“They had not sought any comments from the Maldives government. I’m extremely disappointed that a group advocating for fairness and equal treatment had released a report based on just one side of the story,” Jameel told Haveeru.
“An international group of the caliber of Amnesty should have heard the other side as well. But they had failed to obtain our comments,” Jameel is quoted as saying.
Minivan News was awaiting a response from Amnesty at the time of press.
When talking with Haveeru, Jameel did not appear to dispute the content of the statements that were included in the report.
Jameel was also not responding to calls from Minivan News at time of press.
The Amnesty report recounts sustained and pre-meditated beatings of protesters with a variety of weapons.
Some of those interviewed reported people being attacked in their hospital beds, whilst others recalled torture and further degradation whilst in detention.
Amnesty also detailed a number of incidents of police brutality on February 8, including attacks on Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MPs Eva Abdulla and Mariya Didi.
“The overall objective of these violent attacks has been to silence peaceful government critics and stifle public debate about the current political situation,” said the report, compiled by Amnesty researcher Abbas Faiz.
“Based on Amnesty International’s interviews with survivors of these violent attacks, it appears that many were targeted by security forces because they were MDP ministers, parliamentarians or supporters,” it read.
Whilst Amnesty stated that several of its human rights recommendations were reflected in the Commission of National Inquiry’s (CNI) report, which was released on August 30, Jameel argued that the CNI had highlighted misdemeanors of protesters which did not make it into the Amnesty report.
“CNI (Commission of National Inquiry) report had clearly highlighted the actions of demonstrators during protests in the Maldives. The foreign observers had labelled the actions of demonstrators as cowboy tactics,” Jameel told Haveeru.
In their closing observations, Professor John Packer and Sir Bruce Robertson had appeared critical of the anti-government protesters.
“Some would want to call an example of the rights of freedom of expression and assembly. In reality it is rather more bully boy tactics involving actual and threatened intimidation by a violent mob,” reported Packer and Robertson.
Jameel continued: “The demonstrators undermine the peace and stability, carry out attacks while being inebriated, carry out attacks with sharp objects and damage private property. Even internationally such actions are regarded as violence. However, the Amnesty report has ignored all such things. It is extremely one sided and unjust,” said Jameel.
The CNI report’s major findings were that February’s transfer of power was constitutional and that, rather than amounting to a coup, the events preceding former President Mohamed Nasheed’s resignation were of his own making.
The report did conclude that acts of police brutality had been committed in February and urged further investigation by relevant authorities.
Following the release of the report, Jameel explained that the government would leave these investigations to the Police Integrity Commission (PIC).
Widespread doubts persist, however, as to the strength of independent institutions in the country with the Chair of the PIC publicly expressing her doubts over the ability of the PIC to handle the pressure of these investigations.
This issue was reflected in Amnesty’s findings: “Government officials have frequently shrugged off their own responsibility to address human rights violations, saying it is the purview of the Human Rights Commission (HRCM) and the PIC.”
“However, both bodies have yet to conclude their investigations into all of the most serious human rights violations does not absolve the government of its responsibility to exercise due diligence in guaranteeing the rule of law and protecting human rights,” it continued.
Amnesty’s recommendations also included de-politicisation of the police, reform of the judiciary and enhanced training of security forces to meet with international standards of conduct.
Nasheed’s MDP have been fiercely critical of the CNI’s methods following the resignation of their commission member, Ahmed ‘Gahaa’ Saeed, on the eve of the report’s publication.
Jameel’s comments echo those of Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz who, in April, told Minivan News of his own scepticism of Amnesty’s methods
“I don’t see that there has been any investigations done, none of our officers was questioned, interviewed – neither by them nor by the Police Integrity Commission (PIC), nor by the Human Rights Commission (HRCM). I don’t think that’s fair,” said Riyaz.
“Without an end to – and accountability for – these human rights violations, any attempt at political reconciliation in the Maldives will be meaningless,” said Amnesty’s researcher in the Maldives, Abbas Faiz.
Amnesty said that several of its human rights recommendations are reflected in the Commission of National Inquiry’s (CNI) report which was released on August 30.
The report details a number of incidents of police brutality on February 8, including attacks on Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MPs Eva Abdulla and Mariya Didi.
“The overall objective of these violent attacks has been to silence peaceful government critics and stifle public debate about the current political situation,” said the report.
“Based on Amnesty International’s interviews with survivors of these violent attacks, it appears that many were targeted by security forces because they were MDP ministers, parliamentarians or supporters,” it read.
The report recommended that the Maldivian government “ensure prompt, independent, impartial and effective investigations into allegations of violence by officials.”
“Those suspected of offences involving such violations, irrespective of rank or status, must be prosecuted in proceedings which meet international standards of fairness.”
It also urged the government to “remove any bias in the police force, so they act as officers of law without prejudice, and do not take sides politically.”
Tension between the police has continued unabated since the release of the CNI report, with continued MDP demonstrations being met with large numbers of arrests.
The police service last week confirmed that they would be arresting people for using the term ‘baghee’ (a Dhivehi word meaning a traitor who brought about or participated in a coup).
