Tag: JSC

President appoints new member to the JSC

President Abdulla Yameen has today appointed Mohamed Faisal as the president’s appointee to the Judicial Services Commission (JSC).

Faisal had previously filled the post of secretary general at the People’s Alliance – a party originally established by Yameen but dissolved by the Elections Commission in February this year.

The watchdog – charged with appointment, promotion, and disciplining of judges – has recently faced criticism from both Yameen and the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party for its failure to include investigations into sitting judges.

In addition to the president’s representative, the constitution requires the ten-member commission to include the Majlis speaker; a judge from the Supreme Court, High Court and trial courts; the chair of the Civil Service Commission; the attorney general; and representatives from the Majlis, the public and the legal profession.

Faisal replaces previous presidential appointee to the judicial watchdog, Shamsul Falah, who was appointed on November 28, 2013.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC defends handling of judge investigations in face of criticism

The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) has maintained that it is following procedures in ongoing investigations, after criticism from both President Abdulla Yameen and the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

President Yameen has called on the JSC to expedite disciplinary cases against judges, specifically highlighting the case against the Chief Judge of the High Court Ahmed Shareef.

“It is now exceeding over a year since the case was submitted. [Judge Shareef] is not required to report to work, he is under suspension. However, he is still getting paid. How can we accept this?” Yameen said earlier this week in Addu atoll.

Meanwhile, the MDP yesterday released a statement expressing concern about the delays in pursuing the cases against Supreme Court Judge Ali Hameed, following the police’s recent announcement that investigations into Hameed’s alleged appearance in a series of sex tapes had been suspended.

JSC Spokesperson Hassan Zaheen told Minivan News that the commission was currently working on both cases.

“We are continuing to work in the investigation process of the case against Judge Ahmed Shareef,” he explained.

“Even in Judge Ali Hameed’s case, the JSC is doing what is necessary in the investigation stages. We are doing what is required of the JSC. It is none of our concern that the police have decided to file the matter,” he said.

He refused to comment further on the criticism levied against the commission.

Commission criticism

Speaking in Addu, Yameen highlighted the importance of JSC members being independent and able to review cases justly.

Adding that the law does not allow for any persons to be “kidnapped” or kept under forceful banishment, the president stated that “it is a deeply saddening journey to be forced to stay away from one’s job for 12 months and still continue to be paid”.

A High Court Judge is entitled to monthly pay and allowances summing up to MVR56,300 (US$3,651). Judge Ahmed Shareef continues to receive the full salary despite his suspension.

Shareef’s suspension came as he presided over a legal challenge to the legitimacy of the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court bench, which was handpicked by the JSC to oversee the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed for the January 2012 detention of Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Judge Ahmed Shareef was suspended by the JSC in May last year, more than 12 months after the initial submission of complaints in relation to potential corruption.

JSC Chair and Supreme Court Justice Adam Mohamed Abdulla at the time claimed the suspension was unrelated to the Nasheed/Hulhumalé case.

The JSC subsequently contested the High Court’s jurisdiction to hear the case into the legality of the magistrate court – no hearings have been held in the Nasheed trial for over 12 months.

Nasheed’s legal team sent a letter to the High Court late last month, requesting the case be continued immediately.

Yesterday, the MDP said that the failure to proceed with the cases against Ali Hameed demonstrated the current state of the Maldivian justice system.

A statement released by the party noted that police had filed the cases into Ali Hameed’s alleged appearance in sex tapes, the JSC’s halting of the investigation into complaints against the same judge, and alleged destruction of  papers concerning a corruption case against Hameed being destroyed in a coffee spill.

“We therefore note that the criminal justice system of this country is one that has failed to deliver justice. That the cases against Ali Hameed fail to be investigated, and the surprising events that unfold if a case against him is filed at the courts clearly demonstrate the status of this country’s criminal justice system.”

