Tag: Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court

JSC suspends Chief Judge hours after High Court postpones case against JSC

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has announced that the High Court has temporarily suspended the hearings of the case against Judicial Service Commission (JSC) filed by the party’s presidential candidate, former President Mohamed Nasheed.

Nasheed is challenging the legitimacy of the JSC’s appointment of the three-member judges panel to the Hulhumale Magistrate Court to hear Nasheed’s criminal trial.

The party’s remarks come just a day after High Court cancelled a hearing of the case in which local media reported that the court was to decide on counter-procedural issues taken by JSC. The JSC has contended that the High Court did not have the jurisdiction to look into a matter.

Member of Nasheed’s legal team, Hassan Latheef, told Minivan News on Wednesday that the hearing was cancelled after the judge who was presiding over the case opted to “take leave” for the day.

However, shortly after the cancellation, the JSC declared that the commission had indefinitely suspended the Chief Judge of High Court Ahmed Shareef – who also happened to be among the judges presiding over Nasheed’s case against the JSC.

JSC Chair and Supreme Court Justice Adam Mohamed Abdulla insisted at a press conference yesterday that the disciplinary action had no relation to the former president’s case.

In a press conference held today at the party headquarters, Vice Chairperson of MDP Ali Shiyam said the party saw the High Court’s decision to withhold the hearings until next July as an encouragement for Nasheed and the party to continue its nation-wide presidential campaigning.

Shiyam added that if no further disruptions came from the courts, it would mean an additional strength to the party in their bid to secure the presidential elections in the first round. Shiyam also described the move as an end to the obstructions leveled against Nasheed by the courts and the judiciary.

“President [Nasheed] will not have to halt the campaign and come to Male to appear before the court. That is a new strength, a new encouragement to our campaign,” Shiyam said.

Meanwhile, another member of Nasheed’s legal team, Hisaan Hussain, tweeted that despite the indefinite suspension of Judge Shareef, neither the JSC nor the acting chief judge appointed to fill the vacancy of Judge Shareef would be allowed to reshuffle the judges presiding over the case.

Speaking to Minivan News, MDP Spokesperson MP Imthiyaz Fahmy said the move to hold the hearings was also an assurance to the public and the international community that former President Nasheed would be able to take part in the elections, as was unlikely that Nasheed would be given a criminal sentence.

He added that the party were facing a lot of challenges compared to other political parties who are also campaigning for the election.

“Because of the ongoing case concerning President Nasheed, the party has had to spend equal time and resources on its legal battles while running a nation wide presidential campaign. The MDP is battling with everything including the judiciary, the Prosecutor General and all the injustices faced by ordinary people,” he said.

Fahmy further added that the previous scheduling of Nasheed’s cases and sudden cancellations resulted in severe financial losses to the party, as each campaign event is organised by the hard work of party members across the country.

However, Fahmy also echoed Shiyam’s statement that the suspension of the case marked the end of Nasheed’s legal battle, stating that the High Court’s decision would allow the party to focus its energy on campaigning rather than winning court battles.

The Hulhumle-based magistrate court is currently hearing the case against the former President over the controversial detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed by the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) during the last days of his presidency.

During the first trials of the hearing, Nasheed’s legal team contested the legitimacy of the magistrate court.

However, in a Civil Court case filed by lawyer Ismail Wisham, which was subsequently taken over by Supreme Court – and to which Nasheed’s legal team also intervened – endorsed the legitimacy of the much-debated Hulhumale Magistrate court.

As soon as the trials resumed, Nasheed’s legal team challenged the legitimacy of the appointment of the three-member judges panel to the magistrate court. The former president’s counsel is arguing that appointing judges to specific cases was not the JSC’s responsibility, but that of the chief judges of respective courts.

Minivan News contacted a High Court media official but was told the court had no comment on the case.

JSC suspends High Court Judge, appoints acting replacement

The JSC has meanwhile appointed Judge Abdul Rauoof Ibrahim as acting Chief Judge of High Court until the JSC concludes its inquiry into complaints filed against the suspended Chief Judge of High Court Ahmed Shareef.

Speaking to Minivan News, JSC Media Official Hassan Zaheen confirmed the appointment and said that Judge Abdul Rauoof would be in charge of running the High Court until the JSC concludes its inquiry.

The JSC on Wednesday issued Judge Shareef an ‘indefinite suspension’ following a complaint filed by the remaining judges of the court against him during last year.

The ruling came hours after the High Court suspended hearings against the former President.

A similar case was lodged last April in which eight judges of the High Court’s nine-member bench lodged a case with the JSC against Chief Judge Shareef, for suspending the Hulhumale Magistrate Court’s trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed without registering the case in court.

The suspension coincided with the cancellation of a hearing of a High Court’s case in which Nasheed challenged the legitimacy of the JSC’s appointment of the three member panel of judges to Hulhumale Magistrate Court.

High Court Chief Judge Shareef was summoned to the JSC earlier this month, almost a year after the complaint was lodged.

According to local media reports, the decision was approved at a JSC meeting today with three votes in favour and one against. Attorney General Aishath Bisham, President’s Member Mohamed ‘Reynis’ Saleem and Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Didi voted in favour while Public Member Shuaib Abdul Rahman voted against the motion.