The report is based largely on the testimony of individuals interviews conducted during a three week Amnesty visit in February and early March this year.
Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz, who was unavailable for comment at the time of press, toldMinivan News in April that he had been disappointed by Amnesty’s failure to ask the police for its comments before releasing a report based on its findings.
“I don’t see that there has been any investigations done, none of our officers was questioned, interviewed – neither by them nor by the Police Integrity Commission (PIC), nor by the Human Rights Commission (HRCM). I don’t think that’s fair,” said Riyaz.
Strong pressure on weak institutions
As well as concluding that President Mohamed Nasheed was not removed from office unconstitutionally, the CNI report acknowledged that his resignation was accompanied by acts of police brutality which it said must be investigated.
“With respect to the administration of justice, in particular concerning allegations of police brutality and acts of intimidation, there is an urgent need for investigations to proceed and to be brought to public knowledge with perpetrators held to account and appropriately sanctioned,” read the report.
Shortly after the report’s release, the Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed told a press conference that the government did not intend to take action against anyone other than the former President in relation to the CNI’s conclusions.
Jameel stated the responsibility for the investigation of police misconduct would fall upon the Police Integrity Commission (PIC).
This has prompted renewed focus on the apparent weakness of such independent institutions in the Maldives.
“One of the reasons for the 7 February and the associated crisis is weak institutions, and the democratic institutions in Maldives must shoulder at least some of the blame for not being pro-active enough in working to address urgent issues,” said Aiman Rasheed of local NGO Transparency Maldives.
“Providing room for institutions to grow organically, and address institutional issues in an environment free from fear and intimidation from the political overlords is more important for Maldives at the moment,” Aiman continued.
“The independent institutions need to step up their game by standing for and protecting the values for which they were constituted,” he said.
Following Jameels announcement, Chair of the PIC Shahinda Ismail said that she was “very sceptical of the burden we will have to carry”, citing concerns over the lack of clarity in the CNI report and loopholes which prevent the implementation of its recommendations.
Shahinda alleged that certain clauses in the Police Act had already resulted in the Home Minister ignoring recommendations forwarded to him concerning incidents from February 8.
Similarly, a Supreme Court ruling concerning the activities of the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) earlier this week appeared to the leave this institution in a state of limbo.
“In other countries, Anti Corruption Commissions have the powers of investigation, prevention and creating awareness. If an institution responsible for fighting corruption does not have these powers then it is useless,” said ACC President Hassan Luthfee.
Weak institutions have often been described by prominent members of the current government as rendering the country unready for early elections despite months of political stultification.
“Tighter legislation that addresses ambiguities and close legal loopholes will help. However, the political will to truly reform key institutions is lacking, especially the judiciary and the parliament,” said Aiman.
The final recommendation of Amnesty’s report was directed at the international community, requesting that it provide human rights training to the Maldives’judges, prosecutors and law enforcement officials.
In April, the United States pledged US$500,000 (Rf7.7 million) to assist Maldivian institutions in ensuring a free and fair presidential election.
The American Embassy in Colombo also conducted an information session on democratic rule of law for senior officers and management of the police service in May.
A police crackdown on a Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) march across Male’ on February 8 that left dozens of demonstrators injured was “brutal” and “without prior warning,” the Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) concluded in an investigative report (Dhivehi) made public yesterday.
Based on its findings, the HRCM recommended that the Maldives Police Service (MPS) and Police Integrity Commission (PIC) should investigate the “disproportionate” use of force in violation of police regulations authorising use of less-lethal weapons. Legal action should be taken against the officers responsible for any such offences, the commission concluded.
“This commission notes that the human rights of a number of people were violated as a result of police using disproportionate force in violation of the constitution, the Police Act and regulations, and international conventions the Maldives is signatory to in dispersing a gathering of MDP supporters at the MMA [Maldives Monetary Authority] area on 8 February 2012 ,” the HRCM report concluded.
“The commission believes that those who carried out these acts must bear responsibility.”
On February 8, thousands of MDP supporters took to the streets after former President Mohamed Nasheed declared that his resignation the previous day was “under duress” in a “coup d’etat” instigated by mutinying Special Operations (SO) police officers.
The HRCM report on the human rights violations that occurred on February 8 was compiled based on interviews with senior MDP leaders who participated in the walk, police commanders, senior military officers, eyewitnesses, victims of police brutality and media personnel as well as photo and video evidence.
An injured protester
While 32 people filed complaints with the commission concerning varying degrees of injuries sustained in the crackdown, 20 people submitted medical documents of their treatment of injuries.
Among the injuries caused by the police baton charge, the HRCM report noted that several people were bruised and battered, one person fractured a bone in his leg, one person was left with a broken arm and six people sustained head wounds.
Two fingers on the left hand of one demonstrator were crushed, the report noted, and the victim had to undergo treatment at the operating theatre.
The former ruling party meanwhile informed HRCM that the march across Male’ was spontaneous and that the party had not planned to stage any protests on the day.
