President Mohamed Nasheed has appointed three members to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), the independent body charged with oversight of the judiciary.
The three new members – Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed Abdulla, High Court Judge Abdulla Ghanee, and Mohamed Fahmee Hassan, President of the Civil Service Commission (CSC), took their oath of membership of JSC before Supreme Court judge Abdulla Areef and were presented with letters of appointment.
President Mohamed Nasheed also appointed Mohamed Fahmee Hassan as the President and Ahmed Hassan Didi as the Vice President of the Civil Service Commission.
The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) last night reappointed 59 sitting judges, including all but two of the judges currently serving in Male’ courts, swearing them during a closed-door oath-taking ceremony in the Supreme Court.
Minivan News understands that three members of the 10 member JSC were present during the oath-taking ceremony, including two members who were taking the oath as sitting judges, and opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Dr Afrasheem Ali.
A senior staff member of the JSC today told Minivan News he had been unaware the ceremony was taking place until he saw media reports, but said he felt there were “no legal issues” blocking the reappointments.
Meanwhile, President’s member of the Commission Aishath Velezinee, who has criticised the issuing of tenure to those judges appointed under the former administration as “robbing the nation of an honest judiciary”, claims she was locked outside the ceremony after attempting to intervene when she learned it was taking place.
Prior to being locked outside, Velezinee took to the podium and called on any judges who supported her position not to take the oath of office, however none did so.
“I don’t think the international community is going to accept that this is legitimate,” she said. “They locked members of the JSC out. The only ones present were Dr Afrasheem Ali and two judges on the commission, who took the oath themselves.”
People’s member on the Commission, Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman, also objected to the JSC’s action, stating in an interview with Television Maldives (TVM) that while he supported reappointing judges and training them to improve their standard, he did not endorse granting life tenure to judges who did not meet the requirements.
Head of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), Supreme Court Justice Mujthaz Fahmy, answered his phone but did not respond to questions from Minivan News. His phone was subsequently switched off.
Parliament was due to debate a bill on judges in a special sitting of parliament on Saturday, to coincide with the constitutional deadline for reappointments of August 7.
Velezinee contends that parliament’s Independent Commissions Committee (ICC) did not issue an injunction against the reappointment pending investigation of her complaint that the JSC’s behaviour was contravening the Constitution, thus giving the JSC the opportunity to rush the appointments through before the passing of the bill.
Speaker Abdulla Shahid did not respond to calls today. But in a text message reportedly sent to Velezinee last night, Shahid expressed his “deep disappointment” that the event was organised without consulting him, and despite his request to Mujthaz Fahmy that the reappointments be held until Saturday after the bill on judges had been adopted.
According to the Constitution once tenured, judges can only be removed following allegations of gross misconduct and a two-thirds majority vote in parliament, the same number required to impeach the President or Vice President.
Press Secretary for the President Mohamed Zuhair said the government “regretted” the JSC’s decision to reappoint judges behind closed doors while the Majlis was “actively discussing and debating a decision on the bill on judges for the 7th, and despite this being communicated to the JSC.”
Zuhair claimed that as a consequence the reappointments were “not credible at all to a large section of society – and the whole point of the exercise was to establish credibility.”
The activities of the JSC were “legally questionable” Zuhair added, “and the government intends to follow up on it. Today we have received complaints that the commission has contravened the Constitution.”
Zuhair observed that while two members opposed the move to rush the reappointments – Velezinee and Sheikh Shuaib – “a common thread ties all the other eight members. They either belong to the opposition DRP, or they are strong supporters.”
“The outgoing government has made sure it would retain control of institutions like the judiciary,” he noted.
Zuhair explained that while the government was communicating with international institutions on the issue, such as the International Committee of Jurists (ICJ), “so far we have been advised to do everything possible to keep to ‘norms and standards’. But that’s difficult when of the 197 judges, only 35 have any recognised qualifications. All the others have a local diploma.
“We can’t dismiss the other 150 judges, because that would only leave 35 to take care of the rest of the country. There has to be a middle ground,” Zuhair suggested.
The government was working on “attractive” overseas training and retirement packages for judges, he added.
The Judicial Service Commission [JSC] yesterday issued a statement condemning the interference of police in its efforts to reappoint 160 judges before the August 7 deadline.
‘’This action of Maldives Police Services obstructed the duty given to the commission under article 285 of the Constitution, and the act violated article number 13 of the police law,’’ said the JSC’s statement. “Therefore, we strongly condemn the act of police.’’
A statement from the Maldives Police Service (MPS) said the office was closed by police at the request of President Mohamed Nasheed, to prevent “unlawful and unconstitutional work from taking place.”
In an interview with Minivan News, JSC member Aishath Velezinee said the commission was failing in its role as an oversight body and had not examined any of the 71 complaints submitted this year, and was instead protecting the interests of several individual judges, thus “robbing the nation of an honest judiciary.”
It was in the interest of certain elements in parliament, who were members of the former government, to retain the judiciary appointed by the former administration, she explained.
“What they are doing right now is going to kill the Constitution,” she told Minivan News last week, urging parliament’s Independent Commission Committee (ICC) to issue an injunction against the reappointments while an investigation was conducted.
In its statement yesterday, the Commission claimed that “under article number 285 [b] [d] of the Constitution it is the duty of the commission to reappoint judges within the time of two years. That deadline is August 7.’’
The JSC said it had “included the opinion” of members of the commission who disputed the criteria for reappointing judges – according to Velezinee, many of whom have only primary school levels of education – “and now we are following a criterion that was approved by nine present members of the commission.”
‘’Under the amended criteria, 160 judges were approved by the members of the commission [who were] present,’’ the statement added.
The JSC has 10 members.
Speaker Abdulla Shahid told MPs today that the Majlis would hold a special sitting on Saturday to settle matters relating to the transition period, on the day of the stipulated deadline.
The international community has urged the Maldives executive to respect the rule of law in negotiating a solution to its current political deadlock with the Majlis (parliament), and in handling its accusations of corruption and treason against several prominent MPs and high-profile businessmen.