President’s Office Spokesperson Ibrahim Muaz Ali refused to comment on the allegations today, stating “this government does not see it as necessary to comment on everything that the opposition MDP has to say”.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC appoints Judge Abdulla Hameed as head of High Court

The Judicial Services Commission has appointed Judge Abdulla Hameed to head the High Court from April 20, 2014.

According to local media, Abdulla Hameed will be in charge of managing the High Court for a period of six months.

Since the suspension of the Head Judge of the High Court Ahmed Shareef, the court has been presided over by Judge Abdul Rauf Ibrahim.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

PG office presses corruption charges against Supreme Court Justice Ali Hameed

The Prosecutor General’s (PG) office has pressed corruption charges against Supreme Court Justice Ali Hameed Mohamed over the illegal transfer of credit from his state-funded mobile phone in 2010.

A media official from the Criminal Court told Minivan News today that the court has yet to make a decision on hearing the case.

Cases filed by the PG office are scrutinised in the order of submission “to make sure all the paperwork is complete and that there are no missing documents,” he explained.

The process normally takes “two to three days,” the media official said.

The case against Justice Hameed – accused of abuse of authority to benefit a third party – was sent to the PG office in July 2013 by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) after investigating allegations in the 2010 audit report of the Department of Judicial Administration.

Auditors found that a Supreme Court Justice transferred MVR2,223 (US$144) from his state-funded mobile phone on different occasions during 2010.

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 MVR281,519.71 (US$18,256) was spent on phone bills,” the report stated.

Charge sheet

The Bar Association of Maldives last week called for the suspension of Justice Hameed pending an investigation into his alleged appearance in a series of sex tapes that emerged online last year.

After the sex tapes of Hameed engaging in sexual relations with three prostitutes in a Sri Lankan hotel room surfaced in May 2013, the judicial oversight body, Judicial Services Commission (JSC), set up committees to investigate the case twice – in May and December 2013.

Both subcommittees unanimously recommended the JSC suspend Hameed pending an investigation.

However, in July 2013, the JSC disregarded the recommendation citing lack of evidence, while a JSC decision on the December subcommittee’s recommendation is still pending.

Meanwhile, the 2010 audit also discovered that MVR13,200 (US$856) was spent out of the apex court’s budget to repair a state-owned car used by an unnamed Supreme Court Justice, later revealed in the media to be Justice Hameed.

According to the police report cited by auditors, 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 parked and left it the previous night.

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 Hameed’s car.

Moreover, in September 2011, the ACC began investigating allegations that over MVR50,000 (US$3,200) of state funds was spent on plane tickets for Justice Hameed’s official visit to China in December 2010.

The complainant alleged that Hameed also visited Sri Lanka and Malaysia both before and after his trip to China to attend a conference by the International Council of Jurists.

A return ticket on a direct flight from Malé to Beijing at time cost MVR16,686 (US$1,080).

Furthermore, in May 2012, the ACC revealed that Justice Hameed was among three sitting judges illegally occupying state-owned apartments.

The commission contended that a decision by parliament’s finance committee to allow the judges to purchase the flats in Sina-Male’ contravened the Judges Act and the constitution.

The ACC explained that it investigated a complaint alleging three senior judges were occupying state-owned apartments while simultaneously receiving living allowances.

The flats were 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

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

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 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.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP majority will reform Supreme Court and JSC, says Nasheed

President Mohamed Nasheed has said that Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) will change the number of judges in the Supreme Court and strive to bring their thinking closer to that of the people, and closer to justice.

“We can never accept the level of political influence and the ugly money of corruption that has entered most courts of Maldives. We have to reform these courts. Development for the Maldives can only be achieved if the people Maldives are able to get justice and equality.”

Speaking at a parliamentary campaign rally in Thinadhoo, Gaafu Dhaalu atoll, Nasheed said that the judicial watchdog will also be reformed by amending the Judicial Services Commission Act.