According to the MDP, participants of the walk were sitting down at the MMA area when the police charged without warning and caused serious injuries, noting that most people were attacked from behind.
Senior members of the party told the commission that police were asked to let MDP supporters continue their march along the outer ring road of Boduthakurufaanumagu.
MDP claimed that police refused to transport victims of the alleged brutality to the hospital and that former President Nasheed’s military bodyguards left the area before the baton charge.
“Emotionally charged”
In interviews with senior police officers and commanders in the field on February 8, the HRCM was told that police intelligence had learned that the MDP supporters were planning to “confront” police officers.
Participants of the MDP walk “attempted to cause damage” to the Family and Child Protection Unit building and Galolhu police station, the officers claimed, at which point they determined that the gathering was not peaceful.
Police did not allow the march to continue because participants could have entered the Republic Square or green zone, where gatherings are prohibited under freedom of assembly regulations.
Police further claimed that protesters hit police shields and that armed gangs “under the influence of drugs” were part of the crowd.
While protesters did not cross the police line, the senior officers said that rocks were thrown at the police. About 30 riot police and plain-clothed officers from other departments were in the area at the time, police said.
While police conceded that “a large number of civilians were injured by police officers” on February 8, senior officers interviewed by the HRCM revealed that the riot police were not acting on commands.
The violence occurred “because individual police officers were too emotionally charged at the time,” the senior officers said.
“And when civilians were getting injured by individual police officers, [they said] senior police officers went to the area and attempted to gather all police officers in one place,” the report stated.
The senior police officers further claimed that police were “very psychologically weakened” due to the events of February 7.
Following the crackdown, police admitted that “use of force” forms were not filled out and an “after action review report” was not drafted as was required under normal procedure.
Meanwhile, the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) informed HRCM that about 15 soldiers were active in the area during the crackdown, but claimed that military personnel did not witness police brutality.
When the protesters reached the MMA junction, they began striking the MNDF riot shields and throwing water bottles. They were then pushed back about 20 feet, where they sat down, the MNDF explained.
Contrary to the HRCM’s findings, the MNDF claimed that police advised the protesters to disperse and issued warnings before advancing with riot shields.
Military personnel used coloured smoke “to minimize damage and for ease of controlling those gathered,” the MNDF informed the commission.
Concluding observations
Opposition-aligned private broadcaster Raajje TV meanwhile provided video footage to HRCM showing the arrest of MDP MPs ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik, Mariya Ahmed Didi, Imthiyaz Fahmy and Ibrahim Rasheed.
MDP Chairperson 'Reeko' Moosa Manik
An HRCM team that visited Dhoonidhoo detention centre observed “bruises all over the body” of one of the MPs, while her eyes were bloodied and swollen.
The commission noted in its concluding observations that police officers “acted very harshly” towards the politicians “in ways that could cause physical and psychological harm” even though they showed “no resistance.”
While the Raajje TV cameraman was shooting the arrest of MDP Chairperson Reeko Moosa Manik, HRCM was told that two plain-clothed officers “pushed and shoved” Raajje TV reporters to the Republic Square and severed the camera cable, ending the station’s live feed.
However, in its concluding observation, the commission reprimanded the private broadcaster for their coverage of the events, which “incited fear and hatred among citizens, instilled a spirit of vengeance and caused serious damage to private and public property.”
Conversely, the commission noted that reporters from private broadcasters DhiTV and Villa TV – alleged by the MDP to have incited hatred against the administration of former President Nasheed and promoted the “coup d’etat” – were “threatened and intimidated” by MDP supporters and were consequently prevented from covering the march.
The HRCM also noted that students at Immadhudeen School during the afternoon session were adversely affected by the MDP supporters gathering outside the party’s Haruge camp on the afternoon of February 8. The party’s gathering area was ransacked by rogue riot police and army officers prior to President Nasheed’s resignation.
The commission contended that MDP supporters were loud and used obscene language outside Haruge, which was reclaimed by supporters led by President Nasheed to the area after the MDP national council meeting earlier in the day.
Citing article 72(b)(1) of the Police Act, which prohibits “commission of an act that could obstruct the execution of any of the police powers and discretions, or plotting to commit such an act, or participate in the commission of such an act, or call for or encourage or assist others to commit such an act,” the HRCM claimed that MDP supporters who participated in the walk “obstructed the performance of police duties.”
Moreover, the commission noted that patients and staff at hospitals ADK and IGMH faced “serious difficulties and inconveniences” due to MDP supporters gathering outside both hospitals following the police crackdown.
However, the BBC reported “a baton charge by police on crowds gathered outside one of the main hospitals.”
“People scattered as officers sprinted towards them silhouetted against the lights of passing traffic,” the BBC’s Andrew North reported from Male’. “Inside the hospital, dozens of Mr Nasheed’s supporters are still being treated for injuries, following earlier scuffles in the main square. Among them is Reeko Moosa Maniku, chairman of Mr Nasheed’s Maldives Democratic Party – who was with the former president when the clashes broke out. With a large head bandage and his shirt bloodied, he regained consciousness as we arrived. The police said they would kill me, he told us, as they beat me. Another MP was still unconscious in another ward.”
