Tag: Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court

Hulhumale Court legitimacy case scheduled for Sunday

The first hearing in the legitimacy case of the Hulhumale Magistrate Court is scheduled for Sunday at the Supreme Court.

The case is being examined by a seven-judge bench including the Chief Justice and is scheduled for 2:00pm.

The case was previously filed by lawyer Ismail Visham at the Civil Court, however a request for the case to be tried at Supreme Court was made by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC).

Originally submitted at the lower court about a year ago, the case had been delayed due to the Supreme Court order to halt the case until the Supreme Court decided on the matter.

All documents and files of the legitimacy of the Hulhumale Magistrate Court that were previously filed with the lower court have been forwarded to the Supreme Court.

Procedural points regarding the legitimacy of the Hulhumale Court had also been raised by former president Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team. Claims over the courts legitimacy were however dismissed by Hulhumale Magistrates Court.

The High Court earlier ordered a temporary halt of former president Nasheed’s trial until the court decides on the appeal of the procedural points raised by Nasheed’s legal team.

An order over the High Court to cease its cases regarding the legitimacy issue of the Hulhumale Magistrate Court was later issued by the Supreme Court until a decision over the matter has been reached.

Therefore former president Nasheed’s case can only resume after the Supreme Court and the High Court decide on the matter respectively.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Judicial Council decided Hulhumale’ court could not hear criminal cases, reveals Nasheed’s legal team

Members of the Judicial Council raised doubts over the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court at a meeting in late 2010 and decided that criminal cases were out of its jurisdiction, former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team have revealed.

In a press statement, Nasheed’s legal team said that minutes from a meeting of the Judicial Council were among documents submitted by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to the High Court.

The JSC entered as a third party into an appeal lodged by Nasheed at the High Court challenging a ruling by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, which had summarily dismissed procedural points raised by the former President’s lawyers.

The procedural issues included the legal status of the magistrate court.

However, before the High Court was due to issue a ruling on Nasheed’s appeal, the Supreme Court instructed the High Court to suspend proceedings as the apex court had been asked to determine the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

The Judicial Council minutes meanwhile revealed that Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz, former Chief Judge of the High Court Abdul Gani, former Chief Judge of the Juvenile Court Shuaib Hussain Zakariyya, Magistrate Mohamed Niyaz from the north judicial district and Magistrate Ali Shareef from the south judicial district “all raised questions over the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ court.”

The Judicial Council was abolished after the Supreme Court unilaterally struck down articles in the Judicature Act concerning the council.

“Presenting the case [to the council], the Chief Justice said that following the enactment of the law on courts, members of the judiciary as well as lawyers were saying that the court in Hulhumale’ could not function under the law and that the Hulhumale’ court had been stopped following the passage of the [Judicature Act in 2010],” the press release explained.

The Judicature Act states that magistrate courts should be set up in inhabited islands aside from Male’ without a division of the trial courts (Criminal Court, Civil Court, Family Court and Juvenile Court).

According to appendix two of the constitution, Hulhumale’ is a district or ward of Male’ and not a separate inhabited island. The former magistrate court at Hulhumale’ – controversially set up by the JSC before the enactment of the Judicature Act in October 2010 – should therefore have been dissolved when the Judicature Act was ratified.

Moreover, the minutes revealed that the Judicial Council had decided that criminal cases were out of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court’s jurisdiction.

The Chief Justice had said at the Judicial Council meeting that the magistrate court had been dealing with civil cases and family disputes.

The press statement noted that it was the opinion on record of all judges at the council meeting that the Hulhumale’ court could not function as a separate court following the enactment of the Judicature Act.

Supreme Court intervention

Nasheed’s legal team also expressed concern with the Supreme Court ordering the High Court to suspend hearings on the appeal.

If the Supreme Court decides to take over the procedural point raised at the High Court, “President Nasheed would lose one stage of appeal,” the legal team said.

Following the High Court granting an injunction or stay suspending the former President’s trial at the Hulhumale’ court, the magistrate court announced that it has suspended all ongoing cases.

However, the Supreme Court last week instructed the magistrate court to resume the cases and took over a case filed at the Civil Court a year ago by a lawyer, Ismail Visham, contesting the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Speaking to press yesterday after a ceremony to open new offices for the Drug Court, Chief Justice Faiz criticized the JSC as “inept” and contended that “challenges faced by the judiciary would have been resolved” if the judicial watchdog body “properly” carried out its responsibilities.