Lawyers’ representative Ahmed Rasheed and Civil Service Commission (CSC) Chair Mohamed Fahmy Hassan reportedly abstained while High Court Judge Abdulla Hameed did not participate in the vote.

Speaker Abdulla Shahid and Majlis Member MP Gasim Ibrahim did not attend the meeting.

Shuaib told private broadcaster Raajje TV following the meeting that the decision was made in violation of due process and JSC procedures as a report regarding the allegations against the chief judge was not presented to the commission members.

The motion or petition to suspend Shareef was proposed by Attorney General Bisham, who is yet to receive parliamentary consent for her appointment.

Meanwhile, at the press conference this evening, Justice Adam Mohamed refused to reveal either the details of the vote or the members in attendance despite repeated queries from reporters.

He also refused to state which High Court judge would take over the chief judge’s administrative functions.

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) – of which Nasheed is the presidential candidate – described the actions by the JSC as attempts to influence the case filed by Nasheed against the JSC.

“We condemn the actions of the Maldivian courts, which violate the electoral rights of nearly 50,000 Maldivian Democratic Party members. The disruption to President Nasheed’s campaign trip to Raa atoll is an unnecessary, politically motivated challenge,” the party contended yesterday.

“The JSC continues to try and cover up the unconstitutional manner in which they appointed the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench through attempts at influencing the judiciary, while the Courts create logistical challenges such as today’s.  However, it does not stop affect the spirit of President Nasheed’s campaign,” said MP Mariya Ahmed Didi.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court cancels hearing on Nasheed’s case against JSC, after judge takes last minute leave

The High Court has cancelled the scheduled hearing set to take place today concerning the case filed by former President Mohamed Nasheed against the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) contesting the legitimacy of the appointment of the three-member panel of judges in his trial.

The JSC has previously contested the High Court’s jurisdictionto rule on the procedural issues noted by Nasheed’s lawyers. The former President is being tried for his detention of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, Abdulla Mohamed, prior to his controversial resignation in February 2012.

A High Court official confirmed to Minivan News that the hearing was cancelled but did not state a reason for the cancellation.

However, Nasheed’s legal team member Hassan Latheef told Minivan News the decision to cancel the hearing was made after the judge who was presiding over the case opted to “take leave” for the day.

“[High Court] officials called us and informed that the judge presiding over the case was on leave today, and therefore the hearing was cancelled,” said Latheef.

The cancellation of the hearing came just a few minutes before it was set to begin, much to the dismay of Nasheed, the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s presidential candidate – who had cut short his campaign trip to Raa Atoll to appear for the hearing.

“We are very disappointed over the court’s decision which clearly shows its motive to obstruct Nasheed’s presidential campaign. Due to this [behaviour] Nasheed is barred from having the same opportunities as other candidates to campaign in the elections,” Latheef said, expressing his frustration over the cancellation.

Arguments

During the last hearing in which both the parties argued over procedural issues, Nasheed and his counsel sought to clarify the JSC’s procedural points contending that they were not completely clear.

The High Court judges panel gave Nasheed’s lawyers the opportunity to ask the JSC’s legal representation for clarification, while posing additional questions regarding the same issue themselves.

They then stated that it was unclear why the JSC had asked for the counsel of the Supreme Court in deciding the composition of the bench, and the justification under which the JSC considered the Supreme Court’s counsel to be of the same legal weight as a ruling of the court.

In responding to the questions posed to them, the JSC revealed that the names of the magistrates they had sent to the Supreme Court for their counsel were not the names nominated by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

The High Court bench questioned the JSC as to if there was a procedure in place which allowed for the assignment of judges to specific cases.

The JSC responded that there were certain circumstances in which judges can be assigned for specific cases, adding that the commission had done so previously in the past.

The bench further asked the JSC several times as to whether they considered the Supreme Court’s ‘counsel’ a ‘ruling’. The JSC’s legal team confirmed that they did.

The JSC’s legal representation stated that the Hulhumale’ Court Bench had been established under the counsel of the Supreme Court, and that this held the weight of a Supreme Court ruling.

Nasheed’s legal team contested this, stating that ‘counsel’ and a ‘ruling’ of the Supreme Court could not be considered to hold the same strength.

Upon receiving answers for some of the questions posed, Nasheed’s lawyers requested for more time to prepare a response, which the bench granted.

Request for intervention

Meanwhile, former MNDF Male Area Commander retired Brigadier General Ibrahim Mohamed Didi and his legal team have requested to intervene in the ongoing court battle between the former President and the JSC.

The retired Brigadier General is facing the same charges as Nasheed over the detention of Judge Abdulla Mohamed during January 2011, which eventually led to a police mutiny and finally, the controversial resignation of Nasheed from the presidency.

Didi is represented by lawyer Ismail Wisham who previously lodged a case contesting that the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was set up in contradiction of laws dictating the formation of courts. The case was later taken over by Supreme Court which later endorsed the legitimacy of the much debated magistrate court.