The crackdown
While riot police baton charged the front of the protest march on February 8, Minivan News observed riot police officers charging the crowd from a narrow alley leading to the MMA area.
The Special Operations officers used obscene language, pointed to and chased after individual MDP activists and severely beat unarmed civilians.
Parts of the attack from the rear were filmed by Al Jazeera, which reported on February 8 that “police and military charged, beating demonstrators as they ran – women, the elderly, dozens left nursing their wounds.”
Amid the clashes, a group of opposition demonstrators infiltrated the crowds, attacking MDP supporters, according to witnesses.
Former President Nasheed was reported among the injured, and received head injuries during the clashes. He was briefly taken under police custody before being released back into the crowd.
Minivan News also observed several youth with head injuries queuing up for x-rays in the waiting area outside the reception area at IGMH.
One young woman who had gone to IGMH with her sister was being treated for a head wound. A gauze wrapped around her head was spotted with blood, and she claimed the wound was still bleeding as she went in for an X-ray.
“The police were just standing there and suddenly we were being beaten with batons and pepper spray was thrown in our face. They threw us to the ground and kept beating us,” she said.
Explaining that she, her sister and most women had joined the party’s “walk around Male” because they understood it was not a violent protest, the young woman said she had never seen indiscriminate beating of men and women on Male’ under Mohamed Nasheed.
“It was just supposed to be a peaceful walk. That’s why we went, and why more women than usual went. But there was no warning of the attack, no announcements, we were all beaten even after we began retreating. My sister was almost trampled,” she said. “I just think it’s disgusting that the police could beat so many unarmed women.”
The government will not make “special” preparations to address the findings of the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) once they are published next week, claiming it does not expect any “abnormal” outcome from the report that would see its legitimacy questioned.
President’s Office Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza today told Minivan News that while it did not wish to speculate on the CNI’s outcome before receiving its findings on August 29, the government expected similar conclusions regarding the transfer of power to those of the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM).
The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has dismissed the government’s claims, adding that the CNI was an independent body, overseen by international partners, and would therefore focus on the “big picture” concerning the power transfer, rather than any individual report.
The HRCM yesterday publicly released several reports around alleged human rights abuses committed in the lead up to February 7, as well as reported violations that occurred once the government of President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan came into power on February 8.
Among some of the key findings of the reports were that former President Nasheed gave “unlawful orders” to the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) and police officers at the Artificial Beach area on the evening of February 6. The HRCM also concluded that the Maldives Police Service needed to investigate alleged brutality conducted by its own officers after the transfer of power.
The HRCM’s findings are expected to be taken into consideration by the panel currently overseeing the CNI, which includes members appointed by President Waheed and a representative for former President Mohamed Nasheed. Under its reformed composition, the CNI is also co-chaired by retired Singaporean judge Govinda Pannir Selvam. Representatives from the United Nations and the Commonwealth will also advise the CNI’s work.
The CNI was initially established by President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan to investigate the details of February’s controversial transfer of power, before having its board reconstituted following international and domestic pressure.
Potential outcomes
With the government expected to receive the CNI’s report on August 29 – a day before it will be released to the public – Abbas Adil Riza said that the President’s Office saw “no need” to devise plans to address the potential outcomes of the CNI.
“The HRCM report has proven what we have always maintained about how this government came to power. We expect similar findings [from the CNI] that the previous chief executive displayed gross negligence and a violation of laws. We don’t expect a different stand,” he claimed. “However, on the basis of the CNI report, we will take necessary actions against any criminal behaviour found to have been committed at the time, should issues be raised.”
Abbas added that elections were therefore still scheduled for July 2013. Both the MDP and the Commonwealth Ministerial Acton Group (CMAG) have called for early elections to be held during 2012 to resolve the increasingly bittier political divide in the country.
With President Waheed expected to travel to Sri Lanka tomorrow for a postponed state visit, Abbas claimed that no discussions regarding the CNI and its outcomes were planned with Sri Lankan President Rajapaksa.
He added that the visit would therefore be focused on high-level talks concerning wider bilateral relations and commercial opportunities between the two nations.
“Out of context”
Responding to the release yesterday of the HRCM’s findings, MDP Spokesperson and MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor said the party’s “experts” were studying the individual reports at present before making comment.
However, on a first glance basis, he accused the HRCM of publishing a “convoluted array of statements” that were additionally “out of context” with wider happenings during the transfer of power.
“The report accuses [former] President Nasheed of issuing unconstitutional orders, the whole thing is out of context and frozen over a 48 hour period,” he said. “At this stage, I would say there are many oversights in these findings.”
Ghafoor added that Abbas’ claims that the CNI would draw a similar conclusion to the HRCM’s findings reflected the position taken by Umar Naseer, Interim Deputy Leader of the government-aligned Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM).
On Sunday (August 19), Naseer leaked details of the HRCM’s findings before they had been released publicly, focusing on claims that Nasheed had given “unlawful orders” to the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) and police officers at the Artificial Beach area on the evening of February 6.
