Tag: JSC

Civil Court dismisses ruling of own watchdog body against Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed

The Civil Court today dismissed a decision by its own watchdog body, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), to take action against Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdullah Mohamed for violating the Judge’s Code of Conduct.

An investigation into a complaint of ethical misconduct against Judge Abdulla was completed by a JSC special committee which recommended in the final report to the commission that action be taken against the Judge for violating the Judge’s Code of Conduct – specifically, by making a politically biased statement in an interview with DhiTV.

However, during the period given to Judge Abdulla to respond to the report, he instead obtained a Civil Court injunction against his further investigation by the judicial watchdog.

The JSC appealed the injunction on January 24 of this year, claiming that the Civil Court had disregarded the commission’s constitutional mandate which allowed it to take action against judges, and argued that the court did not have the jurisdiction to overrule a decision of its own watchdog body.

But the appeal was rejected, concluding that the commission had not provided the court “any substantial reason to terminate the injunction and that the High court cannot make a decision on the case while the case is pending at a lower court.

As the final verdict on the case came out today, the Civil Court overruled the the decision stating that Judge Abdulla was not given an opportunity to respond to the allegations during the investigation.

According to the decision, providing a chance to submit any complaints after the investigation is completed cannot be deemed as an opportunity for the Judge to present his defence.

Like all other state institutions the JSC must also be held accountable in front of the law, the court noted, addding that party who believes to have suffered damages due to a decision by the commission have the right to litigate  matter to protect his rights.

Furthermore the Civil Court concluded that action cannot be taken against the Abdullah under the Judge’s Code of Conduct, because the said violation predates the regulation.

Charges against the Judge

Apart from the ethical misconduct complaint, the JSC revealed that a total of 11 complaints have been submitted to the commission against Judge Abdulla Mohamed, among which are serious allegations of corruption and abuse of authority.

The first complaints against Abdulla Mohamed were filed in July 2005 by then Attorney General Dr Hassan Saeed – now Dr Waheed’s political advisor – and included allegations of misogyny, sexual deviancy, and throwing out an assault case despite the confession of the accused.

Among the allegations in Dr Saeed’s letter was one that Judge Abdulla had requested an underage victim of sexual abuse reenact her abuse for the court, in the presence of the perpetrator.

In 2009, those documents were sent to the JSC, which was requested to launch an investigation into the outstanding complaints as well as alleged obstruction of “high-profile corruption investigations”.

The JSC decided not to proceed with the investigation on July 30, 2009.

Former President’s member on the JSC and whistleblower Aishath Velezinee for several years contended that Abdulla Mohamed was a central, controlling “father figure” in the lower courts, answerable to former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and a key figure responsible for scuttling the independence of the judiciary under the new constitution.

Central figure in Nasheed’s downfall

Abdulla Mohamed was also a central figure in the downfall of former President Mohamed Nasheed, following the military’s detention of the judge after the government accused him of political bias, obstructing police, stalling cases, links with organised crime and “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist” to protect key figures of the former dictatorship from human rights violations and corruption cases.

Judge Abdulla’s arrest sparked three weeks of anti-government protests starting in January, while the government appealed for assistance from the Commonwealth and UN to reform the judiciary.

As protests escalated, elements of the police and military mutinied on February 7, alleging Nasheed’s orders to arrest the judge were unlawful. A Commonwealth legal delegation had landed in the capital only days earlier.

Nasheed publicly resigned the same day, but later said he was forced to do so “under duress” in a coup d’état. Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has taken to the streets in recent months calling for an early election.

Judge Abdulla was released on the evening of February 7, and the Criminal Court swiftly issued a warrant for Nasheed’s arrest. Police did not act on the warrant, after international concern quickly mounted.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Judge Abdulla’s human rights violated, no physical abuse: HRCM

The Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) has told local media that while Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed had “not been subject to any form of physical abuse“ during his controversial 22 day detention, attempts had been made to violate his fundamental human rights.

Haveeru today reported that HRCM President Mariyam Azra had said that its investigation had uncovered evidence that the judge, who was detained during the administration of former President Mohamed Nasheed over allegations that he posed a threat to national security, had faced attempts to remove him from his post and send him abroad.

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), who had been in government during the time of Judge Abdulla’s detention, today raised concerns over what it claimed was the “complicit irresponsibility” of the HRCM – a body it alleged was biased towards the political interests of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

Local media reports today claimed that HRCM President Azra had opted against giving the names of those involved in the alleged abuse of the judge’s human rights.  HRCM also declined to give any other details at present that could influence any potential trials after charges were filed against Nasheed and several senior figures in the Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) this week.

Azra was not responding to calls when contacted by Minivan News at time of press.

The HRCM used today’s press briefing to publicise its concerns that “efforts” had been made to “coerce” the judge to commit unspecified actions that would have contravened his human rights.

“Serious concerns”

Responding to the press briefing, the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) – of which Nasheed is the current presidential candidate – said it held “serious concerns” in the selective nature of the HRCM’s investigations.