In response to the request made by Didi, local media reported that the High Court had claimed it would allow the intervention as soon as it had ruled on the procedural issues raised by the JSC.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed contests JSC’s claim that Supreme Court ‘ruling’ and ‘counsel’ carry equal legal weight

The High Court has granted former President Mohamed Nasheed additional time to respond to procedural matters raised by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) in the case submitted by his defense counsel, challenging the legitimacy of the three-member bench appointed by the JSC to his trial at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

The JSC, raising procedural issues, stated that the High Court does not have the jurisdiction to preside over the case submitted by the former president’s legal team.

Nasheed and his counsel stated several times during today’s hearing that the JSC’s procedural points were not completely clear.

The High Court judges panel gave Nasheed’s lawyers the opportunity to ask the JSC’s legal representation for clarifications, while posing additional questions regarding the same issue themselves.

They then stated that it was unclear why the JSC had asked for the counsel of the Supreme Court in deciding the composition of the bench, and the justification under which the JSC considered the Supreme Court’s counsel to be of the same legal weight as a ruling of the court.

In responding to the questions posed to them, the JSC revealed that the names of the magistrates they had sent to the Supreme Court for their counsel were not the names nominated by the Hulhumale Magistrate Court.

The High Court bench questioned JSC if there it is a procedure in place which allows the assignment of judges for specific cases.

The JSC responded that there were certain circumstances in which judges can be assigned for specific cases, adding that the commission had done so previously in certain cases.

The bench further asked the JSC several times as to whether they considered the Supreme Court’s ‘counsel’ a ‘ruling’. The JSC’s legal team confirmed that they did.

The JSC’s legal representation stated that the Hulhumale’ Court Bench had been established under the counsel of the Supreme Court, and that this held the weight of a Supreme Court ruling.

Nasheed’s legal team contested this, stating that ‘counsel’ and a ‘ruling’ of the Supreme Court cannot be considered to hold the same strength.

Upon receiving answers for some of the questions posed, Nasheed’s lawyers requested for more time to prepare a response, which the bench granted.

In concluding the hearing, the High Court judge’s bench stated that the next hearing of the case would be arranged in the near future, at which Nasheed’s legal team is expected to respond to the procedural matters raised by JSC.

The bench added that in an additional hearing which will be held closely following the next one, the High Court will reveal its ruling on the same matters.

JSC’s request to expedite case

In April, the JSC sent a letter to the High Court requesting that the case be expedited.

The letter was signed by JSC Vice Chair Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Didi, and it was later revealed that it had been sent without consultation with other members of the commission.

JSC member appointed from among the public, Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman, told media that he believed the letter was sent under orders of JSC Chair Adam Mohamed, adding that the Chair did not have the authority to make such decisions without consulting the commission members.

“I believe that whoever advised for this letter to be sent has done so with the intention of influencing Nasheed’s case to be concluded in a particular way,” he had said at the time.

Shuaib’s contention was later backed by Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid, who also sits on the commission.

However, JSC media official Hassan Zaheen stated that he did not believe that sending the letter would exert any undue influence or pressure, even though the JSC is currently looking into disciplinary matters concerning the Chief Judge of the High Court. He added that similar letters had been sent in the past at the discretion of the JSC Chair.

The case in question is one filed by the defense counsel of Nasheed, challenging the legitimacy of the panel of judges presiding over the case against him for the arbitrary detention during his administration of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Nasheed and his party contend the case is a politically motivated attempt to convict and prevent him from contesting in the upcoming September 7 presidential elections.

Lawyers representing the JSC has even previously requested the High Court dismiss the case, contending the court did not have the jurisdiction to preside on the matter.

Upon accepting the case, the HIgh Court issued a stay order on Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court to suspend all criminal trials concerning the arrest of the judge until a ruling on the legitimacy of the bench is issued.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC Chair asked to expedite Hulhumale’ Bench case without counsel of members: Sheikh Rahman

The Judicial Services Commission (JSC)’s request that the High Court expedite a case concerning the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench overhearing the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed is an attempt to unduly influence the court, JSC member Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman has stated.

“As I see it, a letter like this can only be sent after seeking counsel of commission members in a formal meeting,” Sheikh Rahman said, referring to the request sent by the JSC to the High Court on Sunday.

“However, I only heard about this letter in the media. The next day, I raised the issue at the commission’s meeting, and that is when they finally showed it to me,” he said.

“The letter was signed by the Vice Chair of the JSC [Criminal Court Judge] Abdulla Didi. Abdulla Didi would not send such a letter of his accord. I believe that what has happened here is that he has sent this letter under the orders of JSC Chair [Supreme Court Judge] Adam Mohamed,” he said.

Sheikh Rahman added that the JSC’s Chair was only granted authority to autonomously answer letters concerning administrative matters.

“This letter, however, is certainly not to do with an administrative issue, nor is it a response to a letter. They have taken the initiative and sent a letter to a court concerning an ongoing case, speaking of the case outside of court proceedings. There are already lawyers appointed for this. Such decisions must be made in commission meetings,” he stated.

“I believe that whoever advised for this letter to be sent has done so with the intention of influencing Nasheed’s case to be concluded in a particular way,” Sheikh Rahman declared.

“The JSC, even prior to the sending of this letter, is looking into a number of complaints against the Chief Judge of the High Court and some concerning him or other judges of that same court. The fact is that the JSC has the mandate to appoint or remove the High Court Chief Judge, therefore it is very likely going to exert pressure and influence when this oversight committee sends such a letter,” Sheikh Rahman explained.