He said that the MDP’s priority was judicial reform, and that nothing else could be carried out in the Maldives without such reform.

Nasheed said that society does not accept the offering and taking of bribes by judges or their meddling in political affairs.

“We cannot accept the judiciary’s meddling with the Elections Commission under the parliament’s guardianship. With a Maldivian Democratic Party majority in the 18th People’s Majlis, we will – God willing – reform the judiciary,” he said.

Decentralisation

Nasheed said the MDP was competing in the parliamentary elections with a promise of obtaining the ownership of local resources for locals.

“We have to empower the councils. As long that power is retrained, we won’t be able to achieve the development we want,” Nasheed said.

Stating the central government in Malé could  not achieve development without decentralisation and the empowerment of local councils, Nasheed said that islands are capable of carrying out their development activities by themselves.

“The wealth of our country is widespread and enormous. Our people have even today started accepting that this is not the rightful amount for the people. Our objective is to get for the people their rightful due,” said the former president.

Referring to the ‘southern rebellion’ of 1959, Nasheed said that it was the same rightful due that the people of Thinadhoo and Huvadhoo hoped and protested for in the past.

“Back then most of us saw the people’s protests as acts against the state. By any modern standard they were protests. Excessive force was used to disperse those protests and many people died.”

“We don’t want to see that, but people will stand up if they these powers are not given to them, and they will work to get their powers,” Nasheed said.

A key objective of the MDP in the parliament was to hold the government accountable as an opposition party, he added, reiterating that the MDP would encourage the fulfillment of government pledges in line with the party policies.

During campaigning for his Progressive Party of Maldives last week, President Abdulla Yameen told party supporters that an MDP majority would seek to oust his government from office.

Indeed, following the local council elections in January, Nasheed pledged that his party would take advantage of any legal means to remove Yameen after what it maintains was a fraudulent presidential election last year.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Majlis removes MP Hamza from judicial watchdog

The People’s Majlis has removed MP Ahmed Hamza from the judicial watchdog body – the Judicial Services Commission (JSC).

Speaker Abdulla Shahid sent a letter to the JSC President and Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed informing him that Hamza is no longer a member of the commission following his decision to contest parliamentary elections.

Hamza is standing in the March 22nd election for the Bilehdhoo constituency in Faafu atoll.

Shahid said Hamza had lost his seat as Article 10 of the JSC Act states that a commission member will lose their seats if they stand for a political position elected under the constitution or a law.

Speaking to Minivan News, Hamza said he did not believe Shahid’s interpretation is accurate.

“But I accept the decision since Article 14 of the act states that the parliamentary representative can only be removed by the People’s Majlis,” he said.

Hamza has previously said that the speaker and Majlis representative should be exempted from Article 10 “as it creates a legal vacuum.”

Meanwhile, Shahid has also announced he will contest the Majlis elections. Hamza said his removal from the JSC meant that Shahid might also lose his seat.

Judge Adam Mohamed sent a letter to Hamza and President Abdulla Yameen earlier this week claiming Hamza’s position was now vacant.

Hamza responded by stating his belief that Adam Mohamed’s attempt to remove him was intended to reduce the number of members who advocated for judicial reform and an investigation into Supreme Court Judge Ali Hameed’s alleged involvement in a series of sex tapes.

Similarly, former Attorney General Husnu Suood has suggested his suspension from practicing law – handed down by the Supreme Court last month – was related to his role in the JSC’s investigation into the Hameed tapes.

Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman – the public’s representative on the JSC  – has also accused Judge Adam Mohamed of stalling the JSC’s investigation into the Hameed scandal.

Adam Mohamed had refused to schedule a vote on whether to suspend Hameed following his refusal to cooperate with the investigation, Hamza said.

“The JSC cannot be productive as long as Adam Mohamed remains the president,” he said. “I call on the public to pressure the JSC to table the motion to suspend Ali Hameed,” he said.