Faiz also said that the case concerning the legitimacy of the Hulhumale Magistrate Court presently before the Supreme Court had not been addressed before because the JSC had not filed the case.

“When a case was filed in Civil Court contesting the legitimacy of Hulhumale Magistrate Court, the JSC sent a letter to [the Supreme Court] arguing that the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction to look into the case. We then asked the JSC to file a case as per the procedure and they only filed the case just a few days ago,” he explained.

The Chief Justice added that the Supreme Court would be considering the case as a “high priority”.

The JSC filed the case while Nasheed’s appeal was ongoing at the High Court.

Meanwhile, MP Mariya Ahmed Didi, former President Nasheed’s spokesperson, said that the Supreme Court deciding on the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court without allowing the High Court to rule on Nasheed’s appeal would “give weight to what many are saying about the politicization of the Supreme Court.”

The former Special Majlis MP urged the highest court of appeal to allow the High Court to issue a ruling as those unhappy with the judgment could appeal at the Supreme Court.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Challenges faced by judiciary would be resolved if JSC carried out its duties properly: Chief Justice

Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain has accused the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) of being inept, stating that challenges faced by the country’s judiciary would have been resolved had the judicial watchdog undertaken its duties “properly”.

The Chief Justice made the remark speaking to media after concluding a ceremony held on Monday to open a new building for the Drug Court.

Hussain acknowledged that he could not say that every piece of work carried out by JSC was not done properly since he was not a member of the JSC himself.

“The JSC is an institution formed under the constitution to serve the judiciary. They have a huge responsibility to deal with issues surrounding the judges, so if the JSC carries out its responsibilities, I would say the challenges faced by the judiciary would have been resolved through that institution,” the Chief Justice said.

Hussain also said that he had on several forums highlighted that changes need to be brought to the current mechanism of JSC,noting that the local judicial watchdog had “differences” compared to similar institutions in other countries.

“But still, I believe even under the current mechanism of JSC, and without needing to bring modifications to it, some changes can still be brought to the works it carries out,” he added.

During the media briefing, the Chief justice also spoke about the ongoing case of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, the legitimacy of which is being contested in the courts by the former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team.

He said that the case concerning the legitimacy of the Hulhumale Magistrate Court currently in Supreme Court had not been addressed, because the JSC had not filed the case.

“When a case was filed in Civil Court contesting the legitimacy of Hulhumale Magistrate Court, the  JSC sent a letter to [Supreme Court] arguing that the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction to look into the case. We then asked the JSC to file a case as per the procedure and they only filed the case just a few days ago,” he explained.

Following the filing of the case, the Supreme Court took over the case from the Civil Court.

The Chief Justice added that the Supreme Court will be considering the case as a “high priority” case.

Spokesperson for the Department of Judicial Administration (DJA), Latheefa Gasim, was not responding to calls at time of press.

Court saga

Earlier in October, former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team’s challenged the legitimacy of the Hulhumale Magistrate Court, and its summoning of Nasheed in connection to the detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court.

The High Court at the time stated that the case had previously been looked at by the Supreme Court, there the court could not proceed with the case.

However earlier this month the High Court granted an injunction temporarily suspending the trial of former President after his legal team appealed a ruling on procedural points by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court in the trial.

During the hearing, JSC lawyer Abdul Fahthah stated that the JSC had lodged a case at the Supreme Court the same morning, asking the court to look into the matter of the legality of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Following the proceedings of the case, Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court announced that it had suspended all ongoing cases following an injunction issued by the High Court on Sunday, including Nasheed’s trial.

The Hulhumale Magistrate Court said in its announcement that it had suspended proceedings on cases involving marriage, divorce, guardianship, family matters, property lawsuits, civil cases, criminal cases involving extension of detention periods as well as other matters that could be affected by the questions raised over its legal status.

Two days later, the Supreme Court ordered High Court to halt its proceedings on the appeal by Nasheed’s legal team, and ordered the Hulhumale Magistrate Court to resume its proceedings.

Question of legitimacy

Writing in his personal blog on the issue, lawyer and Independent MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed explained that a magistrate court could not legally be established at Hulhumale’.

The Judicature Act states that magistrate courts should be set up in inhabited islands aside from Male’ without a division of the trial courts (Criminal Court, Civil Court, Family Court and Juvenile Court).

