Tag: husnu suood

Hulhumeedhoo law faculty inaugurated with 39 students

A law faculty jointly established by Villa College and the Maldives Law Institute in the Hulhumeedhoo ward of Addu City was officially inaugurated today.

According to local media reports, the faculty was officially opened at a ceremony this morning by Villa College’s Office of the Rector’s Director Dr Ahmed Ali Manik.

Attending the ceremony, former Attorney General Husnu Suood reportedly said that courses would begin today with 39 students from Addu City, Fuvahmulah and Faafu atoll.

The faculty presently offers a foundation course in law and a certificate three in criminal investigation course.

A certificate course on land law tailored for serving magistrates would commence in September, Suood said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Income tax a necessary step to combat corruption

Husnu Suood is a former Attorney General and prominent lawyer in the Maldives. This op-ed first appeared in newspaper Haveeru on August 29, 2011. Translated and republished with the author’s permission.

Corruption has spread and taken root in the Maldives to extreme levels. Corruption allegations can be levelled everywhere. This evil disease has become common in state institutions, government offices, public companies as well as private companies and businesses. As a result of corruption allegations against persons filling high posts of state institutions, public confidence in these institutions are lost and instead of places with public respect it becomes the target of public ridicule.

The loss of public funds and opportunities for the public due to corruption is increasing daily. If Rf1,000,000 of public money is spent to purchase a generator instead of the Rf700,000 that should actually have been spent, the public ends up losing Rf300,000. If this Rf300,000 is not pocketed by employees, it could have been spent on other projects for the public. In this vein, we can only imagine the amount of money that is lost on a national level.

If an employee of a private business sells goods at a higher price and deposits the difference into his personal bank account, the business is going to go bankrupt instead of developing and prospering. While the shopkeeper who is employed with a salary Rf4,000-a-month builds two dhonis of his own, the owner of the shop goes bankrupt. If businesses do not lose money in this manner, national productivity is going to rise.

If a state employee spends in excess of his means, buys expensive items, changes his lifestyle and visits Europe for two-week holidays, he must have sources of income or the resources to prosper.

When the personal income tax comes into force, individuals would be legally compelled to file tax returns or financial statements once a year. The statement would clearly show sources of income as well as the level of income. If a person buys expensive items disproportionate to his income or spends in excess of what the financial statement shows is his actual income, the way will be open to determine whether or not he earned that money legitimately.

For example, if tax returns show that a person’s income for the past five years was Rf30,000 and he suddenly buys an expensive brand new BMW car, that would reveal that he has received illegitimate monetary gain. It would mean that he either falsified his true income to evade taxes or that he somehow received a large amount of money through illegal means.

Therefore, if an investigation is launched into such a case, the individual would have to bear responsibility for proving how he suddenly came about the assets or money. If he got the money through selling an ambergris he found, he would have to prove it. If the person got the money through legitimate means, he would not have to worry. If for instance he brought a plot of land legitimately, it would not too difficult to prove.

Drug trafficking and money laundering are two very serious issues currently facing the Maldives. A solution to these problems must be found without further delay. Finding solid evidence for conviction is a major problem faced by investigative authorities. We see a person who is unemployed buy expensive cars, land and property. Although people whisper in secret to each other of their wealth and prosperity, due to the lack of a legal framework to compel them to reveal their sources of income, they are able to stay hidden and benefit from illegal activities. When individuals are forced to file tax returns and details of their income and expenditure, the doors that are now open to commit crimes with impunity, beyond the reach of the law, will be closed.

Taking these matters into consideration, it is not just state revenue that will increase when the personal income tax legislation is passed into law. In addition, it will provide new facilities or means within the tax system to combat the plagues of corruption and drug trafficking. The taxation system will help to establish a strong, sound and fair state.

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]

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court overrules Civil Court injunction ordering JSC to halt appointment process

The High Court has overruled a Civil Court injunction issued on September 8 ordering the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to halt its appointment of judges to superior courts pending a ruling on the constitutionality of the process.

The temporary injunction was appealed by the JSC at the High Court, which ruled today that the Civil Court did not have jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of laws and regulations.

A group of lawyers had filed a case at the Civil Court contesting that regulations drafted by the JSC – containing evaluation criteria for selecting judges to superior courts – conflicted with both the constitution and the Judges Act. The lawyers requested the court abolish the regulations and declare the commission’s shortlist void.

The final interviews of 17 shortlisted candidates were due to place on September 10, two days before the injunction or staying order was delivered.