In a democracy the judiciary is the crucial arbitrator of any such disputes between the other two arms of government. But Aishath Velezinee, the President’s Member of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), the independent institution tasked with reforming the judiciary and ensuring both its independence and accountability to the public, believes the current state of the judiciary renders it unfit to do so.
Article 285 of the Constitution outlines an interim period for the reappointment of the judiciary by the JSC, according to minimum standards, with a deadline of August 7, 2010. After this, a judge may only be removed for gross incompetency or misconduct in a resolution passed by a two-thirds majority in parliament – the same number required for impeaching the President or Vice President.
Last week the JSC reappointed 160 of the judges appointed by the former government, despite a quarter of the bench possessing criminal records and many others with only primary school level education. The Supreme Court meanwhile sent the President a letter claiming it had ruled itself tenure for life.
Velezinee blows the whistle, speaking to Minivan News about the JSC’s failure to ensure the accountability of the judiciary, the compromise of its own independence at the hands of the Majlis – and the ramifications for the country in the lead up to the August deadline.
JJ Robinson: What is the function of the Judicial Services Commission?
Aishath Velezinee: The main function of the JSC – as I see it – is to maintain judicial integrity, and to build public confidence in the judiciary and individual judges.
The way we would do it under a democratic governance structure would be to hear the complaints of the people, and to look into these matters objectively and independently, and take action if necessary, to assure the public there is no hanky-panky [going on].
But instead of that, we are putting out press releases saying things like: “You can’t criticise judges”, “You can’t criticise the judiciary”, and ‘‘the president is exercising influence over judges”.
JJ: So the JSC is working as shield organisation for judges rather than as a watchdog?
AV: Very much. It is a shield for judges, and the evidence for that is very obvious. We have all this evidence in the media now from what is happening in the criminal court – a fact is a fact.
Why did [Criminal Court] Judge Abdulla Mohamed open the Criminal Court at midnight when two high-profile [opposition MPs Abdulla Yameen and Gasim Ibrahim] were arrested?
From August 2008 to today there have been many instances when the public might have wanted the court to open outside hours. But no – before that day, they have never opened the court out of hours for anybody else.
This was the first time they have done it – and then put out press releases saying it happened at 9pm? This is not the truth. We have evidence it is wrong.
But the Commission takes for granted that whatever the judge says is right. We can’t protect judges and oversee them.
JJ: This was the case taken to the Criminal Court by Yameen’s defence lawyer [former attorney general Azima Shukoor]?
AV: That’s not standard procedure. According to regulations the Criminal Court can only accept submissions from the State.
It would not have been an issue – the defence lawyer would have been given the opportunity to argue the case when the State went to the court. But Yameen’s lawyer initiated it – and got into the Criminal Court in the wee hours of the night – that is strange.
I’m not saying it is right or wrong – I don’t know. But what I do know is that this is out of the ordinary. The JSC has an obligation to the people to ensure the Criminal Court has done nothing wrong.
JJ: How did the JSC react?
AV: They did nothing. Article 22(b) of the Judicial Services Act gives us the power to look into matters arising in public on our own initiative. But what did the JSC do? They said nobody had complained: “We haven’t received an official complaint.” They were waiting for an individual to come and complain.
My experience, from being part of the complaints committee in the JSC, is that whenever a complaint is received, we have two judges on the complaints committee who will defend the [accused] judge, trashing the complainant, and talk about “taking action” against these people “who are picking on judges”.
Then they will put out a press release: “Nobody should interfere with work of judges.” Their interpretation is that “nobody should criticise us. We are above and beyond the law.”
Since January – when the JSC censored its own annual report, despite the law clearly saying what we should include – they decided to hide the names of all judges who had complaints made against them.
Instead, they released the details – including quite private information – about the complainants.
Civil Court judge Mohamed Naeem has "a box-file" of complaints pending, says Velezinee
JJ: What is the current state of the judiciary?
AV: The current judiciary has 198 judges that were appointed prior to this Constitution being adopted. Those judges were appointed by the then-executive: the Ministry of Justice. The appointment procedure, the criteria – none of these were transparent.
They were only given ‘on-the-job’ training. This ‘Certificate in Justice Studies’ they say they have is on-the-job training given after the 1998 Constitution was adopted, to teach them how to run the country according to that Constitution.
How do we expect these people – without exposure to democratic principles and cultures, without exposure to the world, with only basic education, and with only tailor-made on-the-job training for a different Constitution – how do we expect them to respect and uphold this Constitution?
A majority have not even completed primary school. A quarter have criminal convictions: sexual misconduct, embezzlement, violence, disruption of public harmony, all sorts of things – convictions, not accusations.
We are not even looking at the 100 plus complaints we have in the JSC that are unattended to. They have not been tabled. Civil Court Judge Mohamed Naeem has a box-file of complaints against him. And Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed has way too many against him.
JJ: Given the condition of the judiciary, and if the government is in a state of political deadlock with parliament, how is the government able to legitimise accusations against the MPs it has accused of corruption and treason?
AV: That is where we have the problem. The international community seem to have forgotten that this is a new-found democracy. We have in all our institutions people who have been in the previous government. We haven’t changed everybody – and they are still following their own culture, not the law.
How can [the international community] ask for the rule of law to be followed when there are no courts of law? Where are the courts? Where are the judges? A majority never even finished primary school.
Supreme Court Justice and President of the JSC, Mujthaz Fahmy
JJ: What possible reason was there for appointing judges with only primary grade education?
AV: It’s very obvious – just look at the records. As a member of the JSC I have been privy to records kept from before [the current government]. In their files, there are reprimands against judges for not sentencing as they were directed. That was a crime when the Minister of Justice ran the courts. The Ministry of Justice directed judges as to how sentences should be passed, and that was perfectly legitimate under that Constitution.
JJ: Has anything changed since 2008 and when the judges were appointed under the former government?
AV: Yes – what has changed is that [the judges] were freed from the executive. So they are very happy with the freedom they have received. But unfortunately they haven’t understood what that freedom and independence means.