The case in question is one filed by the defense counsel of former President Mohamed Nasheed, challenging the legitimacy of the three member bench appointed by the JSC to the case against him for the arbitrary detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Nasheed and his party contend the case is a politically-motivated attempt to convict and prevent him contesting the presidential elections in September.

Lawyers representing the JSC previously requested the High Court dismiss the case, contending the court did not have the jurisdiction to preside on the matter.

Upon accepting the case, the High Court issued a stay order on Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court to suspend all criminal trials concerning the arrest of the judge, until a ruling on the legitimacy of the court’s bench is issued.

“Far more concerning cases”

Sheikh Rahman stated that there were other “far more concerning cases” pending in the country’s courts, which the JSC had not sought to expedite.

“There is a case concerning matters relating to the appointment of judges to the superior courts. The JSC has then appealed it at the Supreme Court. This case has been pending for over an year. Within this period, the JSC has sent only two letters regarding the matter,” Sheikh Rahman said.

“The appointment of judges to the superior courts is at a standstill until a verdict is reached on this case. This is a far more pressing matter.”

Not the first time such a letter is sent: JSC

JSC Media Official Hassan Zaheen initially declined from commenting on the issues raised by Sheikh Rahman.

“Shuaib is a member, right? Now when a member has said something, I do not know what to say with regard to that. As I have told media before, this is not the first time we have sent such a letter. I don’t know what has to be said.”

Approached for comments, JSC Vice Chair Abdulla Didi requested that Minivan News contact the JSC’s media official instead.

When informed that the media official had declined from commenting on the matter, Abdulla Didi stated that as media officer, Zaheen was mandated to respond to media.

“Just this week we decided in a commission meeting that Zaheen will answer all media queries regarding this matter, under the counsel of JSC Chair or myself. If he asks me for counsel, I will definitely not stop him from providing explanations. However, I am not the media person, so I do not want to comment on the matter to any media,” Didi said.

Under counsel from the Vice Chair, Zaheen later responded to Sheikh Rahman’s statements.

“I don’t know what Shuaib means by that. We [JSC] believe this is an administrative step taken in order to carry out our work in a more timely manner. The law says the chair, as the highest authority, can take administrative decisions,” he stated.

“It does not matter to us whether the case has to do with [former President Mohamed] Nasheed or whoever. As respondents, we have the right to make this request,” he continued.

“Remember the case of Abdulla Ghazi [Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed]? When there was a case concerning him in Civil Court, this commission sent a letter asking it to be expedited. Even that letter was sent as an administrative letter under the Chair’s orders, not after a decision made in a commission meeting,” Zaheen explained.

Regarding the allegation that the letter may have exerted undue influence, Zaheen replied, “I do not believe that any influence will be exerted. JSC will look into disciplinary measures of any judges, as it is our mandate. That does not mean that we can’t send a letter when a case concerning us in being tried in one of these courts. Who else will come to raise that point? If, as you all claim, there is a conflict of interest, then there are policies the JSC has shared with the judges on how they can abstain from such cases. I trust the judges will do so if need be.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC asks High Court to expedite case concerning legitimacy of bench in Nasheed trial

The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has requested the court expedite the case filed by the defense counsel of former President Mohamed Nasheed, challenging the legitimacy of the three-member bench appointed to his case.

The JSC made the request in a letter sent to the court last week. Lawyers representing the JSC previously requested the High Court dismiss the case, contending that the High Court did not have the jurisdiction to preside on the matter.

The JSC appointed the three member panel consisting of Judges Shujau Usman, Abdul Nasir Abdul Raheem and Hussain Mazeed to hear the former president Nasheed’s criminal trial – concerning criminal charges levied against him over the controversial detention Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

However, following the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Hulhumale-based court was legitimate and could operate as a court of law – dismissing Nasheed’s contention that court was formed extra-legally – the former president’s legal team subsequently filed a case at High Court contesting the legitimacy of the bench appointed to hear the case.

Upon accepting the case, the High Court issued a stay order on Hulhumale Magistrate Court to suspend all criminal trials concerning the arrest of the judge, pending a ruling on the legitimacy of the court bench.

Speaking to local media on Monday, JSC Media Official Hassan Zaheen said the commission sent the letter last week.

“We are the respondents of the case and in that capacity, we requested the High Court to speed up the case,” Zaheen told local newspaper Haveeru.

Zaheen claimed the request made to the High Court was “not a new practice” and that the commission had previously made similar requests.

Meanwhile Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has alleged that the JSC sent the letter to High Court in a bid to influence the outcome of the trial.

In a press statement released by the party, the MDP claimed the JSC had instructed the court to immediately make a ruling on the matter.

“If the JSC, as the respondent in the case, felt the case was being delayed, there is nothing wrong in asking the court to expedite the case. However, the MDP believes this is an attempt to influence the outcome of the case, as the JSC is sending its legal arguments in writing rather than speaking about them in the court room,” read the statement.

The MDP condemned the decision and alleged that the state’s judicial watch-dog was acting beyond its constitutional mandate.

The JSC has come under heavy scrutiny over its appointment of the panel of the judges – which several lawyers and members of JSC itself have claimed exceeded the JSC’s mandate.