MDP MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor today alleged that the HRCM’s investigation had now formed the basis of criminal charges filed against Nasheed.  The case was today returned to the Prosecutor General’s (PG’s) Office after the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court said it did not presently have jurisdiction to hear such a case.

In March, the Prosecutor General Ahmed Muizz told Minivan News that the completion of the Nasheed cases was being delayed whilst police reviewed certain aspects of the investigation.

Ghafoor claimed that the decision to move ahead with the charges this week raised questions about allegations of political influence on the HRCM and the information it made available to the PG’s Office.

“I believe there is a very strong link between the HRCM holding this media briefing today and Islamist factions linked to [former President] Gayoom,” he added. “This week this faction has been very active in lobbying the HRCM, the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) and even the president himself.”

Just last month, Deputy leader of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Umar Naseer has expressed his confidence that the Prosecutor General’s (PG) investigation into charges against former President Mohamed Nasheed will see his imprisonment before the scheduled elections in July 2013.

“We will make sure that the Maldivian state does this. We will not let him go; the leader who unlawfully ordered the police and military to kidnap a judge and detain him for 22 days will be brought to justice,” local paper Haveeru reported Naseer as having said.

The PPM was formed by former President Gayoom, who also serves as head of the party.

HRCM investigation

Former President Nasheed became the first Maldivian president to be summoned before the HRCM in March this year in connection to his alleged role in the controversial detention of Judge Abdulla.

Nasheed had been requested to attend a HRCM hearing filed to try and understand who was responsible for taking the decision to arrest the judge. The former president attributed the initial arrest call to his Defence Ministry, on the grounds of “protecting” national security relating to alleged ethical concerns about the judge.

The summons of the former president was the first of three cases filed at the HRCM involving Nasheed. These cases all relate to potential human rights abuses allegedly carried out both by and against Nasheed during the lead up and aftermath of a controversial transfer of power that saw President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan installed as his successor.

Representatives of Nasheed’s legal counsel at the time claimed Nasheed has used his testimony to claim that he had been informed by the Home Ministry that the judge had allegedly posed a “national threat” – prompting his eventual detention.

The MDP MP added that Nasheed then claimed that the Home Ministry had communicated with the Defence Ministry on the situation, which in turn led to the decision to arrest the judge after bodies like the Judicial Service Commission has raised alleged concerns over his ethical conduct.

“I was told Abdulla Mohamed would not comply with the police’s summons to investigate allegations [against him],” Nasheed later stated at a press conference following the meeting with the HRCM.

“The Home Minister wrote to the Defense Minister that Abdulla Mohamed’s presence in the courts was a threat to national security. And to take necessary steps. And that step, the isolation of Abdulla Mohamed, was what the [Defense] Ministry deemed necessary.”

Nasheed claimed additionally that he had sent representatives to Girifushi to check on Judge Abdulla Mohamed’s well-being during his detention, alongside allowing the HRCM to visit the judge.

The MDP has also alleged that the decision to arrest the judge was related to a number of possible misdemeanour’s that had been attributed to him dating back several years.

In November, the national court watchdog, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), was ordered to cease an investigation into Judge Abdulla Mohamed by the Civil Court under an action the judge himself instigated.

MDP spokesperson and MP  Imthiyaz Fahmy contended following Nasheed’s first HRCM summons on March 21 that it was ironic that a leader he claimed who had openly discouraged the use of torture and actively campaigned against human rights abuses, had become the country’s first former leader to have been called in front of the HRCM.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Finance Committee decision to grant ownership of state-owned flats to three judges “unconstitutional”, finds ACC

Approval by parliament’s Finance Committee to three judges occupying state-owned apartments to purchase the flats was granted in violation of the constitution and Judges Act, the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) revealed today, informing the committee to review its decision.

A press statement by the ACC explained that it investigated a complaint alleging three senior judges were occupying state-owned apartments while simultaneously receiving living allowances.

“The complaint states that giving flats only to certain judges is giving them unjust privileges,” ACC Deputy Chair Muaviz Rasheed told Minivan News in April.

The three judges living in flats leased during President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s administration by the former Justice Ministry and High Court – under terms that would see the now-defunct ministry and High Court gain ownership upon completion of full payment – are Supreme Court Justice Ali Hameed, High Court Judge Ahmed Shareef and Civil Court Judge Abdullah Adheeb.

The three judges had reportedly been paying rent for the flats in the government-owned Sina-Male’ apartment blocks when the committee decided to grant them ownership upon completion of full payment.

According to its statement, the ACC found that the Finance Committee’s decision to register the flats to the judges was in violation of article 102 of the constitution and article 38 of the Judges Act as well as section 100(a)(11) of the parliamentary rules of procedure.

Article 102 of the constitution states that salary and allowances for members of the judiciary and independent commissions shall be determined by the People’s Majlis.

The Finance Committee’s decision – which was not endorsed by a vote on the Majlis floor – was officially communicated to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and Department of Judicial Administration (DJA) on February 6 this year.

“If the decision is implemented, the result will be three judges receiving living assistance or additional benefits not afforded to other judges of the court in direct violation of article 39(b) of the Judges Act,” the ACC statement reads.