He added that the HRCM report concluded that the MNDF and police officers at the Artificial Beach area were “unlawfully” ordered to leave the area, which led to a breakdown in command and control of the security forces.
The HRCM report was also said by Naseer to conclude that Nasheed’s orders to leave the area violated article 245 of the constitution, by obstructing security forces from fulfilling their lawful duties.
However, Ghafoor added that he was “not concerned” that the HRCM’s findings would lead the CNI to dismiss the MDP’s allegation that it was removed from office in a “coup d’etat”.
He claimed that due to international participation, the CNI, as an independent body, was well placed to view the HRCM report in the wider context of Maldivian politics. Ghafoor claimed that the CNI would be aware of alleged concerns over the conduct of the country’s independent institutions to do their work without political influence.
Ghafoor alleged that during the last three years, the majority of former opposition, now government-aligned, MPs had allowed the country’s independent institutions to be “shielded” from scrutiny concerning the outcomes of their work.
“The HRCM has always been a source of problems concerning independence” he claimed. “You just need to look at its failure to investigate the atrocities committed under the former government [of President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom].”
The Maldivian government has expressed “disappointment” over a “misleading” statement by the Canadian Foreign Ministry, which accused it of threatening to arrest its political opponents with a view to eliminating former President Mohamed Nasheed’s candidacy in an upcoming election.
Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird, a member of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG), issued a statement on July 27, in which he stated “It is clear that the arrests of senior officials of the Nasheed government are politically motivated. Such actions are completely unacceptable and must be reversed.”
“The threats of the present government to arrest its opponents, including former President Nasheed – the only democratically elected president in the last four decades – so as to prevent his candidacy, undermine that government’s credibility and violate its undertakings to the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group,” Baird said.
“The Maldives has been given the benefit of the doubt by the Commonwealth so far. Continued intimidation, illegal arrests and other authoritarian tactics by the present government may require the Commonwealth to consider a different approach, in our view.”
Canada’s statement preceded a rally by former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s government-aligned Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM), at which senior party figures blasted the government for not being able to “put down” Nasheed “and his 200 hounds”, and called for the ousted President to be “put in solitary confinement”.
On July 24, former Justice Minister under Gayoom and current Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel, described Nasheed, his party and the Raajje TV station as “enemies of the state.”
“We will take action against whoever incites violence against the police, no matter who it is or what kind of position they hold or have held in the past,” Jameel vowed.
Following Nasheed’s resignation under controversial circumstances on February 7, the Criminal Court issued a warrant for Nasheed’s arrest.
Nasheed’s government had detained Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed, accusing him of “taking the entire judicial system in his fist” in order to protect the remnants of Gayoom’s administration from prosecution for corruption and human rights abuses.
The warrant was never acted on by the police, amid tense confrontations outside Nasheed’s residence.
However police this week ordered Nasheed to attend police headquarters on August 2, to answer allegations in a tapped phone conversation that he had request supporters “fight back” against police.
“The Waheed administration is currently demonstrating a clear pattern of abuse of power and tactics aimed at removing President Nasheed from the upcoming Presidential race,” claimed MDP Spokesperson, MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor, who was himself recently arrested.
“The letter to summon President Nasheed is baseless and fails to state any specific charges. The letter refers indirectly to attacks on police, vandalising of police property and claims that their observations have led them to believe President Nasheed is responsible for such events.
“This summons is an attempt by the Government to thwart the progress of the Commission of National Inquiry and former President Nasheed’s participation in upcoming elections. Furthermore, members of the security forces have openly issued death threats to President Nasheed.
“In the absence of any specific criminal charges, “we are of the opinion that the only safe course of action will be for President Nasheed to provide a written statement without physically entering the police station,” Ghafoor said.
However in its response to the Canadian government, the Maldives’ Foreign Ministry said it “would like to make it very clear to the members of the international community that the government has not arrested, nor has it made any threat of arresting, its political opponents.” the Maldives Foreign Ministry responded.
Instead, the Ministry stated, “it is the prerogative of the Prosecutor General to decide on whom and when to charge an individual of criminal offence.”
“As part of a reform programme launched in 2004, the Maldives adopted a new Constitution with clear separation of powers between the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government.
“The Constitution also established several new State-bodies, such as the Prosecutor General, and the Human Rights Commission of Maldives. These institutions are fully independent from the Executive branch of the government, and indeed assert their independence.
“Now that these institutions are independent, everyone, including our valuable friends in the international community, should be prepared to accept the decisions of these institutions,” the Ministry said.
MPs of several government-aligned parties have expressed concern over a UN Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) report calling for freedom of religion, sexual orientation and several other commitments in the Maldives, claiming the document is “biased” and “against the will of the people”.
Jumhoree Party (JP) MP Abdulla Jabir told Minivan News today that he had “reservations” about the UN’s conclusions, claiming they appeared to single out former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s government for alleged human rights abuses, while also contravening the constitution and laws of the Maldives.
Progressive Party of Maldives MP Ahmed Mahlouf also hit out at the report’s conclusions, which he claimed were both “political” and “biased” as a result of the influence of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), according to local media.