According to appendix two of the constitution, Hulhumale’ is a district or ward of Male’ and not a separate inhabited island. The former magistrate court at Hulhumale’ – controversially set up by the JSC before the enactment of the Judicature Act in October 2010 – should therefore have been dissolved when the Judicature Act was ratified, he argued.

Former Chairman of the Constitutional Drafting Committee of the Special Majlis, Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail, has also published an article on his personal blog stating the reasons why the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court cannot be considered a legal entity.

“When Parliament created courts by the Judicature Act, there was no ‘Hulhumale’ Court’ designated as a Magistrates Court,” he wrote.

“The Supreme Court itself is still sitting on the case of the validity of the [Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court]. It was created by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), without authority derived from law. Therefore the validity of any orders or judgments issued by this court is questionable, and the Constitution says no one has to obey any unlawful orders, ie, orders which are not derived from law,” he explained.

He also cast doubts on the legitimacy of the JSC’s decision to appoint a panel of judges to look into the case.

“The Judicature Act does make some provision for Superior Courts (Criminal Court, Civil Court, Family Court and Juvenile Court only) to appoint a panel of judges for some cases. Such panel has to be decided by the entire bench or Chief Judge of THAT court. In this case, a panel of judges from other courts was appointed by the JSC to [Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court]. The JSC does not have that authority by Law,” he contended.

“There is more than ample grounds to contend that the summons was issued by an unlawful panel of judges, sitting in an unlawful court, which had already issued an unconstitutional restraining order which was ultra vires,” he added.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court instructs High Court to suspend hearings on former President Nasheed’s appeal

The Supreme Court has instructed the High Court to halt its hearings on an appeal lodged by former President Mohamed Nasheed, challenging a ruling by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court on procedural points raised by the former President’s legal team.

The High Court on Sunday granted an injunction or stay suspending the former President’s trial at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, pending a ruling on the procedural points raised by Nasheed’s legal team, which included determining the legitimacy of the magistrate court.

Nasheed’s lawyers were informed by the High Court this morning that a hearing scheduled for 10:15am was cancelled because a judge was “on sick leave.”

An official from the High Court initially told Minivan News that the hearing was cancelled because the judge was on sick leave. However, asked which of the three judges on the panel had taken ill, the official said she would have to clarify.

The High Court official said later that the case had been suspended based on instructions from the Supreme Court. A letter from the Supreme Court was received in the late afternoon yesterday, she said.

“The judge took the sick leave [this morning] after the Supreme Court ordered the case to be halted. It wasn’t cancelled because he took ill,” she claimed.

Nasheed’s lawyers were at first unaware of the Supreme Court order.

Abdulla Shair from Nasheed’s legal team said that the High Court has since informed the lawyers of the Supreme Court’s instruction to halt the case.

However, it was unclear whether the Supreme Court’s order was a writ of prohibition or “just a letter telling the High Court to halt the case until the Supreme Court ruled on the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court,” he explained.

The High Court official said that the instructions were made in a letter from the apex court.

A media official from the Supreme Court was not responding at the time of press.

However, the official told local media today that the High Court was asked to halt hearings on the appeal because one of the procedural points involved the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ court, which the Supreme Court had been asked by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to determine.

The Supreme Court also informed the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court on Wednesday to resume proceedings on other ongoing cases, pending a ruling on the magistrate’s court legitimacy.

Following the High Court’s injunction, the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court announced that it had suspended all ongoing cases in light of the questions raised over its legal status.

In an announcement a day after the High Court granted the injunction, the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court said it has suspended proceedings on cases involving marriage, divorce, guardianship, family matters, property lawsuits, civil cases, criminal cases involving extension of detention periods as well as other matters that could be affected by the questions raised over its legal status.

The Supreme Court media official told newspaper Haveeru today that the decision by the highest court of appeal would not affect the High Court injunction suspending the former President’s trial.

Former President Nasheed is facing criminal charges over the military’s controversial detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Speaking to press after the High Court hearing on Sunday, Nasheed’s lawyer Hisaan Hussain claimed that the state was unable to offer valid arguments to defend the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, which the former President’s legal team contends was formed in violation of the constitution and Judicature Act.

At Sunday’s hearing of Nasheed’s appeal, the JSC revealed that it had filed a case at the Supreme Court to determine the legitimacy of the court.

