Tag: Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court

PG appeals Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court decision not to proceed with case against Nasheed

The High Court yesterday concluded hearings of an appeal by the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) against a decision by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court not to proceed with a case against former President Mohamed Nasheed over the military’s detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

On July 18, the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court rejected a case filed by the PGO against former President Nasheed and former Defence Minister Tholhath Ibrahim as well as senior military officers over the arrest of the judge.

Hulhumale’ Court Magistrate Moosa Naseem told Minivan News at the time that the case was sent back to the PGO after the court decided that it did not have the jurisdiction to deal with such cases.

“We studied the case and we found that we do not have the jurisdiction to deal with the case according to article 66 of the Judicature Act,” Naseem explained.

According to the Judicature Act, Naseem said, the Hulhumale’-based court can only accept the case after the Chief Justice issues a decree in agreement with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and the Judicial Council as stated in the article 66(b) of the Act.

Article 66(b) of the Judicature Act states that: “in accordance with section (a) of this article, if additions or omission to the jurisdictions stipulated in schedule 5 of this Act has to be carried out, the modification has to be done in agreement with the Judicial Service Commission and the Judicial Council and by a decree issued by the Chief Justice.”

According to local media reports, Assistant Public Prosecutor Abdulla Rabiu argued at the High Court yesterday that the magistrate court had jurisdiction to hear any cases involving criminal offences in the court’s judicial district.

The PGO lawyer requested that the High Court overturn the magistrate court’s decision and rule that the court has the jurisdiction to hear the case.

He noted that the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court had accepted a separate case involving threats made against Judge Abdulla Mohamed based on advice from the Supreme Court.

Adjourning yesterday’s hearing, High Court Judge Yousuf Hussain said that a verdict would be issued at the next trial date if there were no further issues to clear up after reviewing the appeal.

On January 16, Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed was detained by the military, after he had opened the court to order the immediate release of former Justice Minister, current Home Minister and deputy leader of the Dhivehi Quamee Party (DQP), Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed.

In late 2011, Judge Abdulla was himself under investigation by the JSC, the country’s judicial watchdog, for allegedly politically biased comments made to private broadcaster DhiTV. The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) was due to release a report into Judge Abdulla’s ethical misconduct, however the judge approached the Civil Court and successfully filed an injunction against his further investigation by the judicial watchdog.

The Nasheed administration accused the judge of political bias, obstructing police, stalling cases, 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 violations and corruption cases.

Judge Abdulla’s arrest sparked three weeks of anti-government protests in January, leading the Nasheed administration to appeal for international assistance from the Commonwealth and UN to reform the judiciary.

Back in February, a spokesperson for Catherine Ashton, the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs,  said the bloc remained committed to discussing judicial reform with the Waheed administration on the back of concerns raised by former President Nasheed about the nation’s judges.

“Shortly before the events of February 6 to February 7, we were asked for assistance [with judicial reform], as were the UN and Commonwealth. We were ready to look into this matter and hope to discuss the matter further with the Maldivian authorities,” added the spokesperson for High Representative Ashton at the time.

“Judicial interference”

During his inaugural address back in March, President Waheed claimed he would look to avoid “judicial interference”.

President’s Office Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza at the time said the government hoped to “strengthen” independent institutions like the parliament and the courts.

Riza claimed that the executive branch under former President Mohamed Nasheed was often involving itself in parliamentary and judicial affairs that were supposed to function independently as separate bodies under the constitution.

“We want to empower institutions, not interfere with the decisions they are taking,” the spokesperson said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Hulhumale’ court has jurisdiction to hear Nasheed case: Deputy Prosecutor General

Deputy Prosecutor General (PG) Hussein Shameem has said that Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court does have the jurisdiction to hear the case of former President Mohamed Nasheed over his role in the detention of a Criminal Court Chief Judge.

Shameem contended that should the court maintain its decision against hearing the case, there were few other judicial alternatives in trying to ensure a “fair trial”.

The comments were made as the PG’s office called on the Hulhumale’-based court to review its decision to send back the case to authorities on the grounds that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear the former president’s trial as written under the Judicature Act.

Nasheed, along with three Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) officers, face charges over the controversial detention of Criminal Court Chef Judge Abdullah Mohamed – a decision the former president claimed was taken over national security concerns.

Chief Judge abdulla was detained by the military, after he had opened the court outside normal hours to order the immediate release of former Justice Minister and current Home Minister and Deputy Leader of the Dhivehi Quamee Party (DQP), Dr Mohamed Jameel.

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), of which Nasheed is the presidential candidate, has claimed it expects the trial – whether in Hulhumale’ or another court – to go ahead regardless of legality.  The party has alleged the case serves solely as a means to convict the former president and potentially prevent him from contesting in the next general election.

However, Shameem claimed today the PG’s office had opted to hold the case against the former president in Hulhumale’ as it believed a fair trial could not be held at the country’s Criminal Court, an institution Judge Abdulla continues to oversee.

“We believe the Hulhumale’-based court does have the jurisdiction to hear this case under provisions outlined in the Judicature Act. We do not believe a fair trial could be held at the Criminal Court in this particular case,” he said.

Alternatives

Shameem claimed that there was a seemingly limited number of alternatives for hearing the case should Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court maintain it does not have the mandate to host such a trial.

“We would not be sending the case [to the Criminal Court],” he said. “So if the Hulhumale’ magistrate feels uncomfortable with the case or maintains it does not have the jurisdiction, we would have to appeal at the High Court about this.”