In its verdict today, the  three-judge panel unanimously ruled that the Civil Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, citing article 143 of the constitution as well as provisions of the Judicature Act.

Briefing press after filing the case at Civil Court, lawyers Ali Hussein and Ismail Visham argued that the evaluation criteria formulated by the JSC unfairly favoured graduates of the College of Islamic Education (Kulliya).

Ali Hussein explained that under the regulations drafted by the JSC, a candidate with a masters degree and a graduate of Kulliya both receive 25 marks for educational qualification.

“We are saying this is not fair,” he said. “We especially note that the Faculty of Sharia and Law teaches shariah subjects to the same extent as Kulliya [Islamic College], but graduates of the faculty receive 20 marks while students from Kulliya receive 25 marks.”

Kulliya graduates also received higher marks than graduates of the Islamic University of Malaysia, he said.

The lawyers also claimed that two shortlisted candidates had close ties – as a spouse and a business partner – with two members of the commission, suggesting a clear conflict of interest as neither had recused themselves from voting in the JSC panel.

Moreover, the lawyers observed that the JSC criteria also conflicted with the academic rankings of the Maldives Qualification Authority (MQA), formerly the accreditation board, which places Kulliya certificates below those of overseas institutions.

Following today’s ruling, the lawyers are preparing to file their case at the High Court.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC appeals Civil Court injunction to halt appointment process

The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has appealed a Civil Court injunction issued on September 8 to halt the appointment of judges to superior courts pending a ruling on the legitimacy of the process.

A group of lawyers had filed a case contesting the legality of the JSC’s evaluation criteria – contained in a regulation drafted by the commission – on the grounds that it conflicted with both the constitution and the Judges Act. The lawyers requested the Civil Court to abolish the regulations and declare the commission’s shortlist void.

The final interviews of 17 shortlisted candidates were due to place on September 10, two days before the injunction or staying order was delivered.

The lawyers also claimed that two shortlisted candidates had close ties – as a spouse and a business partner – with two members of the commission, suggesting a clear conflict of interest as neither had recused themselves from voting in the JSC panel.

At today’s first hearing of the appeal at the High Court, JSC Lawyer Mohamed Waheed Ibrahim argued that according to article 143(a) of the constitution the Civil Court did not have jurisdiction to rule on the constitutional validity of “any statute or part thereof enacted by the People’s Majlis.”

In addition, Waheed contended the Civil Court order violated articles 144(a) and 145(c) of the constitution as well as articles, 20(a) and (b), 36 and 37 of the Judicature Act.

Waheed further argued that the Supreme Court had set a judicial precedent by transferring a Civil Court case regarding the appointment of five judges to the High Court bench.

In January this year, Criminal Court Judge Abdul Bari Yoosuf at the Civil Court claiming to show procedural and legal issues in the JSC vetting process. Bari’s case was later entered into by Family Court Chief Judge Hassan Saeed as a third party.

On January 20 – three days before the judges were due to be sworn in – the Civil Court issued a temporary staying order halting the appointments pending a final ruling.

The Supreme Court however transferred the case from the lower court a day later and conducted two hearings before dismissing it without issuing a verdict.

Waheed also claimed that the JSC was not offered enough time to prepare a defence as the Civil Court issued its injunction or temporary staying order on the night the case was filed.

The JSC requested the High Court to overrule the Civil Court order and declare that the trial court did not have the jurisdiction to rule on constitutional matters.

In response, Husnu Suood, former Attorney General representing the group of lawyers, contended that the case filed at Civil Court was not exclusively about the constitutional validity of the JSC regulations.

Suood explained that the issue was “problems in ranking certificates” in the JSC evaluation criteria, which the lawyers argued unfairly favoured graduates of the Islamic College of Maldives (Kulliya). The case also alleged conflict of interest on the part of two members, Suood added.

Moreover, Suood continued, a November 2008 Supreme Court ruling established a precedent that it did not have “exclusive jurisdiction on constitutional matters”, referring to a case filed by eight MPs appointed by former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom contesting their dismissal by President Mohamed Nasheed.

The Supreme Court had ruled that the case should have been filed at a lower court.

On the issue of the High Court appointments, Suood noted that there was no judicial precedent set as the Supreme Court had not issued a verdict before dismissing the case on a technicality.

Disputing the JSC’s claim that the Civil Court had informed the commission of its hearing after office hours, Suood noted that the JSC had issued press statements between 4:00pm and 8:00pm on September 8.