Local media reported on Monday that the Supreme Court ordered the Civil Court to send over all files and documents on a case submitted by a lawyer, Ismail Visham, over a year ago challenging the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

The Supreme Court had issued a writ of mandamus ordering the lower court to suspend its hearings and had taken over the case. The apex court had however not conducted any hearings on the case.

Meanwhile, writing in his personal blog last month, Independent MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed explained that a magistrate court could not legally be established at Hulhumale’.

The Judicature Act states that magistrate courts should be set up in inhabited islands aside from Male’ without a division of the trial courts (Criminal Court, Civil Court, Family Court and Juvenile Court).

According to appendix two of the constitution, Hulhumale’ is a district or ward of Male’ and not a separate inhabited island. The former magistrate court at Hulhumale’ – controversially set up by the JSC before the enactment of the Judicature Act in October 2010 – should therefore have been dissolved when the Judicature Act was ratified.

At Sunday’s hearing of Nasheed’s appeal, the three-judge panel heard arguments on the procedural issues from both the claimant and the state, represented by the Prosecutor General’s Office and Attorney General’s Office.

Adjourning the hearing, Judge Shuaib Hussain Zakariya had said that the judges would try to ensure that the next hearing would be the last before issuing a ruling.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court suspends all cases

The Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court has announced that it has suspended all ongoing cases following an injunction issued by the High Court on Sunday halting the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed.

The High Court granted the temporary injunction or stay of the former President’s trial pending a ruling on procedural points raised by Nasheed’s legal team, which included the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

In its announcement on Monday, the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court said it has suspended proceedings on cases involving marriage, divorce, guardianship, family matters, property lawsuits, civil cases, criminal cases involving extension of detention periods as well as other matters that could be affected by the questions raised over its legal status.

Meanwhile, at Sunday’s hearing of Nasheed’s appeal at the High Court, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) revealed that it had filed a case at the Supreme Court to determine the legitimacy of the court.

Writing in his personal blog last month, Independent MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed explained that a magistrate court could not legally be established at Hulhumale’.

The Judicature Act states that magistrate courts should be set up in inhabited islands aside from Male’ without a division of the trial courts (Criminal Court, Civil Court, Family Court and Juvenile Court).

According to appendix two of the constitution, Hulhumale’ is a district or ward of Male’ and not a separate inhabited island. The former magistrate court at Hulhumale’ – controversially set up by the JSC before the enactment of the Judicature Act in October 2010 – should therefore have been dissolved when the Judicature Act was ratified.

Meanwhile, local media reported yesterday (November 5) that the Supreme Court ordered the Civil Court to send over all files and documents on a case submitted by a lawyer, Ismail Visham, over a year ago challenging the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

The Supreme Court had issued a writ of mandamus ordering the lower court to suspend its hearings and had taken over the case. The apex court had however not conducted any hearings on the case.

A court official told local media that a hearing on the case of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court’s legal status has not been scheduled.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court grants injunction suspending former President Nasheed’s trial

The High Court today granted an injunction (Dhivehi) temporarily suspending the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed at the contested Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, pending a ruling on procedural points raised by the former President’s legal team.

The former President is facing criminal charges over the military’s controversial detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

At a preliminary hearing on October 22, Nasheed’s lawyers requested an injunction halting the trial pending a ruling by the High Court on three procedural points dismissed by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court: a magistrate court holding a trial on a different island to where it was based; the constitutional legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court; and the legality of the arrest warrant issued by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, as such orders could only be issued by a court in the locality of the defendant’s permanent address.

At the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court’s first trial date on October 9, the court summarily dismissed the first two points and agreed to hear the last issue. The court however ruled that the warrant was issued legally as it was following a precedent established by the High Court.

The ruling was subsequently appealed by Nasheed’s legal team at the High Court.

Concluding the hearing on the appeal on October 22, High Court Judge Shuaib Hussain Zakariya said the three-judge panel would issue a ruling on the injunction at the next hearing on the morning of November 4.

Meanwhile, the second hearing of the trial at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was scheduled for 4:00pm today. Following the court order issued by the High Court however, it has since been cancelled.

In its ruling today, the High Court noted that the Prosecutor General’s Office had not objected to the court issuing the injunction at the October 22 hearing.