They are looking for a father-figure, and they have found him in the current President of the JSC, Supreme Court Justice Mujthaz Fahmy. He has taken on this role, and he is now the king and father of the judges.
So they are all looking up to him to protect their interests. If you look at all the press releases from the Judges’ Association – which is run from Mujthaz Fahmy’s home address – he makes arbitrary decisions in the JSC and then puts out press statements from this organisation run from his home, to defend his own position.
We are in a very big game. Mujthaz Fahmy has been under the thumb of the former executive for way too long – the man is going on 50, he has been on the bench for 25 years, he has never had anybody come and argue with him – he can’t stand anybody who challenges him. So he’s got a problem with me sitting on the Commission because I do not take his word as the law. The man thinks that anything that comes out of his mouth is the law, and the majority of the JSC members take it as a fact.
But if you look into the documentation, if you look into the recordings – nothing that comes out of that man’s mouth will hold. Those interviews he is giving, all he is using is this image he has built up of himself as ‘the esteemed justice’. That is what he is using to convince the public that he is right. And they are trashing me in public and in biased media, just so people do not listen to me.
I do not ask anybody to take my word. I am saying: hear the recordings in the commission. Listen to what they say.
They have this belief that whatever happens in the Commission must be kept a secret amongst ourselves. This was run like a secret society – we have a pact of secrecy amongst us. I broke it, because I do not believe in tyranny of the majority. What we are seeing here is a repeat of what happened in the High Court in January, what we are currently seeing happen in the Majlis, and the same things are now happening in the JSC.
Elements of the parliament are collaborating with the JSC, says Velezinee
JJ: What are the links between the Majlis and the judiciary?
AV: That is a very serious issue. I am currently sitting on this seat as the President’s appointed member of the JSC, but prior to this, I was was the member of the general public appointed by the Majlis. They have forgotten that part.
I have brought this to Majlis attention. When the Commission voted on what I call the minimum ‘sub-standards’ for the judiciary, I sent a complaint to the Majlis. The same letter I sent to the President and the President of the Law Society. I sent it to the Speaker of the Majlis, as well as the chair of the Independent Commissions Committee, Mohamed Mujthaz.
When the JSC finalised the ‘substandards’, the Majlis into recess. So I went to the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), because it was the only constitutional structure where I could go to hold the JSC accountable. It is rather odd for one Commission member to go to another commission and ask them to investigate her own commission.
I met the ACC on May 12. The JSC say they adopted the substandards on May 11. Later I collected all the documentation, and wrote a report – because this is not going to be something easy to investigate. This is a whole conspiracy cooked up from the time the JSC was initially constituted. It has been planned, and it is very clear this is a plot.
When the Majlis reopened in June, I sent an official complaint to the Independent Commissions Committee which they accepted. On June 16, the Majlis wrote two letters to the JSC, one letter requesting all documentation and recordings relating to Article 285 – my complaint.
The JSC is not respecting Constitution and is doing as it pleases. Their disregard of Article 285, and their decision to adopt substandards for judges, comes from their belief in a promise made by the former government.
They do not refer to the Constitution in adopting the standards. They refer to conversations they had with the majority party at that time, a delegation led by our dear JSC President, Mujthaz Fahmy. He and a team of judges met with the politicians to negotiate a guarantee that no judge would be removed under the new Constitution.
Although we have Article 285 in the Constitution – to give the people a judiciary they can trust and respect – we have the President of the Commission responsible for the implementation of this article working on this political understanding with the former government.
This is very clear from the recordings.
All I’m asking is for third party to look into this – and that third party is the Majlis. After the Majlis took all the documentation and recordings, they had requested the JSC meet with the Majlis Independent Commissions Committee at 2:30pm on June 23.
If you go back to your news files, that was the day when the Majlis floor heated up. Since then the Speaker [DRP MP Abdulla Shahid] has suspended the Majlis.
The committee accepted the complaint – if they had not, they would not have asked us to come and discuss this with them.
I believe the speaker is taking undue advantage of this political crisis. The Speaker of the Majlis is now coming and sitting in the JSC [office] day and night, during Friday, holidays and Independence Day. The Speaker is sitting in the JSC trying to expedite this process of reappointing judges before the Majlis starts on August 1. What is going on here?
The Supreme Court, formerly the Presidential Palace
JJ: What is going on?
AV: I believe that when the Majlis was suspended, they should have directed the JSC to at least halt what was going on until they have looked into the matter. It is a very serious complaint I have made – it is a very serious allegation. And if that allegation and complaint is unfounded, I am willing to stand before the people, in Republic Square, and be shot.
I believe we have all the evidence we need to look into this matter – but under this Constitution, we have to go to the Majlis. But where is the Majlis? And what is the Speaker doing in the JSC?
What about all those other complaints? The Commission’s president is not letting us work on them. We have in our rules that any member can ask for a matter to be tabled. I asked him to look into the matter – and do you know what he did? He sent me a letter to my home address – as though I was not a member of the Commission – and asked me to write it in a proper form and bring it to the attention [of reception].
The JSC has decided Article 285 is symbolic, that article 22(b) does not exist, while the esteemed people of the law in the commission, include the Commission President, Supreme Court Justice Mujthaz Fahmy, explain to me that article 22(b) gives me the power to write a letter, fill in a form and submit a complaint. I asking – why did the drafters of this law put in a clause to give me a right I already have as any ordinary citizen?
Where we are right now – with the lack of confidence in the judiciary – it all lies with Mujthaz Fahmy.
JJ: What do you mean when you talk about “a plot”? How interconnected is this?
AV: They are trying to expedite the reappointment of judges without looking into my complaint. If you look into my complaint, you will find this has been done in an unconstitutional way.
What they are doing right now is going to kill the Constitution.
We are not going to consolidate democracy if they succeed in getting away with what they are doing right now. The Speaker has suspended the Majlis whilst a very serious complaint is with the Majlis committee, and now he is sitting in the JSC doing this.
If there is a matter pending in a court of law, usually they ask for a court order until the matter is settled. You don’t just carry on as if nothing is happening.