Article 39(b) of the Judges Act states that judges in the same court shall be given the same amount as living allowances and prohibits “different kinds of living allowance or benefits for different judges.”

Following its investigation, the ACC informed the Finance Committee on May 23 (Wednesday) to review the decision. The financial oversight committee is chaired by People’s Alliance MP Ahmed Nazim, who was cleared of corruption charges in February.

Misappropriation

Meanwhile, the audit report of the Department of Judicial Administration (DJA) for 2010 revealed that Supreme Court Justices used state funds in violation of the Public Finance Act to settle phone bills, cover expenses for an anniversary celebration and repair a state-owned car.

According to the audit report, the interim Supreme Court bench on October 23, 2008 decided to provide for each Justice “a post-paid line, a phone and to pay the phone bill without a set limit out of the court’s budget”.

“From October 2008 to December 2011, a total of Rf281,519.71 (US$18,256) was spent on phone bills,” the audit revealed, noting that phone expenses for Supreme Court Justices were not included in the salary and allowances approved by parliament.

In addition, the audit found that expenses for the Supreme Court’s annual anniversary celebrations were covered from the court’s budget, which included Rf22,100 (US$1,433) for corsages, Rf12,177 (US$790) for catering and Rf44,000 (US$2,853) to prepare two video documentaries.

To avoid a public announcement to seek estimates for the documentary, the audit found that the work was divided and awarded to the same party under two agreements.

The audit also discovered that Rf13,200 (US$856) was spent out of the apex court’s budget to repair a state-owned car used by a Supreme Court Justice.

According to the police report, the driver of the Justice’s car was responsible for the accident, which occurred on January 23, 2011. However, the official driver insisted the car was undamaged when he left it the previous night.

In a second case, the audit found that the Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz used two court drivers for his official car instead of taking the monthly car allowance of Rf6,500 (US$421) approved by parliament.

A total of Rf255,832.92 (US$16,590) was spent in 2011 to pay salaries and allowances for the two drivers, who had previously been used by the interim Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed.

Despite the findings of the audit report, in March 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed allegations of corruption reported in local media regarding phone allowances and use of court funds to repair Justice Ali Hameed’s car.

Meanwhile in September 2011 the ACC was asked to investigate an official trip to Addu City by Justice Abdulla Saeed from August 30 to September 2, which took place during a four-day government holiday for Eid al-Fitr.

Local daily Haveeru reported in the same month that the ACC was investigating allegations that over Rf50,000 (US$3,200) of state funds was spent on plane tickets for Justice Ali Hameed’s official visit to China in December 2010.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil Court orders JSC to submit all documents related to Judge Abdulla’s misconduct

Civil Court Judge Maryiam Nihayath has ordered the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) to submit all documents relating to the ethical misconduct of Chief Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed, in a case filed by the judge last year to halt his further investigation by the judicial watchdog.

At the hearing held today, Judge Nihayath ordered the judicial watchdog to submit by next Thursday all documents and relevant video recordings , local media reported.

Speaking at the court, Judge Abdulla’s lawyer Ibrahim Riza, who is also the MP for Guraidhoo constituency, said that it was not legally appropriate to consider that his client was guilty of misconduct just because the JSC had decided it.

Riza told the court that the JSC’s decision on his client’s misconduct was taken following a statement Judge Abdulla made in an interview with private broadcaster channel ‘DhiTV’. The persons who interviewed Judge Abdulla had told the JSC that they did not know if he had made the comments implying political bias, Riza said.

Judge Maryiam Nihayath said that after the documents were submitted, a further hearing would be held before the verdict was delivered, local media reported.

Abdulla Mohamed filed the suit against the JSC after it completed a report into misconduct allegations against the Chief Judge last year.

According to the report, which the JSC has not yet publicly released, Abdulla Mohamed violated the Judge’s Code of Conduct by making a politically biased statement in an interview with DhiTV.

Following the JSC’s decision to take action against Abdulla Mohamed, he filed a case against the JSC in the Civil Court requesting that it invalidate the JSC’s report, claiming that DhiTV took his statement out of context.

According to the JSC, a total of 11 complaints have been submitted to the commission against Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

In 2005, then Attorney General Dr Hassan Saeed – now advisor to President Mohamed Waheed – forwarded to the President’s Office concerns about the conduct of Abdulla Mohamed.

Among the allegations in Dr Saeed’s letter was one that Judge Abdulla had requested an underage victim of sexual abuse reenact her abuse for the court, in the presence of the perpetrator.

Following Judge Abdulla’s obtaining of a Civil Court injunction late last year blocking his further investigation by the judicial watchdog, the President’s Office accused him of “taking the entire judiciary in his fist”, alleging that he was a threat to national security and ordering  his detention by the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF).

Nasheed’s government listed 14 cases of obstruction of police duty by Judge Abdulla, including withholding warrants for up to four days, ordering police to conduct unlawful investigations, disregarding decisions by higher court, “deliberately” holding up cases involving opposition figures, barring media from corruption trials, maintaining “suspicious ties” with family members of convicts sentenced for dangerous crimes, ordering the release of suspects detained for serious crimes “without a single hearing”, actively undermining cases against drug trafficking suspects, “accepting bribes to release convicts”, “twisting and interpreting laws so they could not be enforced against certain politicians”, deciding that he alone could issue search warrants, arbitrarily suspending court officers, and releasing a murder suspect “in the name of holding ministers accountable”, who went on to kill another victim.

