indian] Officials confirmed [Nasheed’s] presence and that he had come for a meeting with the high commissioner,” the spokesperson added.

Muaz said that although Nasheed had appeared to have deliberately sought to avoid his trial hearing today, the Foreign Ministry “did not think” there was a need to hold talks on the matter with Indian officials.

7:40pm: Reports on social media suggest that Nasheed’s luggage has been transferred to the Indian High Commission building in Male’. Photo by Ranreendhoo Maldives.

10:10pm: Minivan News has observed more people beginning to gather at the barricades. Crowd is chanting “money money, yes sir” and “baaghee Waheed, hang him”.

One glass bottle has been thrown over the barricade by protesters. Police look like they are preparing to charge.

10:15pm: Bottle was allegedly thrown from Majeediyya School. Police have now entered the crowd.

10:23: Minivan News observed around 700 to 800 hundred people currently at the barricades.

10:25: Former President Nasheed has called for President Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik to step down from office and an interim arrangement to be established that would oversee a free and fair presidential election in the Maldives.

“The events of the past year – the mass arrests, the police brutality, the politically motivated trials – demonstrate that Dr Waheed cannot be trusted to hold a free and fair election. Waheed should do the right thing and resign from office. An interim, caretaker government should be established that can lead the Maldives to genuinely free and fair elections, in which all candidates are freely able to compete,” President Nasheed said.

President Nasheed labelled his ongoing trial “a politically motivated sham” and said the Hulhumale’ Magistrates Court – established to hear his case – was illegal and created “with the sole purpose of disqualifying me from standing in the presidential elections.”

President Nasheed said he could not hope to be afforded a fair trial and accused Waheed of “ruling down the barrel of a gun.”

President Nasheed added that “the fate of Maldivian democracy hangs in the balance” and said that “the Maldivian people must not be robbed of their democratic right to elect a leader of their choosing.”

10:42pm: Minivan News has observed around 1,500 now gathered on Sosun Magu.  MDP representatives have vowed to be there “every night” while Nasheed remains in the high commission building.

11:15pm: Several MDP MPs have pledged a first-round victory for Nasheed. Speakers addressing the crowd can be heard from the other end of Sosun Magu, however there is near silence outside the Indian High Commission on Ameer Ahmed Magu, Minivan News has witnessed.

Only the shards from two smashed bottles thrown at police earlier in evening indicate any sign of conflict, while further up Ameer Ahmed Magu, a handful of officers are stationed across the road from the high commission.

11:55pm: Minivan News has observed protesters throwing bottles at police.  Temporary barricades were also hurled at officers as protesters tried to make their way up to the People’s Majlis from Sosun Magu.

11:57pm: Protesters trying to make their way to parliament are met by police charges.

February 14, 00:01am: Protest is officially announced at an end for the night.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)