We have a petition signed by 1562 people – the JUST campaign – calling for an honest and impartial judiciary. This was not even put on the Commission’s agenda – it said it did not find it necessary to take it into account, and on that day I was not given opportunity to participate because on the agenda was the matter of approving judges under the substandards.
We are asked to put before any other matter the people, and the Constitution. Instead, the Commission is working in the interests of these individual few judges who have hijacked the judiciary. Mujthaz Fahmy must go.
JJ: So these Commission members met with politicians from the former government, to obtain a guarantee that sitting judges would remain on the bench, and not be subject to reappointment under Article 285? What do the politicians get back from the judges?
AV: We are talking about corruption. The change in government came in 2008 because people were fed up with a corrupt administration and autocratic governance.
But all those people who were in power entered parliament. The Speaker, who is right now sitting in the JSC working night and day expediting the reappointment of the judges, was also part of that administration. It is within their interest to keep this judiciary here, and not work in the interests of this Constitution, or the People.
Their personal interests take precedence over everything else. I’m afraid that is what we are seeing.
JJ: Do you feel the media has been taking this case seriously enough?
AV: I’ve been writing to all the concerned authorities since Januruary. I’ve been going on and on about the JSC and the dictatorship within it for a long, long time. I knew where we were heading, I have been warning the Majlis and talking to people from various parties. I have been talking about Article 285 for so long that I have become ‘the old article 285 madwoman.’
JJ: Do you think the current political crisis can be resolved without a functioning judiciary?
AV: Absolutely not. But then a functioning judiciary cannot be introduced without this crisis being resolved. How can the international community ask for the rule of law to be followed when there are no courts of law?
We need an impartial investigation of what is going on. And I believe the Maldives does not have anyone able to conduct an impartial investigation. We need assistance – the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) should be here. The UN Special Rapporteur on Independence of the Judiciary should be here, right now.
This is not the fault of the judiciary. We have a large bench, and most of the judges have absolutely no idea about what is going on. They have not even been given orientation on the new Constitution.
I had the opportunity to meet magistrates from four Atolls. They know the law. But what they need is a basic understanding of the principles of this Constitution, of the foundations of democracy. Because it is through those lenses that they should be interpreting the Constitution.
I am not in favour of the removal of all judges. But I demand that all judges with criminal records be removed – they should not be sitting there even now, and there’s 40-50 of them – a quarter of the bench.
Why is the JSC remaining silent? Why is the Speaker of the Majlis in the JSC [office]? By his silence, and through the act of suspending the Majlis, the Speaker has given the JSC the opportunity to complete this act of treason they are currently committing.
The deadline for the judicial reform period under the new constitution in August 7. The Speaker and the President of the JSC are working overtime to get all these judges reappointed before the Majlis restarts on August 1. That is treason.
Supreme Court Judge Uz Ahmed Faiz Hussain, the President's nomination for Chief Justice
JJ: What benefit would outside arbitration bring?
AV: It is difficult because all our documentation is in Dhivehi. But we need an independent and impartial body to look into this properly. Forget listening to me or Mujthaz. Forget listening to politicians, and investigate. We need an impartial mediator.
It is very easy for the international community to turn around and blame the executive for taking a dictatorial attitude. We are demanding the executive uphold the rule of law. But what about the Majlis? Where is the rule of law when the Speaker suspends the Majlis and hides in the JSC expediting the reappointment of judges? Where are the courts to go to?
We need the public to understand the Constitution, and we need all duty-bearers to uphold the Constitution. I’m afraid half the members of the JSC do not understand the principles of democracy or the role of the JSC, or the mandate we have. Then there are a few who understand it very well but remain silent while all this goes on
JJ: The President recently nominated Supreme Court Judge Uz Ahmed Faiz Hussain as the new Chief Justice, and is awaiting Majlis approval. How likely is this to resolve the current situation, given the Majlis is currently suspended?
AV: Uz Ahmed Faiz Hussain is a well-respected man amongst the judges. I have never heard anybody question his independence or impartiality. He is a learned man and amongst all the politicking and hanky-panky going on, he has maintained his integrity.
But the Majlis has to appoint him and the Majlis may not even get that far – the Supreme Court has already declared itself permanent.
I’m telling you: this is big. What we are seeing is all interconnected – it is one big plot to try – in any way possible – to return power to the corrupt.
Leader of the minority opposition Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) Dr Hassan Saeed has returned to the Maldives, after visiting the UK to meet MPs and journalists, and call on the international community to pressure the government to respect the country’s constitution.
DQP Secretary General Abdulla Ameen said the visit was “very successful”, and that Saeed had met with former Labour Party Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott “and other prominent opposition MPs.”
“Dr Saeed presented in such a way as to ask the government [of the Maldives] to follow the rule of law and to respect and uphold the constitution,” Ameen said.
Dr Saeed also met with journalists from outlets including Al Jazeera and the Independent, and was printed in the Guardian newspaper, Ameen said.
“Although it was DQP members who travelled to the UK, they represented the opposition coalition,” Ameen added.
The trip was “collectively funded by the opposition parties”, he noted.
DQP enlists UK PR firm
Minivan News has meanwhile obtained an email sent by a Peter Craske representing a UK-based public relations firm ‘The Campaign Company’, in which Craske solicits a meeting between the recipient and the DQP, “which is formed of an alliance between the DRP and MDP parties”.
From: Peter Craske [[email protected]]
Sent: [removed]
To: [removed]
Subject: Possible meeting with MPs from the Maldives
Dear [removed],
I am contacting you on behalf of The Campaign Company, a communciations agency, which represents the DQP political party from the Maldives, which is formed of an alliance between the DRP and MDP parties.
Two of their representatives, Hassan Saeed, a former Attorney General and Presidential candidate and Mohammed Jameel Ahmed, a former Minister of Justice, are visiting the UK next week, and would like, if possible to meet up with you given your longstanding interest in the country, for no other reason than to brief you on the current political issues in the country, where there has been some unrest and some Parliamentarians have been arrested.