UNHRC calls
The UNHRC findings urged Maldivian authorities to guarantee citizens’ right to democracy, permit freedom of religion, reform the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), abolish flogging and the death penalty, and deal with human trafficking, among other recommendations.
A core concern of the committee involved the Maldives’ reservation to Article 18, concerning freedom of religion, the validity of which was questioned by the committee on the basis that it was “not specific, and does not make clear what obligations of human rights compliance the State party has or has not undertaken.”
However, Jabir today contended that the stipulation within the Maldives constitution that the nation was 100 percent Islamic reflected the views of the Maldivian people, with not a single political party in the country having called for religious freedom.
“It is the Maldivian people who have decided that if you are not a Muslim, you are not a Maldivian. There is not one party here calling for this to change,” he said. “Maybe this is not what is practiced in many other countries around the world, but it is what he have decided here by law. It is our sovereign right.”
Aside from calls for freedom of religion, Jabir also said he was concerned about the issue of establishing an independent inquiry into “all human rights violations, including torture” that were allegedly conducted prior to the 2008 election.
He claimed this appeared to single out the 30 year autocratic rule of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, who was voted from office during the 2008 presidential elections.
“We have had other presidents in this country before Mr Gayoom and I do not understand why they are not also being focused on. Why only Gayoom’s time? This shows there is bias in this report,” he said. “Before President Gayoom, we had President [Ibrahim] Nasir. It should look at all abuses from the country’s first president onwards.”
Constitutional matter
Jabir added that he had personally been one of the 12 member body who had drawn up the present constitution, that had in turn been approved by the Maldivian people. He claimed that despite the UN calling for freedom of religion and sexual orientation – as well as other commitments designed to address concerns about human trafficking and judicial reform – the organisation was unable to overrule the laws and regulations of a sovereign nation.
“When the UN asks for freedom of religion, this is what former President Nasheed has been trying to promote in the country,” he claimed.
Jabir’s concerns about alleged political bias serving to influence the UNHRC’s conclusion were also raised by the PPM, a party formed last year by former President Gayoom.
PPM MP Mahlouf reportedly told the Sun Online news service yesterday that items raised in the UN report seen to contradict Islam would not be implemented in the Maldives.
He claimed that the findings had been influenced by the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and “foreign associates” linked to the party.
“MDP encourages the destruction of our sovereignty and our religious values,” Mahlouf was quoted as telling Sun Online.
Mahlouf reportedly pledged that the PPM would work to stand against allowing any changes relating to the national religion under Maldivian law as a report on how the Maldives will implement the Committee’s recommendations is due to be delivered to the UN during the next twelve months.
Ahmed Thasmeen Ali, leader of the government-aligned Dhivehi Rayythithunge Party (DRP) was not responding to calls today about the report. Both DRP Deputy Leader Ibrahim Shareef and MP Dr Abdullah Mausoom could also not be reached at the time of press.
Former President Mohamed Nasheed, who has alleged that he was forced to resign from office on February 7 this year in a “coup detat”, had denied advocating for freedom of religion during his time in office. The former president has faced strong criticism from political opponents over his commitments to protecting the nation’s Islamic faith.
However, during a gathering of former opposition political figures, NGOs and other civil society organisations on December 23 last year to “defend Islam”, Nasheed held a counter-rally for those he claimed practised a “tolerant form” of the faith that he contended been traditionally followed in the Maldives.
“We can’t achieve development by going backwards to the Stone Age or being ignorant,” he said back in December, 2011.
The President also called on leaders of political parties to explain their stance on religious issues to the public ahead of a scheduled 2013 presidential election.
“Should we ban music? Should we circumcise girls? Should we allow 9 year-olds to be married; is art and drawing forbidden? Should we be allowed to have concubines? We have to ask is this nation building? Because we won’t allow these things, we are being accused of moving away from religion,” he said at the time.
Nasheed also urged MPs at the time to discuss the inclusion of Sharia punishments in a revised penal code “without calling each other unbelievers.”
The December 23 coalition also raised concerns over calls by United Nations Human Rights Chief Navi Pillay during a visit to the Maldives last year that flogging be abolished as a punishment for extra-marital sex in the country.
Pillay’s comments further fuelled tensions across the nation late last year over concerns about the erection of monuments in Addu Atoll to commemorate the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) summit that were deemed as “idolatrous” by some.
Police-public clashes have once again occupied centre stage in the Maldives. Over 100 people are believed to have been arrested in the ‘direct action’ protests organised by the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) since 8 July. Several reports of police brutality and excesses have once again come to the fore.
The police authorities allege that the ongoing protests are not peaceful gatherings as many demonstrators attacked policemen and carried out other criminal offences too. MDP meanwhile maintains that the protests themselves are “largely peaceful” and that the police are carrying out discriminatory attacks against its MPs, journalists and harassing and intimidating the protestors.
Whether the police exercised their discretion to use force appropriately and in due consideration with the constitutionally-guaranteed right to assemble needs to be seen against the existing laws and procedures regarding peaceful assembly in the country.