Opposition parties began a series of protests calling for the release of the judge, appealing to groups such as Amnesty International and the International Criminal Court, claiming the judge had been abducted and that Nasheed had violated international treaties.

The High Court and the Supreme Court ordered the release of Judge Abdulla, but the orders were dismissed by the MNDF.

On February 7 Nasheed was ousted from power after a group of police and military allied with opposition demonstrators, assaulting the main MNDF base and storming the state broadcaster while opposition politicians gathered in police headquarters. Nasheed subsequently resigned, later claiming that this was under duress, and the Criminal Court issued a warrant for his arrest.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Five judges sworn into new drug court

Five judges were been sworn in to the newly established Drug Court on Saturday night.

From a total of 35 candidates evaluated for the bench, the five applicants selected were Mahaaz Ali Zahir, Hussain Shahaamath Mahir, Abdul Sathar Abdul Hameed, and Zubair Mohamed and Mohamed Easa.

According to Adam Mohamed, President of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and Supreme Court Judge, the five appointed to the Drug court were “highly competent” and “qualified to deliver impartial rulings with no prejudice.”

A total of 35 candidates applied for the positions, according to the JSC.

The establishment of the Drug Court  follows stipulations for the court’s formation provided in the recently-ratified Drugs Act.

Under Article 33 of the Act, all drug cases currently before the Criminal and Juvenile Courts must be transferred to the Drugs Court, following discussions between the Prosecutor General and judges.

According to the Act, a specialised Drugs Court of superior court status will combat drug addiction by integrating rehabilitation services into the court system.

Traffickers will be tried in the Criminal Court.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Q&A: “Silent coup has become the armed coup” – Aishath Velezinee

Aishath Velezinee was formerly the President’s Member on the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), the watchdog body assigned to appoint and investigate complaints against judges. Two years ago she turned whistleblower and alleged the JSC was complicit in protecting judges appointed under the Gayoom’s government, and was colluding with parliament to ensure legal impunity for senior opposition supporters. In January 2011 she was stabbed twice in the back in broad daylight.

JJ Robinson: What do you think of the international community’s initial reaction to the events of February 7?

Aishath Velezinee: I think they fail to see the dynamics behind this country – it is all very personal and based on individuals.

[Maldivians] have a very deep understanding of this – the actors involved. The international community does not. So the international community is taking much at face value, and they are measuring what they see against the standards they hold.

These are not our standards – what I’ve seen in the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) is far below the standards of what you would expect from ordinary people in any democracy. An ordinary person would not act like the duty bearers here have done. It is absolutely unbelievable.

JJ: You have often spoken about a ‘silent coup’ – a collusion between the judiciary, the JSC and opposition-aligned members of parliament to preserve the pliability of the judiciary as it was under former Justice Ministry and President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom. What do you mean when you said ‘the silent coup has become the armed coup’?

AV: The heart of the silent coup was the Criminal Court. The former regime wanted to maintain their influence on the criminal court.

You can see that a number of powerful and influential politicians and businessmen – and businessmen who are politicians – have cases pending against them. This gives reason as to why they would want to keep a hold on the criminal court.

Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed was the man facilitating them to carry on with that, giving cover to the very serious corruption that has been continuing for a number of years in this country. This is highly entrenched corruption – state corruption.

When Abdulla Mohamed went missing – as they say – I believe the opposition feared they were losing control over the judiciary, and that is why they came out on the streets. If you look at the so called public protests, it was opposition leaders and gang members. We did not see the so-called public joining them – they were a public nuisance really.

For nearly three weeks they were going around destroying public property and creating disturbances. It wasn’t a people thing – we can say that. We locals – we know who was there on the streets. There is footage and evidence available of it. We’ve seen the destruction they were causing in Male’ every day.

To the international community it’s a crowd of people – and to them that’s the public. It’s a public protest to them. But it was not.

Then we need to consider who was involved in the free Abdulla Mohamed campaign. These are the same people I have previously accused of covering up and being conspirators in the silent coup. Amongst them was Independent MP Mohamed Nasheed – currently the chair of the parliamentary oversight committee on independent commissions – who has a duty to investigate the JSC.

On 6 February 2012, I finally got in writing from the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) their response to my complaints about the JSC in May 2010.

They said that the matter of Article 285 and the JSC’s high treason was forwarded to Parliament for further investigation on 9 September, 2010.

Where is it? We haven’t heard anything of it. So why was MP Nasheed not doing his duty and investigating this? Why was he out on the street campaigning to free Abdulla Mohamed when this question is before him and he needs to look into it? Why was MP Abdul Raheem bragging on VTV – immediately after the national security committee meeting – that he had deliberately disrupted the meeting to prevent me from speaking? It’s a huge cover up.

JJ: Why do you think the international community is unaware of this?