Among the JSC’s critics include JSC member Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman – the member appointed from among the public.  Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman previously claimed 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 was due to the large amount 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.

Meanwhile, Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid – who is also a member of the JSC – stated that he believed that the judicial watchdog had acted unconstitutionally in assigning magistrates to a particular case.

“In deciding upon the bench, the JSC did follow its rules of procedures. As in, it was voted upon in an official meeting and six of the seven members in attendance voted on the matter. The seventh member being the chair, does not vote in matters,” Shahid explained. “However, whether it is within the commission’s mandate to appoint a panel of judges in this manner is an issue which raised doubt in the minds of more than one of my fellow members,”

Other critics of the JSC include United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, who also argued that the appointment of the judges bench was carried out arbitrarily.

“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, responding to questions from media after delivering her statement in February.

Speaking to Minivan News previously, Kirsty Brimelow QC, one of three UK-based experts on former President Nasheed’s legal team, contended that the prosecution of his case before the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court fell “below international standards for fair trial procedure”.

JSC Media Official Hassan Zaheen was not responding to calls at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament accepts bill seeking to abolish Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court

Parliament today accepted amendments to the Judicature Act submitted by Independent MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed to abolish the magistrate court in Hulhumale’.

The legislation (Dhivehi) was narrowly accepted for consideration with 32 votes in favour, 31 against as well as one abstention and sent to the Independent Institutions Committee for review.

The Independent MP for Kulhudhufushi South proposed the amendments in December 2012, following a controversial 4-3 Supreme Court ruling declaring the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court legitimate.

The judgment cleared the way for the magistrate court to proceed with the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed on charges of illegally detaining Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

Nasheed’s formerly ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) disputes the legitimacy of the magistrate court, contending that it was created by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) in violation of the Judicature Act.

Writing in his personal blog after submitting the amendments, MP Nasheed explained that he would have accepted the apex court’s decision as final and incontrovertible if Supreme Court Justice Adam Mohamed Abdulla – chair of the JSC – had recused himself.

“The [Hulhumale’] court was formed by the commission. The vote on forming the court was called at a meeting of the commission chaired by [Justice Adam Mohamed]. The case requesting the Supreme Court to declare the court legitimate was submitted by the commission chaired by the justice,” Nasheed wrote.

Justice Adam Mohamed “created the court, filed the case, and decided the case in his favour,” Nasheed wrote.

Echoing the criticism, former Attorney General Husnu Suood, who argued the case at the Supreme Court, described the decision at the time as “a case of actual bias because JSC would [have] lost the case without the vote of JSC president: 3 for 3 against, [tie-breaking] vote by JSC [president].”

Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain, Justice Abdulla Areef and Justice Muthasim Adnan had delivered the dissenting opinion ruling that the magistrate court was not established in accordance with the Judicature Act.

MP Nasheed’s amendments would meanwhile see the magistrate court abolished and its cases transferred to the superior courts (Criminal Court, Civil Court, Family Court, Juvenile Court and Drug Court) in Male’.

Moreover, an article would be added to the Judicature Act explicitly stating that the islands of Hulhumale’ and Vilimale’ should be considered part of Male’ City.

Vili-Maafanu and Hulhu-Henveiru are both electoral districts or constituencies in the capital with elected MPs and city councillors.

Legitimacy

In a blogpost in October 2012, Nasheed observed that the Judicature Act stipulates 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, Drug 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, Nasheed contended.

In the latter blogpost on amending the law governing courts, Nasheed explained that the purpose of amending the Judicature Act was to “clarify the Majlis’ intent as the [Supreme Court] has made a decision that conflicts with the intent of the Majlis in passing the law.”

If a Supreme Court interpretation of an article or provision in an act of parliament was “not the outcome intended by lawmakers,” Nasheed suggested that the remedy was amending the law to ensure the desired effect.

If the amendments are passed and signed into law, Nasheed wrote, a magistrate court could not be set up in the capital Male’ on the pretext of “two or three articles in the Judicature Act”.

Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court

During the first hearing of former President Nasheed’s trial at the magistrate court, the ex-president’s lawyers raised procedural points challenging the legitimacy of the court, which were summarily dismissed by the three magistrates on the bench.

Nasheed’s legal team then appealed the magistrate court’s ruling on the procedural points at the High Court.

On November 4, 2012, the High Court granted a stay or an injunction temporarily suspending the trial pending a ruling on procedural points.

The injunction prompted the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court to announce that it had suspended all ongoing cases as they could be affected by the questions raised over the court’s legal status.

However, before the High Court could issue a ruling on the appeal, the JSC filed a case in Supreme Court requesting a decision to declare the magistrate court legitimate.

On November 8, 2012, the Supreme Court instructed the High Court to halt its hearings on the former President’s appeal.

The Supreme Court also ordered the Civil Court to send over all files and documents on a case submitted over a year ago by lawyer Ismail Visham, which challenged the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

The Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus ordering the lower court to suspend its hearings and took over the case.

Meanwhile, a week before the Supreme Court delivered its 4-3 judgment declaring the magistrate court legitimate, parliament’s Independent Institutions Committee voted not to recognise the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ court.

The oversight committee, chaired by MP Nasheed, decided that there were no “legal and constitutional grounds” to support the court’s legal status.