In addition, the lawyers now claim that based on statements by the JSC at the Civil Court hearing, the regulations were not valid as they were not published in the government gazette.

The High Court panel consisting of three judges adjourned today’s hearing after informing the lawyers that a second hearing would be held if there were further matters to clarify.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Lawyers contest legality of JSC appointment process

A group of lawyers filed a case at the Civil Court today contesting the legality of the Judicial Service Commission’s (JSC) evaluation criteria for selection of judges to superior courts, requesting a court order to halt the appointment process.

On August 29, the JSC announced that 17 shortlisted candidates have been invited for interviews on Saturday (September 10).

The group of lawyers, represented by Ali Hussein and Ismail Visham, contend that regulations drafted by the JSC containing the evaluation criteria conflicted with both the constitution and article 15 of the Judges Act. The lawyers requested that the regulations be abolished and the shortlist be cancelled.

In addition, the lawyers claimed that two shortlisted candidates had close ties – as a spouse and a business partner – with two members of the commission, suggesting a clear conflict of interest as neither had recused themselves from voting in the JSC panel.

Briefing press today, Ali Hussein argued that the evaluation criteria formulated by the JSC unfairly favoured graduates of the College of Islamic Education (Kulliya).

While article 15 of the Judges Act stipulate that candidates for superior courts must possess a first degree in “either Shariah or law,” Ali Hussein explained that under the regulations drafted by the JSC, a candidate with a masters degree and a graduate of Kulliya both receive 25 marks for educational qualification.

“We are saying this is not fair,” he said. “We especially note that the Faculty of Sharia and Law teaches shariah subjects to the same extent as Kulliya [Islamic College], but graduates of the faculty receive 20 marks while students from Kulliya receive 25 marks.”

Kulliya graduates also received higher marks than graduates of the Islamic University of Malaysia, he said.

As 25 marks are to be awarded for the interview, Hussein noted, candidates who were not shortlisted would not receive any marks: “They should also have the chance to receive those 25 marks,” he said.

Moreover, he continued, the JSC criteria also conflicted with the academic rankings of the Maldives Qualification Authority (MQA), formerly the accreditation board, which places Kulliya certificates below those of overseas institutions.

The lawyers noted that shortcomings of the judiciary and lack of public confidence were tied to the lack of qualified judges on the bench.

“One of the main points of concern is that the JSC is the independent statutory body with a legal mandate to develop and improve the judiciary,” said co-counsel Ismail Visham. “But their actions so far suggest that they are trying to service the existing judiciary instead of introducing foreign elements or trying to develop the judiciary.”

As judges are appointed for life, said Visham, “they should be screened better” to ensure necessary academic qualifications, integrity and competency.

The eight claimants against the JSC include Abdul Hameed Abdul Kareem, Hassan Fiyaz, Mohamed Fareed, Husnu Suood (former Attorney General), Anas Abdul Sattar, Mohamed Nizam, Mohamed Iyaz and Ahmed Abdulla Hameed.

In March this year, two senior judges accused the Supreme Court of violating due process and unfairly dismissing a case challenging the legitimacy of the JSC’s appointment of five judges to the High Court.

Criminal Court Judge Abdul Bari Yousuf – an applicant for the bench – filed a case at the Civil Court in January claiming procedural violations in the JSC vetting process.

The Supreme Court however transferred the case from the lower court a day later and conducted two hearings before dismissing it without issuing a verdict. The highest court of appeal had announced on January 21 that it was taking over the case as it involved “a matter of public interest”.

In a letter sent to President Mohamed Nasheed at the time, Chief Judge of the Family Court, Hassan Saaed, claimed that “the fact that the case was dismissed in violation of legal principles and procedures came as a shock to the judiciary.”

Saeed added that as a result of the incident, “the growing confidence that I and ordinary citizens had in the judiciary is lost,” urging the President to “stop this process continuing unlawfully.”

President Nasheed meanwhile appointed former MP Hussein Ibrahim as the President’s member on the JSC yesterday.

In August 2010, the JSC’s controversial reappointment of judges – the majority of whom were appointed by former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, who was the highest authority on justice under the old constitution – was characterised by the President’s former representative on the commission, Aishath Velezinee, as “nothing less than treason to rob the nation of an honest judiciary.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil Court rules banning private vehicles for uncertified roadworthiness is illegal

The Civil Court ruled last week that only vehicles used at construction sites and for public transport could be banned from use by the Maldives Transport Authority for expired or uncertified roadworthiness.