The meeting would solely be for them to discus the issues in confidence, while they are in the UK.
I realise it is short notice, but would be grateful if you would be able to let me know whether or not this was possible, depending on your diary.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Peter Craske
The Campaign Company
The DQP is a minor opposition party in coalition with Abdulla Yameen’s People’s Alliance (PA), Gasim Ibrahim’s Jumhoree Party (JP), and the major opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), but not the ruling MDP.
The DQP confirmed that Dr Saeed’s delegation included two other senior members of the party, Mohamed Jameel Ahmed and Abdul Matheen, neither of whom are MPs as Craske appears to suggest.
Minivan News was unable to find any mention of Craske on the Campaign Company’s list of employees, however a receptionist at the Campaign Company confirmed the PR firm was “definitely working with political parties in the Maldives”, and referred Minivan News to the company’s director for enquiries regarding Craske.
Instead, Minivan News contacted Craske directly through the included phone number, who confirmed he was employed by the Campaign Company on a freelance basis to set up meetings last week with his contacts in the UK parliament.
“I don’t work for the Campaign Company, I was just employed to set up meetings,” he said. ‘I was just using the information [the Campaign Company] gave me.”
Ameen said he did not know whether the delegation had contracted a PR firm for the trip, but said that Saeed was “still well-connected in the UK.”
“Dr Hassan and Dr Jameel are in contact with a number of MPs. They know MPs from before 2008 and they have still have contacts in the UK.”
He added that he could “not say anything about an email you might have received, only specifically what Dr Hassan Saeed said.”
Meanwhile, Craske’s contact at the Campaign Company, Debbie Coulter, confirmed the company had set up meetings on Dr Saeed’s behalf and denied he had ever been introduced as an MP – “I haven’t seen the email,” she said, suggesting it might have been a mistake – “the brief [given to Craske] was quite clear.”
Regarding Craske’s introduction of the DQP as “an alliance between the DRP and MDP parties”, Coulter said the agency had recognised and introduced the DQP “as an independent party.”
She confirmed she was aware that Dr Saeed was currently the legal representation of opposition MPs Yameen and Gasim in court against allegations from the government of corruption and treason, following the release of incriminating phone taps leaked to the media.
“The bulk of the people he met were in the legal profession and people who knew of him and his background,” Coulter explained, adding that she “personally attended” every meeting.
“During his stay in London, Dr Saeed met with representatives from The Law Society, the Commonwealth Secretariat, Amnesty International, Labour MP Gareth Thomas (Labour), Liberal Democrat MP Simon Hughes, Lord Prescott, Lord Foulkes and Sir Ivan Lawrence,” Coulter said.
Sir Ivan Lawrence notably led a team of international lawyers to the Maldvies in 2005 to determine whether President Nasheed, leader of the then-opposition, was likey to receive a fair trial after being charged with terrorism and sedition by the former government.
He concluded that the Maldivian judicial system lacked “the basic capacity, competency and necessary independence” to deliver a fair trial, as reported by the Asian Centre for Human Rights.
DQP’s UK media statement
A media statement issued in the UK and forwarded to Minivan News by Coulter quoted Dr Saeed:
“President Nasheed came to power carrying the hopes of many people that we could achieve full democracy. However today we see him threatening our democratically elected Parliament, our judiciary and our press freedom in a way that he would have no doubt similarly criticised his predecessor for.
We cannot allow the rule of law to be replaced by mob rule. The streets of our capital have seen violence and opposition politicians are detained and their homes attacked. Our judiciary is now described as corrupt when it upholds the rights of people to be treated properly under the law.
That is why I am in the UK this week to make a wider appeal to the international community that they should tell President Nasheed to behave inside the Maldives in the same way that he does when making the case for international support over climate change.”
Accompanying biographical information distributed to UK journalists notes that “the Gayoom government spent much time intimidating the ex-Ministers, seeking to ban the New Maldives movement and then registering another organisation under the same name under the control of the ruling party.
“Dr Hassan Saeed has been consistent in his advocacy of reform over the years. This has led him into conflict with the previous government, which he resigned from. He supported the present government in order to achieve reform, but now sees it behaving in a similar way to its predecessor and is thus speaking out in defense of reform and democracy.”
Meeting journalists
A second email obtained by Minivan News was from a journalist seeking further information on claims made by the delegation in the UK, and describing materials distributed on behalf of the DQP which reportedly alleged:
President Nasheed, a former political prisoner who was dubbed the ‘Nelson Mandela of the Maldives’, has become autocratic since being democratically elected and is introducing a number of repressive measures, including:
* plans to close the courts and set up ‘public courts’
* suspending the Constitution, which the UK and certain Commonwealth states helped draft
* Judges have suffered threats and intimidation at the hands of the government and police. Civil Court Judge Mohamed Hilmy and his fiancee were handcuffed, stripped, beaten – and then photographed in a state of undress by the police.
Ameen confirmed that the first claim referred to the vigilante court “[recently inaugrated] by MDP MP ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik”.
Of the second claim concerning the Constitution, Ameen said “I do not think [Dr Saeed] mentioned suspension of the constitution, I would say he broadly highlighted the need to uphold democracy.”
Concerning the suspension of Civil Court judge Mohamed Hilmy, “I think that was a case a few months back, I cannot specifically tell the detail. It was a very well publicised case.”
Minivan News reported in November last year that the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) had suspended Judge Mohamed Hilmy pending an investigation by police into alleged sexual misconduct, after he was discovered on a beach in Hulhumale’ in a state of undress with a woman.
A police statement claimed “the two had to be taken into custody on suspicion of sexual behaviour in a public place, as they were at the garbage dump in the south of Hulhumale’ with their pants down.”
At the time Hilmy denied the allegations to newspaper Haveeru, claiming he was walking with his fiancé when they were set upon by police, handcuffed, beaten, forcibly undressed and photographed. Police sent the case to the Prosecutor General and the matter was forwarded to the JSC, a police spokesman confirmed.
The last hearing concerning Judge Hilmy was held in January, although he remains suspended and continues to draw a salary due to the JSC’s inaction on the matter, according to commission member Aisthath Velezinee.