AV: The international community is not fluent in the Dhivehi language. And all of the evidence I have – on tape – is in Dhivehi. I cannot get them to listen to that. All they hear is me talking, and as you know, nobody else has dared to come out publicly and take this up.

JJ: Where does this place you now? Considering you have all this evidence you must have some concern for your safety?

AV: All I have is with the police, the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF), the ACC, and with parliament. So I don’t know. They could easily destroy it. It’s not being shared with the parliament. I have asked MPs in the independent commissions committee if they are aware of this letter from the ACC – they are not. Since 2010 we have been working with the judiciary whose legitimacy is actually in question.

The issue was not taken up by anybody. The issue of Article 285 and JSC’s high treason was taken up by myself, as a sitting member under oath, and I think that should be enough reason for them to investigate. But the only response I get from people is: “There were 10 people in there. Why just you?”

In a conspiracy where a majority of the people join together to commit a crime, why would they come out and speak about it? High treason was committed in the JSC with the confidence that there would be no investigation.

I believe the Speaker sitting there has been the cover for the JSC to cater to their old masters. They are very confident that the silent coup will remain uninvestigated.

JJ: On paper, the reappointment of the judges in 2010 occurred before parliament had passed the requisite legislation determining the educational, moral and ethical criteria for a judge? Does that not undermine the legitimacy of all verdicts issued after that period?

AV: Article 285 is not tied to any law. It is to prevent politicisation of the judiciary. The JSC is supposed to be working independently as an institution, and although it includes people from various parties – MPs and the Attorney General – each of us had a conduct of conduct under which we were supposed to be impartial. But that’s not how the JSC was functioning.

Everyone assumes because I was appointed by the President that I was colluding with the President. But if anyone bothered to look at the evidence – the recordings of the meetings – they would find the reality is different.

JJ: This evidence you have – are people just not bothering to look at it, or are they unable to do so because of the language barrier?

AV: Nobody has looked at the evidence. It has all been based on weight – nine to one. Woman to nine men. I feel very insulted.

JJ: Some of the visiting media expressed an interest in the situation with the judge and the lead up to the judicial crisis which precipitated these events. But how can you explain that in a two minute soundbite?

AV: You can’t. It is too complex. All of this is very complex and we can’t take anything at face value. We need to access available documentation, and we need people to access the other evidence available. But all the fact finding missions and investigation teams are based on just talking to people.

If you just talk to people, the story you get depends on who you talk to. The facts are the evidence.

People have asked me why I did not take it up with groups like HRCM. There is no place I have not taken it to – and I could not access the international community when I did not even have an office. I was under oath as a JSC member, but the commission put me out on the street to work. I was working like an activist – and alone.

JJ: On the bright side many people must be feeling they should have listened to you a long time ago?

AV: Yes. But it seems we missed the chance to fix it – to fix Article 285.

Now it’s politics that will solve this. In 1957 we had a constitution for seven months. Now we have had one for three years and failed again. We have to do what we failed to do and focus on strengthening judiciary. But when a serious national security issue being examined in parliamentary committee is disrupted and it ceases to continue with investigation, what does it say?

The Maldivian Democratic Party needs to focus on 285. They need to start talking constitution, about how they got into this. They need to back me – I submitted these cases and President Nasheed was still waiting for a response. You can’t run a state without a judiciary – and the judiciary is still under the control of the former regime

JJ: Even if early elections are called, that would not help the judicary?

AV: There is no judiciary as guaranteed to the people under this constitution.

JJ: What do you make of the new Attorney General, Azima Shukoor?

AV: I know her from primary school. We were in the same class until grade 10. I know her quite well – and I also know what she’s been doing in recent years.

I also know Gayoom’s government because I worked in that government for 19 years and six months. I know all of the individual players in this game, very, very well.

Gayoom had this practice of moving around people he found difficult, so I had the opportunity to work in a number of government departments and ministries, and to get to know quite a lot of powerful players in the opposition today. I know how they operate – their modus operandi. I know how they function.

My mistake was to trust. I trusted members of the JSC to uphold the constitution. I trusted the Speaker to uphold the constitution. And where I saw they were acting against the constitution I found it really hard to comprehend. It was happening every day. But I couldn’t believe it until the last moment.

JJ: Where to from here? What do you think happens now?

AV: Article 285 is going to be buried in history. I do not think we have the willingness or capacity in any of the state institutions to fully investigate exactly what happened in the JSC.

But what happened in the JSC must be haunting some of its members, if, months after I was stabbed, they are still discussing in a recorded sitting about how to silence me. On 17 Janurary 2011, two weeks after I was stabbed, MP Dr Afrashim Ali said I was “dangerous”, and the high court appointee was saying “We have to think about our future, our security. We have to silence her.” I have audios clips of that meeting on the 17th. I have the whole 1.5 hour recording – it’s there, you can hear it. A friend helped me do cuts and I have circulated it on Facebook. I put it on YouTube (Part one, two, three).

They fear an investigation because if there is an investigation, what I have said will be proven. All they are betting on is using their political weight to prevent an investigation.

JJ: You are making copies of the evidence?