However, in an unprecedented move, the Supreme Court issued an order (No. 2012/SC-SJ/05) invalidating the committee’s decision.

The Supreme Court declared that no institution should meddle with the business of the courts, claiming that it held parental authority over “constitutional and legal affairs” and would not allow such “interference” to take place.

“Any action or a decision taken by an institution of the state that may impact the outcome of a matter that is being heard in a court of law, and prior to a decision by the courts on that matter, shall be deemed invalid, and [the Supreme Court] hereby orders that these acts must not be carried out,” the order read.

Meanwhile, earlier this month, the High Court granted a second injunction or stay halting former President Nasheed’s trial at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

The trial was suspended pending a ruling by the High Court on the legitimacy of the three-magistrate bench appointed by the JSC to preside over Nasheed’s trial.

The injunction followed testimony by members of the JSC to the Independent Institutions Committee claiming that the three magistrates chosen by JSC were appointed arbitrarily.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Former President Nasheed reaches Copenhagen climate talks despite alleged obstruction

Former President Mohamed Nasheed was temporarily obstructed from traveling overseas yesterday (April 14) despite having High Court approval, the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has alleged.  Nasheed’s office has said this is the fourth time over the last 12 months that he has faced restrictions on his travel.

The High Court had granted Nasheed permission to travel abroad yesterday, while Maldivian authorities were informed of his planned departure to Copenhagen, Denmark, at 7:30pm in the evening, MDP MP and Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor claimed today.

However, an hour before Nasheed’s scheduled departure – after he had arrived at Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) in Male’ –  his office said they were informed Nasheed could not leave the country.

The Department of Immigration and Emigration were then accused of preventing Nasheed from leaving the Maldives, claiming the High Court had not granted him permission to travel overseas before April 15.

After Nasheed’s flight departed, the Immigration Department then granted their official permission, Ghafoor said.

Nasheed then rescheduled his flight and departed the Maldives for Copenhagen at 11:40pm on April 14.

Ghafoor added that this was the fourth instance where Nasheed has been obstructed from traveling abroad on a scheduled international visit under the present government.

He explained that “everything was scheduled properly and there was no controversy from the High Court,” instead the issue lies with the Immigration Department.

“The Immigration Department will not stop trying to find any little administrative mistakes – and when they can’t, they invent something. They will most likely quote an administrative error on the part of Nasheed’s staff,” said Ghafoor.

“President Nasheed has not been shown the courtesy a former head of state deserves,” he added.

Nasheed’s spokesperson, Mariya Didi echoed these sentiments stating: “As a former President, it deeply concerning that the Maldivian authorities continue to withhold the constitutionally stipulated privileges accorded to President Nasheed.”

When asked about Nasheed’s travel arrangements, Immigration Controller Dr Mohamed Ali told Minivan News today to “ask the MDP about it,” adding he would not comment on any instance of the former president being obstructed from traveling overseas.

Climate change, economics, and democracy

While in Denmark, Nasheed has been invited to speak at the University of Copenhagen on the economics of climate change.

His office has said he will speak on outlining the dangers posed to the Maldives by climate change, and explain how the world can build a carbon neutral global economy by focusing on the opportunities provided by clean technology.

The investments for producing sustainable energy in the Maldives are now viable, Nasheed told local media prior to his departure yesterday.

Ghafoor said that Nasheed plans to speak at the Danish Parliament and meet with ministers during this “rushed but comprehensive trip”.

“He’s not a green man per se, but rather supports economics of the green movement,” he added.

Nasheed told local media that his parliamentary speech will highlight how the Maldives has deviated from democratic principles and the efforts necessary to put the country “back on track to democratic governance”.

Nasheed is scheduled to return April 18.

Previous travel bans

Earlier this year,the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court denied former Nasheed’s request to travel abroad for a family wedding from March 27 to March 31.

Meanwhile, Nasheed’s request to travel overseas between February 27 to March 5 was denied by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court because “he had not cooperated with the court on previous instances”. The trip had been scheduled after Nasheed received an invitation from the Commonwealth Secretary General Kamalesh Sharma, and to Denmark under an invitation from the state.

Nasheed was also prevented from leaving the country December 21, 2012 to visit his ill father in Bangkok, Thailand due to a “technical problem,” the Department of Immigration and Emigration has claimed.

Earlier in 2012, the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court imposed an internal travel ban “confining Nasheed Male’,” which he said will hinder his political campaigning and wider party work.

Copenhagen climate justice advocacy

Nasheed galvanised thousands of environmentalists at a 350.org rally in Copenhagen December 2009, vowing to persevere until a politically binding climate change treaty was attained.

The Danish Prime Minister called Nasheed “the real hero of Copenhagen” following a marathon 30 hour negotiation session to reach an agreement during the 2009 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) talks.

The agreed-upon accord recognises that global temperatures should rise no higher than two degrees Celcius above pre-industrial levels, but does not commit developed countries to legally-binding emission reduction targets.

Current carbon-neutral commitments

The current government of President Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik has said it is committed to pursuing carbon neutral ambitions, despite last year’s political tensions reportedly affecting investment potential for such schemes.

Environment Minister Dr Mariyam Shakeela said last year that some of the programs presently being undertaken by her ministry had started seven years previously – before Former President Mohamed Nasheed came to power – and were being adhered to on the grounds they would benefit the nation.