Hamza has previously accused judges of using legal loopholes to preventing the JSC from functioning.

The Supreme Court in January prevented a JSC attempt to shuffle judges in the superior courts, stating that the authority to do so was reserved by the Judicial Council – a body which had previously been annulled, and whose powers have been assumed, by the Supreme Court.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC to evaluate performance of judges

The judicial oversight body, the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), is to evaluate performances of all judges at least every two years under a new regulation.

The Regulation on Evaluation of Judge’s Performance came into effect on January 1, and was made public on Tuesday.

“This regulation allows the JSC to take action against non-performing judges and also provides incentives for judges who perform well,” JSC member and opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ahmed Hamza said.

Under the regulation, the JSC is to appoint a five-member subcommittee to conduct performance appraisals of all judges. Judges will be evaluated on four criteria:  work performance, commitment to the judges’ code of conduct, attendance, and extent to which the judge’s verdicts are repealed in the appeal process.

If a judge gains between 85- 100 points, he or she will be given priority in promotions to a superior court.

However, if a judge receives below 50 points in two consecutive appraisal terms, the JSC will recommend the People’s Majlis to retire the judge or transfer the judge to another position in the judiciary.

Hamza said the regulation constituted an important step in holding judges accountable, but said the judiciary intervened regularly in the JSC’s attempts to discipline judges.

“Influential judges do not want the JSC to function. They use legal loopholes to undermine the JSC’s powers,” Hamza said, referring to the recent Supreme Court’s mandamus order halting the JSC’s decision to shuffle ten superior court judges.

Article 46 of the Judges Act allows the JSC to transfer judges between courts on the request of the Judicial Council.

However, the Supreme Court has annulled the Judicial Council and taken over the council’s powers, effectively limiting the JSC’s power to transfer or appoint any judges unless authorised by the Supreme Court.

Hamza said the People’s Majlis needed to amend judiciary related laws to limit judicial interference in the JSC.

The JSC’s record on disciplining judges has been mediocre. In 2012, a series of sex tapes which appear to show Supreme Court judge Ali Hameed fornicating with three different foreign women in a Colombo hotel room were leaked on social media.

The JSC set up an investigative subcommittee twice, but has failed to follow the subcommittee’s recommendations to suspend Hameed for failing to cooperate with the investigation.

In 2011, the JSC decided to take action against Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed for politically biased comments in the media. Abdulla Mohamed, however, requested the Civil Court invalidate the JSC’s decision, claiming the media had taken his statement out of context.

The Civil Court issued an injunction in November 2011, ordering the JSC to halt disciplinary action until the court had reached a verdict in the case. The High Court upheld the Civil Court’s injunction in April 2012.

Abdulla Mohamed retains his position as Criminal Court Chief Judge. He was among the ten judges the JSC had decided to transfer before the Supreme Court’s order.

Abdulla Mohamed was a central figure in the downfall of former President Mohamed Nasheed, following the military’s detention of the judge after the government accusations of political bias, obstruction of police, stalling cases, links with organised crime.

The Home Minister at the time described the judge’s conduct as “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist” in order to protect key figures of the former dictatorship from human rights and corruption cases.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Judges not informed of impending shuffle

The Judicial Services Commission’s (JSC) Secretary General Abu Bakuru Mohamed has said the commission has not informed ten superior court judges about their impending transfer on January 1, according to local media.

The JSC decided to shuffle the judges in December “in a bid to strengthen the judiciary.” However, Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz objected to the decision claiming the commission does not have the authority to shuffle judges.

Although only two days remain for the shuffle to take effect, JSC SG Mohamed has failed to inform judges or explain reasons for the delay, local media have said.

Meanwhile, JSC Members Shuaib Abdul Rahman and MP Ahmed Hamza have confirmed to Minivan News the JSC will stands by its decision to shuffle judges and has called on the SG to facilitate its implementation.