AV: When Nasheed resigned I put everything away – I have nothing in my home any more. These are probably the only copies we have now.

Considering that the JSC actually tampered with and edited the audio recordings when they submitted them to parliament in 2010, they have shown they will destroy the evidence.

I have copies of audio tapes of proceedings in the JSC during Article 285 – and after. As well as from when their focus was on covering it up.

JJ: It is interesting that they continued to record the meetings, given all the other procedures not followed.

AV: They were not recording meetings when I initially joined the commission. They were working completely unconstitutionally.

The JSC refused technical assistance from the International Committee of Jurists (ICJ) and others. Instead they were themselves talking about strengthening the judiciary. What judiciary was there to strengthen when it was unconstitutionally appointed? It’s actually the people who have lost, not President Nasheed or the so-called President Waheed. The people have lost.

JJ: What do you make of Dr Waheed? Given his UN background and benign demeanour, he seems an unlikely leader of a coup d’état.

AV: He might have thought it was a power grab and that he was the man who was going to lead this. But he may be realising that he too is being played, is a tool of the opposition – of Gayoom’s family. I think he found out too late. He’s either an idiot or a tyrant. Right now it looks like both.

Let’s say President Nasheed did resign under duress. Is it the man who resigns, or is it the government who resigns? If it is the government, then Dr Waheed should be walking out with the President. Then it is the Speaker who takes over for the interim period.

This national unity government should be formed with the Speaker leading it. You can’t have a politician from a party that does not have a single seat in parliament or in a Council, heading a national unity government.

If he would step aside and permit the Speaker to form a national unity government, that would have more credibility. That would also bring this whole situation back into alignment with the constitution.

Right now we seem to be in a gap. We have a man who was put there by the police and military to lead a national unity government. We haven’t seen the public supporters – the so-called people behind him – anywhere. So what national unity government are we talking of here? Just because the cabinet seats a shared across a number of parties, is it a national unity government? No.

I think it is time the Speaker took charge and led a national unity government, and organised elections, and let the people speak again. Just because the international community is upset with Nasheed’s behaviour, doesn’t mean that they should legitimise a government that the people do not support.

We are talking about the government of the Maldives. And that government should be one that the people of the Maldives want and trust.

JJ: There is a lot of public baiting of police officers at the moment. How helpful is this?

AV: Waheed’s first public statement was to praise the police mutineers. How could he?

What happened on February 8 – that peaceful walk – that was absolutely uncalled for. And we haven’t seen anybody talking about it. Not Waheed, nobody. Why was that? What was the reason for such a violent and brutal attack by the police? Why were they picking on certain people? Why did they chase me saying they would kill me? Why?

JJ: The police chased you?

AV: The police, yes. Why did they spray me at close range?

JJ: They pepper sprayed you?

AV: My eyes – I could not open them – it took me 24 hours to clean myself of it. There was a police commander – I was walking in the middle of the crowd. When they chased us I ran with the people. There was this lane – I went in and I think President Nasheed was there. I pulled him by the shirt, then I ran in front and his men came and surrounded him. I passed the shop where he had gone in for cover. Then I came face to face with the police. There was a commander – he screamed out: “That’s the bitch, kill her!”.

Someone stepped in front of me and pepper sprayed me. I grabbed someone running away and said “I’m blinded, they’re going to kill me. Take me, take me.”

Somebody helped me across the street and took me to a safe place.

JJ: Are you concerned for your safety now?

AV: I’m very scared. You have seen their whole approach to my allegations. To deny it – not by arguing over the substance, but by slandering me, and ignoring it. They either slander or ignore.

I’m afraid that considering their approach, they are not going to make a big deal of taking me to court and trying me. They will find other ways of silencing me. It was scary.

This is not about Nasheed or Waheed. It is about the constitution. I really wish the international community would see beyond the obvious. What the opposition is afraid of is separation of powers, and the institutuion of a democracy. It is not Nasheed – Nasheed they can defeat in an election, if they have the people power. But they are afraid of a democratic system where they cannot carry on high level corruption, where they cannot control the judiciary or the independent commissions – and the media. That they fear.

A lot of the younger politicians who have played different roles in covering this up I don’t think are aware of the depth and dirtiness of this coup. It sounds like a conspiracy novel – but it is reality. And people are finding it hard to believe becasue of that.

JJ: To what extent is this about people power? What happens if police or the army are given an order they don’t want to comply with?

AV: I don’t think Waheed is controlling them. We’re seeing [Defence Minister Mohamed] Nazim – Nazim is from the National Security Service (NSS) of before [under Gayoom]. The police and the military were separated in 2005. Nazim is pre-2005. Nazim probably controls the police though [Police Commissioner] Abdulla Riyaz, while he controls the MNDF. Jameel’s role, as Home Minister, is the judiciary. He is the former justice minister. He knows individually all the sitting judges – he wrote the handouts they learned from.

JJ: Do you think people played politics too long with the judiciary – including the MDP side? People are asking why, if this was the issue, Nasheed did not act earlier?

AV: He would know. For one thing I think it was very difficult for him when his own Attorney General [Husnu Suood] was not taking up the matter. Suood was sitting in the JSC with me. But it was only me and Sheikh Shuaib Rahman – the member appointed from among the general public – who went to the ACC.