The High Court noted that continuing without “determining the legitimacy of the necessary procedural processes” and “ensuring the rights of the defendant” could cause irreparable injury to the claimant.

Moreover, if there was “a delay” in ruling on the request for an injunction, “the court believes that the purpose of the ruling [on the appeal] might not be achieved”.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Legal order” last option to compel judges to attend committee: MDP

A “legal order” from parliament is the last available option to compel three judges of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court to attend parliament’s Government Oversight Committee, following their refusal to answer two previous summons, the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) said in a statement on Saturday.

The press release stated that “the excuses” offered by the three magistrates on administrative grounds – contending that as judges of the lower courts they doubted whether they could answer questions regarding the Commission of National Inquiry’s report and that they needed to await a decision by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) – were “reasons that lacked any principle.”

“Therefore, the party notes that the measure left to be taken to bring the summoned judges to the Majlis committee is to issue a legal order to that effect,” the statement read.

Asked for clarification on the “legal order”, MDP Spokesperson MP Hamid Abdul Gafoor said that the statement did not refer to a court order contrary to the “assumption” by Sun Online and Haveeru.

“No mention was made of a court order in the news brief. Sun appear to have assumed so. The Majlis can bring out an ‘amuru‘ [order] according to house rules,” Hamid explained.

‘Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court’

The MDP also contests the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, which was created by the JSC before the enactment of the Judicature Act in October 2010.

A constitutional case concerning the magistrate court is currently pending at the Supreme Court.

Writing in his personal blog on October 9, Independent MP for Kulhudhufushi South, Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed, explained that a magistrate court could not be established at Hulhumale’ as the Judicature Act states that magistrate courts should be set up in inhabited islands aside from Male’ without a division of the trial courts (Criminal Court, Civil Court, Family Court and Juvenile Court).

According to appendix two of the constitution, Hulhumale’ is a district or ward of Male’ and not a separate inhabited island. The former magistrate court at Hulhumale’ should therefore have been dissolved when the Judicature Act was ratified, Nasheed argued.

The three magistrates of the contested Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court are Shujau Usman, Abdul Nasir Abdul Raheem and Hussain Mazeed.

“Summon any person”

The MDP statement meanwhile observed that article 99(a) of the constitution states that the People’s Majlis or any of its committee has the power to “summon any person to appear before it to give evidence under oath, or to produce documents. Any person who is questioned by the People’s Majlis as provided for  in this article shall answer to the best of his knowledge and ability.”

However, following the first attempt to summon the magistrates, the JSC and the Supreme Court made public statements insisting that the JSC was the only authority empowered by the constitution to hold judges accountable.

A statement by the JSC on October 9 citing the constitution, the Judicature Act and the Judicial Service Commission Act contended that no other state institution could interfere with the work of judges or make any attempt to hold judges accountable.

Under article 159(b) of the constitution, the JSC is empowered with the power and responsibility “to investigate complaints about the judiciary, and to take disciplinary action against them, including recommendations for dismissal.”

Parties in the ruling coalition have meanwhile condemned the decision to summon the magistrates as an attempt to influence the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court on charges of illegally detaining Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

The formerly ruling MDP has a voting majority on the Government Oversight Committee.

While Speaker Abdulla Shahid sent the summons issued by the committee on October 9, local media reported that parliament’s Counsel General Fathmath Filza had advised that summoning judges was not within the mandate of the committee.

Meanwhile, following the judges’ snub of the second summons, MDP MP Ali Waheed told reporters outside parliament on Wednesday that the actions of the magistrates and the JSC as well as the Supreme Court’s encouragement of their behaviour was a “cat and mouse game” played by the judiciary.

“What we are witnessing is a ‘cat and mouse’ or a ‘hide and seek’ game being played between parliament and judiciary. If that is the case, we are going to play the cat and mouse chase, because we are not going to step back from our responsibilities,” he said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Hulhumale Magistrate Court judges boycott parliament committee summons

The three judges presiding over the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed have boycotted a second summons by parliament’s Government Oversight Committee.

This is the second occasion where the judges from Hulhumale Magistrate Court have refused to be present at the committee, with the first summons ignored on October 9, the day the first hearings of Nasheed’s trial took place.

Local media reported that the committee meeting was held behind closed doors, after the judges informed parliament that their “last minute” decision to boycott the hearing was due to “administrative reasons”.