According to a report in newspaper Miadhu, Maldivian High Commissioner in the UK, Dr Farahanaz Faisal, claimed the Commission had yet to receive any enquiries from UK officials following meetings with Dr Saeed, and questioned whether they had occurred at all.
Addendum:
Subsequent to the publication of this article, Peter Craske sent Minivan News an email in which he accepted responsibility for “factual inaccuracies” in his communication with UK MPs concerning the DQP.
“Just to clarify the situation, as a member of the Conservative Party, I was recently asked by the Campaign Company (TCC) if I could arrange a small number of meetings with Conservative MP’s during a visit to the UK by Dr Hassan Saeed,” Craske wrote.
“Unfortunately, despite receiving a clear written brief from TCC, there were three factual inaccuracies in the email I sent to these MPs:
The reference to a “Possible meeting with MPs from the Maldives” in the subject line, though this was not repeated in the text of the email;
The reference to an alliance between the MDP and DQP, which clearly does not reflect the current political situation, nor the information with which I was provided;
The suggestion in my email signature that I was an employee of the Campaign Company.
“This was one email to a small number of Conservative MPs which in fact did not result in any meetings,” he added.
“Having had this drawn to my attention, I would like to express my deep regret for any misunderstanding this email will have caused. I have apologised to the Campaign Company and to Dr Hassan Saeed for this.”
The Judges Association of Maldives (JAM) has condemned President Mohamed Nasheed’s criticism of the Judicial Service Commission’s (JSC) decision on determining guidelines for the reappointment of sitting judges as “disrespectful towards the honour and dignity of judges” and indicative of the “negative view he holds of the judiciary”.
A press release issued by the association last week accuses the president of attempting to cast undue influence over the Judicial Service Commission by calling for amendments to the eligibility criteria approved last month, an act which could “render separation of powers obsolete”.
Article 285(b) of the constitution stipulates that the JSC shall determine whether or not sitting judges possess the qualification of judges specified in article 149 before August 7 2010.
The article states that judges must possess “educational qualifications, experience and recognised competence to discharge the duties and responsibilities of a judge, and must be of high moral character.”
On May 9, the JSC voted to approve as minimum standards to determine “high moral character” that judges must not have been convicted in a court of law of an offence with a punishment prescribed in the Quran, criminal breach of trust or bribery.
Velezinie warned that the decision could effectively give tenure to 19 judges found guilty of various offences by state institutions such as the former Anti-Corruption Board.
Two days later, the commission approved guidelines for determining educational qualifications, experience and competence.
In his radio address on May 28, President Nasheed said he believed the JSC decision could hinder the commission’s mandate of ensuring public confidence in the judiciary.
The decision was “worrying” as records showed that judges found guilty by the relevant authorities under the old constitution, or who had faced criminal prosecution and allegations of gross misconduct, were currently on the bench.
“Grade seven standard”
President Nasheed criticised the criteria for educational qualifications as setting the bar too low.
“For the standard to determine educational qualification, they are saying [judges must possess] a certificate in either law or Shariah, and even if the certificate is not accredited by the Maldives Accreditation Board, it must be a certificate of at least level three or higher accepted by the government”, he said.
Hence, he added, the minimum educational qualification for judges approved by the JSC was essentially “grade seven”.
According to the guidelines approved by the commission, said Nasheed, sitting judges would be eligible for reappointment if they have not been convicted in court of 29 criminal offences decided upon by the JSC.
The JSC also decided that sitting judges would be deemed to possess the requisite experience.
Nasheed said the criteria to determine experience and educational qualification was “inappropriate” for contemporary Maldivian society.
Moreover, taking the lack of convictions as enough to determine high moral character was “not ideal.”
An official request has been made with the JSC to review and amend the guidelines, he said.
The JSC consists of the speaker of parliament, an MP and a member of the general public appointed by parliament; a judge each from the Supreme Court, High Court and the trial courts; a practicing lawyer elected by licensed lawyers; the Chair of the Civil Service Commission; a member appointed by the president and the Attorney General.
Justice Fahmy
A statement issued by the JSC before the president’s address defended the decision as both “within the bounds of article 149” and “very fair”.
The statement signed by Justice Mujthaz Fahmy, president of the JSC, notes that differences of opinion among members only emerged over the criteria for determining high moral character.
It adds that the reappointment of judges as stipulated by article 285 was very different from the normal process of appointing or dismissing judges and magistrates.
Moreover, the commission believes the decision will “draw criticism no matter how fair it was.”
The statement goes on to condemn “efforts by certain groups to dishonour the judiciary and strip judges of their honour and dignity.”
“The commission is extremely concerned as such actions could undermine the independence of the judiciary and adversely affect society,” it reads.
While the creation of the JSC was delayed until July 26, 2009 due to “various legal problems” and its members do not work full-time, the statement assures that the commission was working “sincerely, truthfully and in line with the constitution” to fulfil its responsibilities.
“Abuse of power”
However, writing in her personal blog, Velezinie claims the statement was issued “in violation of clause 4(d) of the commission’s rules of procedure and article 163 of the constitution” as it solely represented Fahmy’s personal views.
Justice Mujthaz Fahmy had refused to either allow further discussions on the guidelines or vote on amendments, she writes.
As Fahmy was among the 19 judges with prior convictions, Velezinie claims, he faces a conflict of interest on the issue of judges’ tenure and reappointment.
Moreover, while the Supreme Court Justice was also the chair of both standing committees of the commission, the complaints committee has not been convened as of May 1.
Fahmy replaced High Court Judge Abdul Gani Mohamed as President of the JSC on February 21 when the latter was removed by a ruling from three Judges of the High Court.
Velezinie reveals that although a committee consisting of the three judges on the commission was tasked in August 2009 with formulating a draft of the guidelines for reappointment, the full committee only met once as Fahmy did not attend the second meeting.
Meanwhile, the “285 Standards Committee” formed after Gani’s expulsion and chaired by Civil Service Commission President Dr Mohamed Latheef met on three days and drafted the final guidelines during meetings that each lasted half an hour.