The Attorney General removed himself from the JSC at the time. I think he realised the politics of it, and took the safe road.

I put myself in danger, taking this up, knowing quite well the politics behind this. But I didn’t feel I had a choice. I was required as an office bearer under oath to work in the interest of the people and the constitution. And my interest in bringing it out to the public was to give them a chance to get their judiciary.

JJ: Will things get worse when the international media and the diplomatic community move on?

AV: Everyone is going about their daily business and to the outside world it looks normal. But the moment they leave, I believe we are in danger.

It is scary – the hatred. These men – the men in action on the 8th – it was their emotions that came out. This was something they carry inside. The hatred. What I fear is that it seems like the police, since their mutiny, can act with impunity. Individual police officers can take up their own greviances against individuals with impunity.

JJ: Do you think the military is in a similar situation?

AV: No, I think the military have largely managed to keep themselves outside the politics. But the leadership of today – which we see has not gone according to rank – is politicised, and part of the conspiracy.

JJ: Have you considered moving somewhere safer?

AV: I don’t see a real solution to this. I think I owe it to people to write this down. I should seriously sit down and write. But it is too heavy at the moment; being amongst events here and the people, fearing for my own safety, I cannot comfortably sit down. But I need to write the story of the silent coup – of how the constitution has been killed without changing a single letter. They have managed to commit high treason under the cover of the constitution.

Today we are in a far more dangerous situation than we were pre-constitution 2008. Then everyone knew it was autocracy, and that all the powers of the state were constitutionally given to one man. Today it is taken at face value that there are separation of powers.

I have policemen bragging on my Facebook page: “We brought down this government. Next time we see you in a rally we are going to kill you.”

Policemen on Facebook. They don’t seem to mind doing it publicly. Before they might have been more subtle – now there seems to be no order at all.

JJ: While the new government is seeking to establish its legitimacy – and the resorts are losing money – do you think there is risk of further crackdowns?

AV: There is no public support for government. And the international community wants to legitimise it. I would like to see Dr Waheed hold a rally, with his 12 parties. Let’s count numbers.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament’s National Security Committee to summon Home Minister and Defence Minister

Yesterday the Parliament’s National Security Committee has decided to summon Home Minister Hassan Afeef and Defence Minister Thalhath Ibrahim and Home Minister Hassan Afeef to clarify some information following the protests in Male’ every night after the military detained Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed.

The issue was presented to the National Security Committee by Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP for Manadhoo Mohamed Thoriq.

Former Judicial Service Commission (JSC) members Aishath Velizinee and Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP) MP Dr Afrasheem Ali will also be summoned regarding the issue.

Yesterday a closed door meeting of the Parliament’s Security Services Committee was also held. No information about the meeting was provided by parliament except for the MPs that were present at the meeting.

Parliament said the meeting attendees were Jumhooree Party (JP) Leader and MP ‘Burma’ Gasim Ibrahim, MDP Chairperson and MP Moosa Manik, MDP MP Eva Abdulla, MDP MP Ahmed Sameer, MDP MP Ibrahim Mohamed Solih, MP for Guraidhoo Constituency MP Ibrahim Riza, Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) MP Riyaz Rasheed, MP for Kimbidhoo Constituency Moosa Zameer, DRP MP Ali Azim and MDP Vice President and MP Alhan Fahmy.

A meeting of Parliament’s Independent Commissions Committee regarding the detention of Judge Abdulla was also held yesterday, following which the MPs decided to summon members of the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) today.

The Committee also decided to summon the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and Prosecutor General (PG) to the committee.

Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed was arrested by the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) on the evening of Monday, January 16, in compliance with a police request after the judge had his police summons overturned in the High Court.

After his arrest, the High Court issued several warrants to produce Judge Abdulla to the court. The MNDF has not responded to the requests.

The judicial crisis remains at an impasse after the JSC reiterated that it was unable to continue investigating Judge Abdulla Mohamed because of a Civil Court injunction filed by the judge.  The government has sought international legal assistance to resolve the matter.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MNDF dismiss High Court order to produce Judge Abdulla Mohamed

The High Court has ordered the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) to produce Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed for the hearing of the case appealed by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), following the Civil Court injunction preventing the JSC from taking action against Judge Abdulla over an ethical issue.

High Court Spokesperson Ameen Faisal told Minivan News that the High Court had ordered the MNDF to produce Judge Abdulla to the court at 4:15pm today, but said the MNDF had dismissed the order. Under the Maldivian Constitution the MNDF is answerable to the President, who serves as Commander-in-Chief.

”At 4:15pm the hearing was to be conducted but the presiding  judge decided that the case could not be conducted in the absence of Judge Abdulla and cancelled the hearing,” Ameen said.

MNDF Spokesperson Major Abdul Raheem told Minivan News that the MNDF had no comment on the matter.

The MNDF was previously ordered to produce Judge Abdulla Mohamed to dispute the legality of his detention, however the MNDF did not respond to any orders.

Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed was arrested by the MNDF on the evening of Monday, January 16, in compliance with a police request.