The judgment was delivered in a case filed by lawyer Idhuham Muiz contesting the legality of the Maldives Transport Authority – under the remit of the Transport Ministry – banning privately-owned vehicles for not being certified for roadworthiness within a set period after registration or expiration.

Muiz argued that the transport authority’s actions violated the Land Vehicles Act of 2009, which specified that banning vehicles for failing to meet driving safety standards applied only to those used at construction sites and for public transport.

“As these purposes are expressed in the law, use of registered or newly registered vehicles with roadworthiness either expired or uncertified within the period set by the [transport authority] could only be banned for these two purposes,” the Civil Court judgment reads.

Judge Mariyam Nihiyath ruled that owners of vehicles banned by the authority should be compensated.

Former Attorney General Husnu Suood meanwhile told Sun Online that police could no longer fine owners for driving vehicles with uncertified roadworthiness.

Moreover, individuals on whom the now-illegal fines were imposed could sue for compensation.

Owners found to be driving vehicles with either expired or no roadworthiness certificates are fined and have their licenses withheld by police.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

NGO calls for inquiry into MPs’ “disgraceful behaviour”

Local NGO Maldives Centre for Human Rights and Democracy led by former Attorney General Husnu Suood has called on Speaker Abdulla Shahid to launch an inquiry into the “lowly and disgraceful behaviour” of MPs during last week’s disrupted parliament sittings.

In a letter sent to the Speaker yesterday, the NGO said that MPs “should apologise to the Maldivian people at a sitting of the People’s Majlis.”

In a number of videos uploaded to YouTube by MP Shifaq Mufeed of the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), several MPs were heard using obscene language against each other.

Moreover, newspaper Haveeru journalists caught video footage of MP Ahmed Mahlouf strike former opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) Deputy Leader Ali Waheed on the back.

The NGO stated in its letter that last week’s incidents had not only harmed the standing of parliament among the public, but had “raised serious doubts” about the legitimacy of Acts of parliament and undermined public trust in the institution.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Umar Naseer’s dismissal case to continue despite failure to approach appeals committee, rules court

Former Deputy Leader of the opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Parrty (DRP) must first appeal his dismissal with the party’s appeals committee before seeking to resolve the matter in court, DRP lawyer and former Attorney General Husnu Suood has argued in the Civil Court.

However Judge Ali Rashee Hussein ruled that although Suood’s argument was the procedure followed in many democratic countries, according to Maldivian law it is not required to exhaust all other avenues before seeking redress in the court system.

Suood claimed that Naseer had not tried to resolve the dispute outside the court despite having the right to do so.

However, Judge Rasheed ordered the DRP to respond to Naseer’s accusations and decided that the suit would continue, claiming precedent in another case in which the High Court invalidated the Civil Court’s ruling and ordered the case to continue.

Naseer was dismissed by the DRP’s disciplinary committee following allegations that he conducted protests without authorisation from the party’s leadership.

Naseer’s lawyer claimed that the party’s charter did not give the Disciplinary Committee the authority to take action against a Deputy Leader and that the Deputy Leader could only be dismissed if one third of the party’s national congress voted in favor of dismissing him.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

HRCM organising four hour ‘sit-down’ against violent crime

The Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) has said it will hold a ‘sitting’ this Thursday in protest against a spate of violent criminal offenses committed recently.

HRCM has said it will gather near the Tsunami Monument in Boduthakurufaanu Magu at 8:00pm, and will remain sitting until 12:00am.

In a press release issued by HRCM, the organisation requested all persons attending the event to wear black clothing and wave a national flag.

Media Coordinator for HRCM Ahmed Rilwan said the event was not a protest, “but just an awareness program.”

‘’We can’t tell how many people will attend this event. So far many NGOs have confirmed that they will join us,’’ Rilwan said.

Rilwan said HRCM will would “collect opinions from everyone and forward them to the concerned departments.”

Meanwhile, former Attorney General Husnu Suood has criticised the commission in the media alleging it had done “practically no work” since the new commission members had been elected.

‘’Some say that the only duty of the HRCM’s members is to attend office on time,” Suood said. “The society does not even know they exist. This is their current situation,’’ Suood told newspaper Haveeru.

He also told the paper that there were “far more important things” that the commission should be doing than sitting down for four hours.

Rilwan said the commission would not respond to remarks made by the former Attorney General.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)