“Informing the judges is an administrative work and the responsibility of the Secretary General. I believe he will abide by the commission’s decision and notify judges prior to their date of transfer. The transferred judges must report to work at the courts where they have been transferred to starting from January 1,” Hamza stated.

The JSC has so far transferred ten Superior Court judges to other courts of the same legal calibre, including the transfer of controversial Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed to the same position at the Drug Court.

JSC Senior Legal and Complaints Officer Hassan Faheem Ibrahim also said that notifying judges is the responsibility of the SG, and so he is unable to comment on the matter.

Controversy around transfer of judges

Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain termed the JSC’s decision “unlawful.” He sent a letter to the president of the judicial watchdog Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed stating that the commission did not have the legal authority to carry out such transfers without deliberation with the Judicial Council – a council compiled of the seven judges of the Supreme Court.

Judge Adam Mohamed himself is reported to have expressed disapproval with the decision of the remaining commission members to transfer judges and to have walked out of the commission meeting.

The commission, however, decided with majority votes to go ahead with the transfers, stating that the Chief Justice’s objection lacked any legal grounds.

“Even under the constitution and the JSC Act, the commission is vested with the power to transfer the judges as we have,” member Hamza said at the time.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MP Hamid files complaint against Chief Justice

Opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor has submitted a complaint against Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain at the judicial oversight body Judicial Services Commission (JSC) over the Supreme Court’s decision to annul articles of the Parliamentary Privileges Act.

In November, the Supreme Court struck down four clauses in the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act including Article 11 (a) which states that an MP cannot be summoned to court during Majlis work hours.

At the time, the Criminal Court had sentenced Hamid to six months in jail for failure to attend a separate trial on refusal to provide urine. Hamid had contended the hearings were scheduled during Majlis work hours, in violation of the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act  and as such he was not obliged to attend the hearings.

Hamid had been under house arrest but was jailed following the Supreme Court’s verdict. However, the High Court struck down the Criminal Court’s sentence and set Hamid free.

In his complaint, Hamid said the Supreme Court’s verdict had caused him injustice.

“When the Supreme Court released constitutional ruling number SC-C/2013/28 on November 12, 2013 regarding a number of parliamentary privileges, Chief Justice of the Maldives Supreme Court was aware that at the same time, I,  a member of Parliament, was under house arrest regarding a case on parliamentary privileges. At a time when there were public allegations that the Criminal Court had then acted towards me against parliamentary privileges, the Chief Justice failed to consider the injustices that may be done unto me by releasing the prior-mentioned ruling at such a time,” Hamid’s complaint stated.

A statement released by the MDP states that if the said act was done “deliberately and knowingly” by the Chief Justice, it was an injustice caused to Hamid. It then said that if, however, the Chief Justice was unaware of the facts when the Supreme Court released the ruling, it is then proof that he is “unfit for and incapable of fulfilling his mandate”.

Head Judge of the High Court Panel that overturned the Criminal Court’s sentence, Judge Yoosuf Hussain had said at the court hearing that the Parliamentary Privileges Act at the time of sentencing still had a clause stating that members of parliament cannot be summoned to court in a manner that will inconvenience their attendance to parliament meetings.

Judge Hussain said that due to this reason, Hamid’s failure to attend hearings cannot be judged as having been without a justified reason.

He further stated that the lower court had failed to follow due process to be observed in the instance that a court summons cannot be delivered to a person, and if their families refuse to accept the summons on their behalf.

The judge said that as a result of this failure, the High Court does not believe the lower court had grounds to act against MP Hamid in this instance.

JSC Member appointed from among the public Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman stated that he is unaware of the complaint yet.

“After a complaint is submitted to the JSC, it will be looked into by the legal section. Once they complete the process, it will come to the commission members along with their legal opinion. So it will take some time before we see this complaint,” he explained.

Senior Legal and Complaints Officer Hassan Faheem Ibrahim said that the legal department has not received the complaint at the time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)