A statement sent to local media yesterday by the PG’s office claimed that despite Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court’s initial reservations, it could hold the case as the island was under the same judicial constituent as nearby Male’ and Villimale.

The statement also contended that judicial regulations did not prevent a magistrate court from investigating allegations of the “deliberate arrest of an innocent individual”.

Addressing the issue of court jurisdiction, President’s Office Media Secretary Masood Imad said that the government remained committed to not interfering with the country’s judiciary. Masood said he would not therefore comment on the case against the former president, who has alleged his successor Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan came to power in a “coup d’etat” on February 7.

“We would not want to touch the issue with a ten-foot pole,” Masood added, referring any questions on the case to Attorney General (AG) Azima Shakoor.

AG Shakoor was not responding to calls at time of press.

Former President to justify judge’s detention

Former President Nasheed has previously that he is “prepared” to justify the reasons for the arrest of Judge Abdulla, and said he was ready to appear in court and prove his actions were valid.

MDP MP and Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor claimed that that despite the present uncertainty over the exact legal body that would be hearing the trial, he believed authorities would be going ahead with the trial.

“Nobody, can stop them from doing it,” he claimed. “They have no choice to go ahead with such a thing. It is the only way to avoid talk of an early election by arresting Nasheed and trying to dismantle the MDP. The dictatorship is back.”

Ghafoor alleged that the MDP did not presently take the potential trial of the former President Nasheed “seriously”, owing to what he claimed was institutionalised bias and political influence in the country’s judiciary.

“Today for example, a lower court was able to overrule the JSC [the country’s judicial watchdog] to take action against Chief Judge Abdullah over concerns of his conduct,” he said.

Ghafoor claimed that the judiciary’s reputation and conduct reflected a wider societal attitude that the Maldives did “not have a culture of law” for citizens to rely on.

“The courts and judiciary are not up too much here. During the thirty years of dictatorship we had, the media published propganda about these institutions and people thought they were quite capable,” he said. “Yet in the democracy we have had, you have to prove yourselves”

Ghafoor claimed that as the issue of Nasheed’s trial continued to wear on, more members of the public were becoming are “that the trials are a sham”.

In late 2011, Judge Abdulla was himself under investigation by the JSC, the country’s judicial watchdog, for allegedly politically biased comments made to private broadcaster DhiTV. The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) was due to release a report into Judge Abdulla’s alleged ethical misconduct, however the judge approached the Civil Court and successfully filed an injunction against his further investigation by the judicial watchdog.

Judge Abdulla’s arrest sparked international criticism of the Nasheed administration as well three weeks of anti-government protests in January, leading the former government to appeal for international assistance from the Commonwealth and UN to reform the judiciary.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Hulhumale’ Court rejects case against former President Nasheed

Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court rejected a case forwarded by the Prosecutor General against former President Mohamed Nasheed and three Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) officers for their alleged role in detaining Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Hulhumale’ Court Magistrate Moosa Naseem told Minivan News that the case was sent back to the Prosecutor General’s Office after the court stated it did not have the jurisdiction to deal with such cases under the Judicature Act.

‘’We studied the case and we found that we do not have the jurisdiction to deal with the case according to article 66 of the Judicature Act,’’ Naseem said.

Naseem today told local media that the Hulhumale’-based court can only accept the case after the Chief Justice issues a decree in agreement with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and the Judicial Council as stated in the article 66[b] of the Judicature Act.

Article 66[b] of the Judicature Act states that “In accordance with Section (a) of this Article, if additions or omission to the jurisdictions stipulated in schedule 5 of this Act has to be carried out, the modification has to be done in agreement with the Judicial Service Commission and the Judicial Council and by a decree issued by the Chief Justice.’’

Deputy Prosecutor General Husaain Shameem said he was presently on leave and was not aware of the exact details of the matter when contacted by Minivan News. Prosecutor General Muiz was also not responding to calls by Minivan News at the time of press.

Earlier, Muiz has said that the case was sent to Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court because it related to the Chief Judge of the Criminal Court.  He contended therefore that the case cannot be filed at the same court overseen by the judge owing to a conflict of interest.

Former President Nasheed has said that he is “prepared” to justify the reasons for the arrest of Judge Abdulla, and said he was ready to appear in court and prove his actions were valid.

Nasheed also dismissed accusations of the High Court, the Supreme Court and the prosecutor general that he had ordered the military to arrest Judge Abdulla unlawfully.

“I did nothing unlawful during my tenure,” he challenged.

He also called on the population to be present at his trial and witness what happened in the court, alleging that the whole case was politically motivated and that his opponents were seeking to gain an unfair upper hand from the “political scandal”.

The Chief Judge was detained by the military, after he had opened the court outside normal hours to order the immediate release of former Justice Minister and current Home Minister and deputy leader of the Dhivehi Quamee Party (DQP), Dr Mohamed Jameel.

In late 2011, Judge Abdulla was himself under investigation by the JSC, the country’s judicial watchdog, for allegedly politically biased comments made to private broadcaster DhiTV. The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) was due to release a report into Judge Abdulla’s ethical misconduct, however the judge approached the Civil Court and successfully filed an injunction against his further investigation by the judicial watchdog.

Judge Abdulla’s arrest sparked three weeks of anti-government protests in January, leading the Nasheed administration to appeal for international assistance from the Commonwealth and UN to reform the judiciary.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)