The freedom to assemble peacefully has been guaranteed as a fundamental right under Article 32 of the 2008 national constitution. Notably, the right has been guaranteed to all and does not require prior permission of the stat
e. However, this is in contradiction to the domestic “regulations on assembly” which were drafted in April 2006, and later ratified under the General Regulations Act 2008. The regulations required three organisers of public assemblies to submit a written form 14 days prior to the gathering to the Maldives police. Only in April 2012 did the High Court struck down this requirement (among others) as being unconstitutional. The Court also struck down the police authority to deny permission, upholding thereby the principle that the police role is simply to facilitate peaceful assembly.
Despite the frequency of public protests particularly since the democratic transition of the country in October 2008, it is surprising that the government has so far not amended the regulations in tune with the constitutional safeguards. The continuing discrepancy between the two suggests that police powers during public protests remain ambiguous, and that the constitutional safeguards against restriction of the right (Article 32) as well as protection of right to life (Article 21) and prohibition of torture (Article 54) are unlikely to be reflected in their behaviour.
Against this, the police are free to use their discretion on the amount of force necessary in such situations. Their discretion has been found to be excessive in the past.
For instance, the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives’s (HRCM) investigation into the police action in controlling the MDP protests on 8 February 2012 was found to be excessive and unnecessary. The HRCM noted that the level of threat posed by the protestors was disproportionate to the force used under Article 14 of the Police Act according to which police may use amount of force necessary to ensure compliance of its lawful orders. It was also noted that the police did not follow properly the protocol as laid down in Regulation on Use of Force and Firearms. Against the requirement, protestors were not given sufficient warning before force and weapons were used to disperse the crowd.
All this suggests an urgent need for domestic legislation on peaceful assemblies, one that can strike a balance between protecting individual rights and ensuring public safety. Such a legislation must provide a clear definition of the term peaceful assembly, the kinds of public gatherings that are covered under peaceful assembly, procedure for conducting/organising a peaceful assembly, rights and duties of organizers of such public events, rights and duties of participants of a public assembly, duties of the police including bases on which the police might disrupt or terminate a public assembly and liability in case of any violations of the law.
Such a legislation should be governed by three key principles, as enunciated in the OSCE Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and endorsed by the Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association, Maina Kiai in his report (21 May 2012), considered as best practice vis-à-vis regulation of public assembly – presumption in favour of holding assemblies, state’s duty to protect peaceful assemblies, and proportionality.
Together, these impose a positive duty on the state to put in place adequate mechanisms and procedures to ensure that this freedom is enjoyed in practice. This means that any restrictions placed in the interest of public safety must not impair the essence of the right. In this regard, best practice is considered to be one that discourages seeking prior authorisation for holding a gathering, and one that avoids blanket time and location prohibitions, for instance.
This also entails a duty on the state to train law enforcement officials appropriately in policing public assembly with an emphasis on protection of human rights. The Special Rapporteur notes that the pretext of public security cannot be invoked to violate the right to life, and that any resort to physical means must be rational and proportional. Crucially, it is the responsibility of the national authorities to support any claim of proportionality by relevant facts and not merely suspicion or presumptions.
Lastly, an important best practice emerging in the field of public assembly is allowing human rights defenders to monitor public assemblies. For instance, the London Metropolitan Police invited Liberty, an independent human rights organisation, to act as independent observers while policing a Trades Union Congress march in London in 2010. Such monitoring may itself deter human rights violations, and crucially, make it easier to establish facts amidst allegations and counter-allegations, as is currently underway in the Maldives. This further places an obligation on the state to undertake capacity building activities for the benefit of NGOs and human rights defenders to monitor assemblies.
The right to freedom of assembly is an essential component of democracy that facilitates political mobilization and participation. States have an obligation towards creating an environment conducive for the exercise and enjoyment of this right. A domestic legislation incorporating clear definitions and best standards is the first step towards fulfilling that obligation, and an urgent need in the Maldives frequently disrupted by public protests.
Devyani Srivastava is a Consultant for the Police Reforms Programme (South Asia) of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]
The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has expressed concern over violent protests and use of “excessive force” against demonstrators.
At a press briefing on Tuesday, Spokesperson for High Commissioner Navi Pillay, Rupert Colville, observed that “instances of apparent brutality have been captured on camera. These include the seemingly deliberate and uncalled-for use of some kind of spray on former President [Mohamed] Nasheed, and the driving of police vehicles at high speed into crowds of protesters.”
“Such actions deserve immediate investigation, and firm action should be taken by the authorities against those responsible for excessive use of force,” stated Colville. “We appeal to all parties to refrain from violence and create conditions for political dialogue and reconciliation.”
Police initially denied pepper-spraying former President Nasheed during a rally on July 14.
“Maldives Police did not use any excessive force nor was pepper spray directed to anyone’s face,” police said in a statement.
However a video released of the incident showed a riot police officer reaching over a crowd of people surrounding Nasheed and spraying him in the face. Nasheed turns away as the spray hits him, and is taken away by his supporters, but later returned to the protest.