The judge’s whereabouts were not revealed until January 18, and the MNDF has acknowledged receipt but not replied to Supreme Court orders to release the judge.

Prosecutor General (PG) Ahmed Muizz lately joined the High and Supreme Courts in condemning MNDF’s role in the arrest as unlawful, and requesting that the judge be released.

PG Muizz ordered an investigation by the Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM), and will evaluate the situation following the commission’s findings.

Lawyers of Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed has requested the Supreme Court not to hear any case related to Judge Abdulla before the court decide on the request made by the lawyers to issue a writ to free the judge.

Former President’s Member of the JSC, Aishath Velezinee, has contended that while the government cannot keep the judge detained indefinitely without conducting an investigation, “releasing him is a threat to security.”

I have heard Vice President Mohamed Waheed Hassan calling for him to be released. Abdulla Mohamed is not under arrest – but his freedom of movement and communication would be a danger at this moment. We are at the point where we really and truly need to get to the bottom of this and act upon the constitution,” she told Minivan News.

“We talking about cleaning up the judiciary, and this is not talking outside the constitution – this is the foundation of the constitution. The constitution is build upon having three separate powers. The judiciary is perhaps the most important power. The other powers come and go, politics change, but the judiciary is the balancing act. When that is out of balance, action is necessary.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC appeals Civil Court injunction against investigation of Abdulla Mohamed

The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has said that all complaints filed against  judges are now being investigated, after it appealed the Civil Court’s injunction preventing the commission from taking action against Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed at the High Court on Tuesday.

Former President’s Member on the JSC, Aishath Velezinee, on Tuesday told Minivan News that if the judicial watchdog “can be overruled by a judge sitting in some court somewhere, then it’s dysfunctional. But that’s what has been happening.”

In a press statement issued this week, JSC – which is mandated to appoint and investigate complaints against judges – refuted allegations that it was defunct, claiming it has been “working hard” to finish investigating complaints submitted to the commission.

Out of the 336 complaints submitted so far, 208 have been completed and 38 cases under investigation, the JSC claimed, while commission is working to finish the 128 complaints remaining. Investigation committees had been set up within the commission to “expedite the process”, JSC claims, adding that complaints concerned different judges, not only Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

The statement comes despite the JSC’s abolishing its complaints committee in May 2011. It did not clarify the outcome of any of the complaints it said it had investigated.

The JSC explained in the statement that the commission has been unable to pursue the case against Chief Judge as the Civil Court had ordered the JSC on November 17 to take no action against the judge until the court reached a verdict in the case filed against him.

The JSC requested the High Court to terminate the injunction citing that the commission’s decision cannot be overruled by the civil court.

Abdulla Mohamed filed the suit against the JSC after it completed a report into misconduct allegations against the cheif judge. According to the report, which the JSC has not yet publicly released, the judge violated the Judge’s Code of Conduct by making a politically biased statement in an interview he gave to private broadcaster DhiTV.

The injunction was first appealed by the JSC at the Supreme Court, which ordered it to be submitted to the High court on January 19 – three days after chief judge was detained by the military, after he had opened the court outside normal hours a night ago, to order the immmmediate release of Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed, deputy leader of the minority opposition Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) who was arrested after President’s Office requested an investigation into “slanderous” allegations he made that the government was working under the influence of “Jews and Christian priests” to weaken Islam in the Maldives.

In this week’s statement JSC reiterates its stance that neither police or Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) have the “constitutional authority” to detain a judge, citing that the commission reserves the right to investigate complaints about judges and submit to the parliament in case a judge has to be removed from the bench under the section 159 of the constitution and Judicial Service Commission Act.

However, the government continues to legally justify the military detention of the judge amid spiralling political tensions.

In a televised statement on MNBC One on Junary 17, Home Minister Hassan Afeef said military assistance was sought for “fear of loss of public order and safety and national security” on account of Judge Abdulla, who has “taken the entire criminal justice system in his fist”.

Afeef listed 14 cases of obstruction of police duty by Judge Abdulla, including withholding warrants for up to four days, ordering police to conduct unlawful investigations and disregarding decisions by higher courts.

Afeef accused the judge of “deliberately” holding up cases involving opposition figures, and barring media from corruption trials.

Afeef said the judge also ordered the release of suspects detained for serious crimes “without a single hearing”, and maintained “suspicious ties” with family members of convicts sentenced for dangerous crimes.

The judge also released a murder suspect “in the name of holding ministers accountable”, who went on to kill another victim.

Afeef also alleged that the judge actively undermined cases against drug trafficking suspects and had allowed them opportunity to “fabricate false evidence after hearings had concluded”.

Judge Abdulla “hijacked the whole court” by deciding that he alone could issue search warrants, Afeef continued, and has arbitrarily suspended court officers.

The chief judge “twisted and interpreted laws so they could not be enforced against certain politicians” and stood accused of “accepting bribes to release convicts.”

However, opposition continues to contend that the judge’s “abduction” by the military and its refusal to release him or present him in court, despite being ordered to do so by the Supreme Court, represents a constitutional violation by the government.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)