“We are continuing with the carbon neutrality program,” she said at the time. “ We are giving it our best shot.”

Since early 2012, the Maldivian government has overseen the initial stages of a few new renewable energy projects to achieve this goal.

The Maldives’ State Electric Company Limited (STELCO) announced in March 2013 plans to implement a 50 megawatt floating solar panel project to power the country’s capital Male’ and provide renewable energy for 28 islands with rooftop installations.

The Ministry of Environment in conjunction with the Ministry of Finance issued a prequalification application in January 2013 for the “Solar Maldives Programme.” The project aims to “design, build, finance, own, operate and transfer grid-tied solar photovoltaic systems for integration with diesel generators on 15 islands” in the south, north, and upper north provinces.

The government has also received bids to install a 300 kW grid connected solar PV system on Thinadhoo Island, the regional capital of Gaaf Dhaal (Huvadhoo) Atoll. This is part of the “Clean Energy for Climate Mitigation (CECM) Project” financed by the Climate Change Trust Fund (CCTF) – a collaboration between the Maldivian government, World Bank, European Union (EU) and the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID).

“The system is expected to meet 30 percent of the peak day time demand of electricity and will offset approximately 300 tons of carbon dioxide annually,” the Ministry of Environment previously claimed.

The Waheed administration has also announced its intention to move ahead with plans to transform the Maldives into a biosphere reserve through the designation of zones across the country that would earmark land use for specific purposes such as tourism development or conservation.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC contests High Court jurisdiction to rule on legitimacy of Hulhumale’ court bench

The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) on Thursday (Apirl 11) asked the High Court to dismiss a case filed by former President Mohamed Nasheed contesting the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court’s bench controversially constituted by the commission.

At Thursday’s hearing, the JSC contended that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to rule on the case as the panel of judges presiding over Nasheed’s trial – on charges of illegally detaining Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012 – was appointed based on counsel from the Supreme Court.

“It is strange that the JSC’s legal counsel contested jurisdiction of the High Court to hear the case on the grounds that they had sought the advice of the Supreme Court in determining the bench,” Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Mariya Ahmed Didi, spokeswoman of the former president said after the hearing.

“Recently, when eight judges of the High Court bench filed a complaint at the JSC claiming that the High Court had not followed procedure in accepting President Nasheed’s appeal and granting stay to Hulhumale’ Magistrates’ Court proceedings, the JSC had rejected it on what we understood the grounds to be as the matter should be heard in court. We did ask for an adjournment to prepare our response to their procedural issue. The court said they would give us time to prepare for our response and adjourned the hearing.”

Raising the procedural issue at Thursday’s hearing, the JSC lawyer reportedly informed the High Court that the Supreme Court provided counsel on September 4, 2012 on appointing judges to the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench.

The JSC lawyer argued that decisions by the apex court could not be challenged at the High Court.

In response, Hisaan Hussain from the former president’s legal team noted that counsel provided by the Supreme Court in a letter did not carry the same legal weight as a court ruling.

Chief Judge Ahmed Shareef Ali then adjourned the hearing after granting time for Nasheed’s legal team to study and respond to the procedural issue. In addition to the chief judge, the three-judge High Court panel included Judge Abbas Shareef and Judge Abdul Raoof Ibrahim.

Hulhumale’ court bench

In a recent trial observation report, the UK’s Bar Human Rights Committee (BHRC) expressed “serious concern” over the appointment of judges by the JSC to the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench.

Accounts of the appointment process, “if accurate, suggest egregious unconstitutional behaviour by the JSC in selecting the judicial bench to hear Mr Nasheed’s case,” stated BHRC Executive Committee member Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh.

“It is difficult to see how proceedings presided over by a judicial bench, cherrypicked for their likelihood to convict by a highly politicised JSC, which includes a number of Mr Nasheed’s direct political rivals, could in any way be deemed to comply with constitutional and international fair trial rights, including the right to an ‘independent court established by law’,” stated Ghrálaigh, in her concluding remarks.

The MDP maintains that the charges against Nasheed  represent a politically-motivated attempt to bar its presidential candidate from upcoming presidential elections scheduled for September 7, 2013.

Legal wrangle

Nasheed’s trial at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was suspended after the High Court issued a stay order on April 1.

The trial had resumed in March after the Supreme Court declared the magistrate court legitimate in a controversial 4-3 ruling.

At the least hearing of the trial at the Hulhumale’ court, the state prosecutor said that the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) did not have any objections to granting a request by the former president’s legal team to defer the trial until after September’s presidential election.

The Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court however refused to delay the trial and scheduled its next hearing for April 4.

Nasheed’s legal team subsequently appealed the magistrate court’s decision not to grant a deferral while also filing a case challenging the legitimacy of the bench.

The second case followed testimony from members of the JSC at parliament’s Independent Institutions Oversight Committee suggesting that the commission exceeded its mandate in appointing judges to the magistrate court bench.

Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman, member of the general public on the JSC, testified that the commission arbitrarily appointed three magistrates from courts across the Maldives to Nasheed’s case after dismissing the three names first submitted by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

“Moosa Naseem (chief magistrate of 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.”