President’s Office Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza said the government had no comment on the matter as it was under investigation, “and in due course the Human Rights Minister [Dhiyana Saeed] will address the concerns.”
The UN Office for Human Rights also noted the criminal charges that had been brought against Nasheed concerning his detention of Chief Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed during his final days in office.
“We… stress that any such matters must be handled with full respect to the due process rights and fair trial safeguards guaranteed by the Maldives’ Constitution and international human rights treaty obligations,” Colville stated.
In a statement, the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) criticised the charges as “politically-motivated, and designed to remove the current regime’s political opponents from the public sphere.”
“International bodies including the UN Human Rights Committee and the International Committee of Jurists have also voiced serious doubts as to the independence and impartiality of the judiciary; showing that it will be impossible to conduct a fair trial,” the party said.
During the Maldives’ defence of its human rights record before the UN Human Rights Committee earlier this week, a panel member noted the “troubling role of the judiciary at the center” of the controversial transfer of power on February 7.
“The judiciary – which is admittedly in serious need of training and qualifications – is yet seemingly playing a role leading to the falling of governments,” he observed.
In a preliminary statement following the Maldives’ appearance, the Committee said it was “deeply concerned” about the state of the judiciary.
The State has admitted that this body’s independence is seriously compromised. The Committee has said the judiciary is desperately in need of more serious training, and higher standards of qualification. As 6 of 7 Supreme Court judges are experts in Sharia law and nothing more, this court in particular is in need of radical readjustment. This must be done to guarantee just trials, and fair judgments for the people of Maldives,” the Committee stated.
The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has highlighted concerns raised by the UN Committee on Human Rights (UNHRC) that civil society organisations in the Maldives have allegedly received threats after submitting evidence to the inter-governmental body.
According to the MDP, the warning came during the closing stages of the Committee’s consideration of the Maldives’ report on its implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel and State Minister for Foreign Affairs have spent the last few days defending the country’s human rights record before the committee, which received a series of reports critical of that record from numerous local and international organisations.
An emergency point of order was raised by the Vice Chair of the Committee during the closely stages of the committee hearing.
The committee had, the Vice Chair said, “received extremely worrying reports that civil society groups in the Maldives which gave information for this meeting have been the subject of threats as a result. This includes the worst kind of threat – the threat to life,” the MDP cited in a statement.
Reprisals against such organisations and individuals for cooperating with international human rights bodies was a serious concern, the panel noted, and urged the government to ensure civil society was protected.
The MDP noted that with the statement, the Maldives had joined other States to have received such warnings including Bahrain and Sri Lanka.
President’s Office Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza told Minivan News that the government had “received complaints” from former Maldives High Commissioner to the UK, Dr Farhanaz Faizal, “that she has been receiving death threats, and we have brought this to the attention of the High Commission in London and the police.”
Minivan News was awaiting clarification from Dr Faizal at time of press.
Helios submission
Separately, Minivan News obtained an email sent by President’s Office Media Secretary Masood Imad to the Helios Life Association, a Swiss-based NGO which submitted a report to the UNHRC claiming that “the growing political and institutional influence of radical Islamic groups has undermined the Maldives’ progress towards realisation of rights guaranteed under the ICCPR.”
The Helios report noted that “this growing radicalisation resulted in the creation of a coalition of political parties in December, called the 23rd December Coalition for the Defence of Islam.
“As well as extremist religious elements, the 23rd December Coalition comprised of a range of political groups and individuals linked to the country’s former autocratic leader, Mr Maumoon Abdul Gayoom. The Coalition had been formed in direct opposition to the observance of international human rights law, particularly to the undertaking given at the UPR process that a national debate will be held on ending forms of punishment not consistent with Article 7.”
The report drew the Committee’s attention to the visit of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, to the Maldives and the vitriolic reaction to calls she made for a moratorium of the flogging of women for extramarital sex.
“The [December 23] Coalition proceeded to carry out a coup d’etat on February 7, which was executed by elements of the army and police loyal to Mr Gayoom, his close allies and former members of his government, and other parts of the 23rd December Coalition, following a call by the then Vice‐President, Dr Mohamed Waheed, to ‘defend Islam and the Constitution’”, the Helios report alleged.
“The coup saw elements of the police and army threaten the Maldives’ first democratically‐elected President, Mr Mohamed Nasheed, his family and colleagues from the ruling Maldives Democratic Party (MDP), with physical harm or worse unless he resign by a certain time.”
In the email sent to the Helios Association, Imad asks the organisation’s President, Dr Anna Barchetti Durisch, for the “names and positions” of the report’s authors, and whether a delegation from the organisation had visited the Maldives to assist in the drafting.
Speaking to Minivan News, Imad said that the picture on the front of the report – consisting of several police officers holding a baton to an old man with a bloody head injury – was a “fake picture” that had been photoshopped.
As for the report’s content, “much of it is biased. It sounded like a joke to me,” he said.
Pictured: The Helios report cover image the government alleges is fake.
(0)Dislikes
(0)