The committee’s decision to summon the judges to parliament has led to criticism from both the Supreme Court and the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), with both claiming that holding judges accountable was the sole responsibility of the JSC.

Meanwhile, political parties aligned to the current government of President Mohamed Waheed Hassan claimed that the decision by the committee – in which the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has a majority –  was an attempt to influence Nasheed’s trial. Nasheed’s party maintains that the charges against him are a politically-motivated attempt to prevent him from contesting the next election, through the use of judges originally appointed by, and still loyal to, former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

The party also contests the legitimacy of this particular magistrate court.

“Cat and mouse”

Following today’s second snub by the judges, the MDPs Deputy Parliamentary Group (PG) Leader MP Ali Waheed condemned their decision.

He went on to describe the actions of the judges and the JSC as well as the Supreme Court’s encouragement of their behaviour as a “cat and mouse” game played by the judiciary.

“What we are witnessing is a ‘cat and mouse’ or a ‘hide and seek’ game being played between parliament and judiciary. If that is the case, we are going to play the cat and mouse chase, because we are not going to step back from our responsibilities,” he said.

Speaking in a press conference on Wednesday afternoon, the Thoddu Constitutency MP said the committee was not summoning the judges “to settle scores or for a personal vendetta or to destroy their reputations”, but within the course of executing their legal duties.

“As the chair of Parliament’s Government Oversight Committee, I shall continue to execute my duties and we believe the constitution allows us to summon anyone with regard to our concerns and we will do so. So I sincerely urge [the judges] to not hide behind a constitutional clause dictating the responsibilities of the judges,” Waheed said, maintaining that the committee’s intentions were sincere and that it was being very “respectful” and “patient”.

“These people are those who must lead by example [in upholding the law] but what we see is that neither the Anti-Corruption Commission, the Auditor General or even the parliament is being allowed to hold these people accountable. They can’t be above the law and should not even think they are,” he continued. “What we are repeatedly reassuring them is that we will not allow committee members to question them on matters not in their mandate.”

Meanwhile, Waheed’s fellow MDP parliamentarian Ahmed Hamza argued that the judges’ decision was in contrast to principles of rule of law, which were fundamental for a democratic state.

“In every democracy it is the people from whom the powers of the state are derived. The parliament represents the people, and their actions reflect the wish of the people, so all authorities must respect the decisions,” he said.

He reiterated that the current system of separation of powers in place is one that holds the three powers of the state accountable to each other through a system of checks and balances.

“The parliament will hold the government and the judiciary accountable and the judiciary has the power to invalidate legislation and regulations if they are in conflict with the constitution,” he added.

Hamza dismissed the claims made by pro-government parties that the committee was attempting to influence the ongoing trial of Nasheed.

“We are not trying to defend Nasheed, all we are trying to do is to carry out our duties and responsibilities vested in the constitution. We will not question them about any ongoing trial, nor will we comment on their verdicts and decisions,” Hamza added.

Quality of judiciary

Meanwhile, the current Home Minister Mohamed Jameel Ahmed has also admitted that despite having some “bright minds” the overall “quality of services delivered by the judiciary remained disappointingly gloomy”.

“Our judiciary has some bright minds, but that does not exempt it from scrutiny; the judiciary in the Maldives, with the exception of few courts and judges, the judiciary as a whole has earned a deservedly bad reputation for its inconsistent judgments, lack of leadership, lack of competency and being out of touch with modern laws and views of the society,” he said in an article written for local newspaper Haveeru.

Former President’s Member on the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), Aishath Velezinee, in her book The Failed Silent Coup: in Defeat They Reached for the Gun claimed that the controversial transfer of power on February 7 signified the return of the previous politically controlled judiciary, which was to some extent held at bay during Nasheed’s three years.

“The judiciary we have today is under the control of a few,” she wrote.

“This was an end reached by using the Judicial Service Commission as a means. Most members of the Judicial Service Commission betrayed the Constitution, the country, and the people. They broke their oath. There is no room for free and fair hearings. And most judges do not even know how to hold such a hearing,” Velezinee wrote, arguing that the JSC was politically compromised and reappointed Gayoom’s bench at the conclusion of the constitutional interim period in 2010, despite the requirement that they be vetted for their ethical and professional quality.