Rahman further stated that the judicial watchdog body was highly politicised, and openly attempting to eliminate former President Nasheed from contesting the presidential elections.

Meanwhile, Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid – also a member of the JSC – told the oversight committee that he believed the JSC acted unconstitutionally in assigning magistrates to oversee Nasheed’s trial.

“In deciding upon the bench, the JSC did follow its rules of procedures. That is, it was voted upon in an official meeting and six of the seven members in attendance voted on the matter. The seventh member being the chair, does not vote in matters,” Shahid explained.

“However, whether it is within the commission’s mandate to appoint a panel of judges in this manner is an issue which raised doubt in the minds of more than one of my fellow members,” he added.

During a visit to the Maldives in February, United Nations Special Rapporteur (UNSR) on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul also criticised the appointment of judges to the magistrate court bench..

“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 told press after delivering her statement.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC rejects complaint by High Court judges against Chief Judge Ahmed Shareef

The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has rejected the case submitted by eight members of the High Court against Chief Judge Ahmed Shareef over his suspension of former President Mohamed Nasheed’s trial in the Hulhumale Magistrate Court.

Last Wednesday eight of the High Court’s nine-member bench filed the case claiming that the chief judge had issued the stay order without registering the case, had failed to assign a case number to the case, and had not discussed the matter with the other judges.

The judges also accused the chief judge of taking the matter into his own hands by not discussing the matter with them before issuing the order.

A spokesperson from the JSC confirmed to Minivan News at the time that the commission had received a “letter” from the eight judges regarding Judge Shareef.

A High Court official denied the allegations made by the judges, stating that the case concerning the stay order was registered at the court the previous week and that the former President’s legal team had paid the charges the following day.  He also added that the order was issued after the court had received the payment.

During a meeting held on Thursday the JSC decided to not look into the case, claiming that a conflict of interest existed in the commission probing the matter, as it had appointed the three member judges panel to the Hulhumale Magistrate Court. The court is currently hearing all trials concerning the arrest of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed.

The members of the judicial watchdog also came to the conclusion that the case filed by the eight judges included issues concerning High Court procedure, which it claimed could only be looked into after the Supreme Court made a decision regarding the matter.

Six of the 10-member commission were reportedly against looking into the case while only one member was voted in favour, according to local media.

The High Court Chief Judge issued the injunction after the Hulhumale Magistrate Court rejected a request by former President Nasheed’s legal team to defer his trial until the end of the scheduled presidential elections, despite no objection from the state prosecutors.

The former president – who stands charged of unlawfully detaining the Chief Judge of Criminal Court during his last days in power in January 2012 – appealed the decision at the High Court while also contesting that the JSC had appointed the panel of judges to the magistrate court arbitrarily.

Following the appeal, the High Court granted a stay order ordering the magistrate court to halt Nasheed’s trial until it decided on the legitimacy of the panel of judges appointed to examine his case. The stay order was signed by Chief Judge Ahmed Shareef, and stated that the court was of the view that Nasheed’s ongoing trial must come to a halt until the legitimacy of the bench was established.

Concerns

Following the filing of the case at the JSC against Chief Judge Ahmed Shareef, member of former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team Hassan Latheef has expressed his concern as to whether JSC would look into the matter impartially and transparently.

Speaking during an opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) rally held on Wednesday evening, Latheef – who was the minister for human resources, youth and sports during Nasheed’ presidency –  argued that the decision by the Chief Judge of High Court regarding the stay order was made in accordance with the High Court’s normal procedures.

Latheef claimed that based on the documents published at the high court website, out of the 15 stay orders issued in 2012 by the High Court in 2012, 10 stay orders had been signed by just one High Court judge.

“The Hulhumale Magistrate Court which is hearing the case of President Nasheed was ordered to be suspended by High Court in according to its usual practice in such cases. The case was registered at the High Court and even before there were instances were stay orders had been issued that had only one signature,” Latheef said.

Latheef also dismissed the claims that the case had not been registered at the court.

“We filed the case on March 31. The stay order was issued the afternoon of the following day, after we had even paid the charges for filing the case in the court,” he contended. “Another question is who will look into the case impartially – all the other judges have filed this case at the JSC against Chief Judge Shareef. Eight judges are on one side while the chief judge is on the other side. These are new issues which have come out of the case.”

He noted that this was the first time in Maldivian legal history where an entire panel of judges had teamed up against the chief judge following a decision on a case.

JSC under heavy scrutiny

The JSC has come under heavy scrutiny over its appointment of the panel of the judges to Hulhumale Magistrate Court to hear cases concerning the arrest of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed – which several lawyers and members of the JSC itself have claimed exceeded the JSC’s mandate.

Among the JSC’s critics include JSC member Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman – the member appointed from among the public.  Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman previously claimed 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.

Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid – who is also a member of the JSC – stated that he believed that the judicial watchdog had acted unconstitutionally in assigning magistrates to a particular case.

“In deciding upon the bench, the JSC did follow its rules of procedures. As in, it was voted upon in an official meeting and six of the seven members in attendance voted on the matter. The seventh member being the chair, does not vote in matters,” Shahid explained.

Other critics included United Nations Special Rapporteur (UNSR) on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, who also said the appointment was carried out arbitrarily.

“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, responding to questions from media after delivering her statement in February.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)