The sub-committee, consisting of Judges Adam Mohamed Abdullah and Abdullah Didi from the JSC as well as Chief Judge of the Juvenile Court Shuaib Hussein Zakariya and Civil Court Judge Abdullah Ali, did not consider either the previous proposals or “the purpose and spirit of the constitution and the objective of article 285.”
She adds that Fahmy’s actions were “extremely worrying” as it could cast doubt over the independence of both the JSC and the judiciary.
Moreover, Velezinie continues, failure to provide agendas and minutes of meetings to members as required by law “facilitates corruption in the commission.”
“The Judicial Service Commission, and along with it the courthouse and judges, will only gain public trust when it proves to the people with words and deeds that it is an institution that is independent from the three powers,” she entreats. “Instead of hiding behind law certificates and making decisions based on self-interest and one’s own views, [the commission has to] put national interest and public welfare first.”
The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) decided last week to reappoint all current judges, regardless of whether they hold a previous conviction for a crime or a criminal breach of trust or bribery.
After the decision was made, member of the commission Aishath Velazinee spoke out against it, writing in her blog, “it is indeed a sad state of affairs, and an insult to all those honest judges whose integrity and good name is compromised by today’s decision.”
Today, Velazinee told Minivan News it might seem like “one mad woman screaming,” but insisted “the Majlis has to attend to this and demand a public inquiry. I can only bring it to public attention.”
She said “Parliament has failed to hold the JSC accountable,” and said she still “firmly believes” the composition of the commission presents a conflict of interest, leading to a vote that ultimately contradicting the purpose of the commission.
The JSC was created to reform the judiciary and investigate all judges, “and was asked to evaluate every single sitting judge appointed prior to the 2008 Constitution,” Velazinee said.
According to the Constitution, the nine-member commission must comprise of the speaker of parliament; an MP and a member of the public both appointed by Parliament; three judges, one from the Supreme Court, High Court and the trial courts; a private lawyer elected among licensed lawyers; the Chair of the Civil Service Commission (CSC); a person appointed by the President; and the Attorney General.
“The JSC was not functioning under the law of the Constitution, and not acting in the interest of the public,” said Velazinee, who is the President’s member on the Commission.
She suggested it be made up of a “cross-section of people in this country, who are educated and have an understanding of democracy.”
Last week’s decision was won by majority, with five votes in favour.
“They have decided Article 285 is symbolic,” Velazinee said, “it is a very simplistic view of democracy.”
Article 285 stipulates that the JSC shall determine before August 7, 2010 whether or not judges on the bench posses the qualifications specified by the Constitution.
Currently, there are seven judges found guilty of a criminal breach of trust; five with allegations of a criminal breach of trust; two are being prosecuted for an alleged breach of trust; one is on trial for sexual misconduct; two have been found guilty of sexual misconduct; one was found guilty for an offence which had a prescribed punishment in Islam; and another judge who has been accused of a criminal breach of trust, and found guilty of sexual misconduct.
That is a total of nineteen judges with a criminal history, most of which have not been tried in a court of law.
Velazinee said she was not given an opportunity to discuss or issue alternative proposals, even though she had been trying to bring attention to her argument for months. “Even the Superior Court Justice decided it was not worthy,” she added.
Parliament’s power
Parliament has the power to reverse or alter the JSC’s decision, “but now they’re in recess, too,” Velazinee said, noting probably nothing much can be done until the Majlis reconvenes in mid-June.
Adding to Velazinee’s concern, the JSC has only until 7 August of this year to submit any reforms and all cases on the judges. “And probably not even until the deadline,” she added.
She said although the president “would normally have a say” in this decision, “in the current political context, the president getting involved could do more harm.”
Press Secretary for the President’s Office, Mohamed Zuhair, said “there are legalities to be considered” because “the law does stipulate a clause on limitations,” which says that a judge, or an MP or a citizen, “can be absolved of a crime after five years” of being convicted.
He added “judges should be examples” and new regulations and legislation should be considered.
Zuhair said President Mohamed Nasheed “will adhere to the Constitution,” and there is “nothing to do until Parliament comes back.”
But, he added, a parliamentary committee could look into the issue extraordinarily, just like the National Security Committee is having a sitting this Wednesday.
Judges Abdulla Mohamed and Abdulla Didi did not respond to Minivan News at time of press.
Attorney General Husnu Suood did not respond, either.
The Judicial Service Commission’s (JSC) decision yesterday to reappoint all sitting judges unless they have been convicted of either a crime with a punishment prescribed in the Qur’an, criminal breach of trust or bribery was “nothing less than treason to rob the people of an honest judiciary”, claims Aishath Velezinee, the president’s member on the commission.
The decision was approved with five votes in favour, two against and one abstention.
Writing in her personal blog, Velezinee warns that the new standard for judges’ conduct could give tenure to 19 judges with either prior convictions or allegations of gross misconduct.
If the decision is validated, she writes, the country “stands to inherit” seven judges found guilty of criminal breach of trust by the relevant authorities but not convicted in court; five judges with allegations of criminal breach of trust; two judges who face prosecution for criminal breach of trust; one judge on trial for sexual misconduct; two judges found guilty of sexual misconduct but not tried at court; one judge guilty of a crime with a punishment prescribed in the Quran; and one judge guilty of sexual misconduct and accused of criminal breach of trust.
“It is indeed a sad state of affairs, and an insult to all those honest judges whose integrity and good name is compromised by today’s decision,” writes Velezinee.
Confidence in the judiciary
Velezine told Minivan News today that the JSC decision could lead to eroding public confidence in the judiciary.
Article 285 of the constitution stipulates that the JSC shall determine before 7 August 2010 whether or not the judges on the bench posses the qualifications specified by article 149.
The criteria in the constitution requires that he or she “must possess the educational qualifications, experience and recognized competence necessary to discharge the duties and responsibilities of a judge, and must be of high moral character”.