“For democracy and rule of law to be established in the Maldives, and for the right to govern them to be returned to the people, they must have an elected leader. And the judiciary, currently being held hostage, must be freed. Article 285 of the Constitution must be fully upheld, judges reappointed, and an independent judiciary established,” she added.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Government “would consider” clemency for ex-president Nasheed following trial outcome

The government has said it will have no involvement in the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed, adding it would consider the possibility of offering clemency should he eventually be found guilty.

Nasheed, who yesterday announced he had started his campaign for re-election, has called for the trial over his role in the controversial detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed earlier this year to be expedited. The former president has alleged that the trial against him is politically motivated to prevent him from contesting in presidential elections scheduled for 2013.

President’s Office Media Secretary Masood Imad claimed that the government was committed to its pledge of not interfering in the Maldives judicial system and played down fears of the trial being politicised.

“We would regret any parties or international organisations trying to politicise this trial,” he said. “However, after a judgement on the case has been given, if there is an opportunity to do so, I’m sure President Waheed would consider the possibility of clemency [for former President Nasheed].”

The comments were made today as Department of Judicial Administration Spokesperson Latheefa Qasim confirmed to Minivan News that the decision had been taken to appoint three judges to hear the former president’s trial. Qasim added that a date for the hearing or the identities of the three judges presiding over the trial had yet to be decided.

Last week, the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was cleared to hold the trial that will see Nasheed along with several senior military figures under his command face charges for the detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

During Nasheed’s administration Judge Abdulla was accused by the government of demonstrating political bias, obstructing police, stalling cases, having links with organised crime and “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist” to protect key figures of the former dictatorship from human rights and corruption cases.

Nasheed himself gave a speech to supporters in Male’ yesterday playing down the likelihood of his prosecution for the detention of the judge, while additionally launching his campaign for re-election despite no date for elections having been set.

Speaking from the Usfasgandu area in Male’, which is presently being used as a protest area by the now opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), Nasheed alleged that he was not concerned of being prosecuted,  according to local media reports.

During a speech outlining his plans to continue to pursue early elections through the MDP’s ‘direct action’ protests and political pressure, the former president claimed that he was confident of securing re-election.

MDP Spokesperson and MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor claimed that Nasheed’s comments were focused on the party’s continued efforts to secure “early elections” ahead of the proposed date of July 2013.  President Waheed has said July 2013 is the earliest date for fresh polls as allowed in the country’s constitution

The MDP back in July approved a resolution that the party would choose to boycott elections should Nasheed not be able to stand as its presidential candidate after winning.

Ghafoor claimed that despite preparing for early elections, both Nasheed and the MDP had agreed to respect the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) report that last week concluded the government of President Waheed had come to power constitutionally and not through a “coup d’etat” on February 7.

“We have been respecting the report, but we also have very strong reservations about the concerns raised by [Nasheed’s appointee on the commission] Ahmed ‘Gahaa’ Saeed and we would like these shortcomings to be looked into,” he said. “There are obviously issues that we have with the findings and I do not believe that the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) will just choose to ignore Mr Saeed’s own reservations about the report.”

Saeed last week resigned from the five-member CNI panel approved by the government, MDP and Commonwealth, a day before the release of its findings over what he alleged was a failure by the commission to consider certain evidence and witness statements presented to the Commission.

Nasheed was also reported to have used his speech to claim that no country had so far accepted the CNI’s findings, according to local news service Sun Online.

Following the release of the CNI report last week, Commonwealth Secretary-General Kamalesh Sharma welcomed the completed publication, urging “all concerned to respect the findings of the commission so that, moving forward, all actions and reactions reflect the sense of responsibility and restraint necessary in the best national interest.”

The US, India and the UN also called for the outcome of the CNI’s report to be respected in light of its publication.

However, Ghafoor said that Nasheed had in fact questioned the responses of various international players claiming they had been “unclear” on their views of the report.

Ghafoor added that the party would continue to lobby to have the reservations raised by Saeed concerning the CNI report addressed.

Beyond reservations with the CNI, the MDP claimed that it had been willing to work with the government of President Waheed in what it called the “common interests” of the public by offering to join his coalition government.

“We do not want to be working with this government, we ourselves want to see early elections as soon as possible,” he said.

However, President Waheed yesterday announced he had opted against including the MDP in his national unity government.

While the MDP – in light of the CNI’s findings – had called for clarification on whether it was presently the ruling or opposition party, the President’s Office responded that the matter was irrelevant under the country’s presidential system of governance.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)