The JSC’s decision went “against the purpose” of the constitutional provision, said Velezinie: “I believe this was a decision taken by four men raising their hands. It is a matter of national interest as public perception will be affected if people can’t trust the honesty of judges.”
Moreover, it was of the utmost importance to inspire public trust in the judiciary “to avoid democracy failing because of a weak judiciary”.
Velezinie said official records show that some judges “have convictions from other institutions” such as the former Anti-Corruption Board.
“As you know, in the past we did not have a culture where everything was decided by the courts,” she said, adding that the judgments were passed in accordance with the old constitution.
After delaying and “failing in its primary task” of reappointing judges until August last year, a subcommittee chaired by Civil Service Commission President Dr Mohamed Latheef was formed to draft guidelines for the standards.
But, she added, the final report of the committee comprised of “four judges and Dr Latheef” was only presented last Sunday.
Abuse of power
Both Velezinee and Attorney General Husnu Suood have accused Supreme Court Justice Mujthaz Fahmy, president of the JSC, of “abusing the authority of his position” to delay and obstruct the reappointment process.
While Velezinee said Mujthaz Fahmy was among the 19 judges with prior records, Suood accused Fahmy of holding up the promotion of rival judges for “personal reasons”.
Suood said the judges on the commission were “not cooperating” with the task of reappointing judges.
Supreme Court Justice Mujthaz Fahmy
However, Judge Fahmy has denied the allegations: “Velezinee is lying if she really said that. That’s incorrect information.”
Fahmy stressed that the process of screening judges for reappointment had not yet begun and yesterday’s meeting was to “discuss the guidelines drafted by the subcommittee”.
The commission will go through old records and judges with prior convictions in court would be “disqualified”, he said.
Fahmy said he had “complete confidence” that the process could be completed by the August 7 deadline.
Apart from reappointment, he added, the commission has been active with hearing complaints, evaluating judges for promotion and formulating regulations and a code of ethics.
On the allegations of abuse of power, Fahmy said he doubted Suood would have accused him of it as the commission’s proceedings take place in accordance with the regulations and all members have an equal say.
“I wouldn’t say that judges have an undue influence in the commission as we don’t have a majority,” he said. “There are three judges on the ten-member commission”.
“Runaway judiciary”
Meanwhile, Ibrahim Ismail “Ibra”, former MP for Male’ and chairman of the drafting committee of the Special Majlis, the assembly that revised the constitution, said the substance of the criteria in article 149 was not limited to convictions.
“The assumption is that judges will have a higher than average standard of conduct,” he said. “Judges should be exemplary figures. So even if they have not been convicted of a crime, it does not mean they automatically have the code of conduct expected from a judge. They are expected to exhibit moral standing.”
He added that the JSC’s decision was tantamount to “the lowering of the standard expected from judges”.
Moreover, he said, the JSC was not empowered to “set standards by themselves” as the constitution grants that power to the People’s Majlis.
The parliamentary committee on independent institutions could order the commission to overturn its decision, Ibra continued, or establish standards and criteria for judges’ qualifications in the Judicature Act.
Ibra predicted that the decision will lead to escalating tension between the executive and the judiciary, which would have “very negative consequences”.
“Sadly, because of the actions of some judges who want to subvert the constitution for their own purpose, the credibility of the entire judiciary will be diminished,” he said.
While the Supreme Court was making “some headway” in reforming the judiciary, the courts did not inspire “a great deal of confidence from the public”.
Ibra speculated that judges understood “a divided Majlis cannot not hold the judiciary accountable” as the “comics in there can’t agree on anything”.
In the absence of effective oversight, he ventured, the judiciary was “having its heyday”.
Parliament exercising its authority to set minimum standards for judges would not be a solution either, Ibra argued: “Because the JSC is dominated by judges and the old guard, they will disregard it and even strike down laws.”
The procedure for the removal of judges laid out in article 154 requires the JSC to find that the judge is grossly incompetent and submit a resolution to parliament for the removal of the judge.
A judge could only be dismissed if a two-thirds majority of MPs present and voting support the resolution.
Ibra said some judges were misinterpreting the “independence of the judiciary” to mean that “judges were above the law”.
“What I see happening is that some people are arguing that no organ of the state can influence or dictate anything to the judiciary,” he said. “That is not independence. That is putting them above the law.”
After two years of the JSC, he added, most people would agree on “the wisdom of the Special Majlis” in constituting the commission.
According to Article 158 of the constitution, the JSC shall consist of the speaker of parliament, an MP and a member of the general public appointed by parliament; three judges each elected from the Supreme Court, High Court and the trial courts and a private lawyer elected among licensed lawyers; the Chair of the Civil Service Commission, a person appointed by the president and the attorney general.
“In retrospect if I could change anything in the constitution, I would argue that the time has not yet come to keep any judges on the commission,” Ibra said.
Moreover, he said, the current judiciary faced an acute lack of qualified professionals with an “adequate” grasp of the constitution and the laws of the country.
“What I see is a runaway judiciary that will become increasingly tyrannical, that will pass judgment on people and no one can hold them accountable.”
The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) is filing charges against Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed and Civil Court Judge Mohamed Naeem, according to a story published on Miadhu today.
According to Miadhu, Judge Mohamed was charged, among other things, of obstructing the judicial procedure and for disciplinary issues, charges which he denied.
The article says the cases against Judge Naeem were charged by Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Mohamed Musthafa and President of Adhaalath Party, Sheikh Hussain Rasheed.
Sheikh Rasheed said in 2008, when he went to court over a defamation case, Judge Mohamed Naeem was the presiding judge.
Sheikh Rasheed said Judge Naeem unlawfully placed him under house arrest, and then had him arrested when he was meant to only get a warning for not showing up at his court hearing.
He then filed an official complaint against Judge Naeem. He said he had to go to the JSC every day to look at the progress of his complaint, so he withdrew his complaint today.
“I can’t waste my time,” he said.
Judge Abdulla Mohamed said he had “not yet” been informed about any charges against him by the JSC and said he had “no idea” what he was being charged of.
The JSC did not comment to Minivan News on the cases.
(0)Dislikes
(0)
