JSC – Page 8 – Minivan News

JSC suspends Chief Judge of the High Court

The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has indefinitely suspended Chief Judge of the High Court, Ahmed Shareef, over a complaint filed against the judge last year.

JSC Chair and Supreme Court Justice Adam Mohamed Abdulla insisted at a press conference today that the disciplinary action had no relation to the ongoing High Court case filed by former President Mohamed Nasheed contesting the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench appointed by the commission.

The suspension was a “precautionary” measure while investigation of the complaint was proceeding, he claimed.

“There are no legal grounds to stop looking into a complaint submitted [to the commission] or halt proceedings,” he said, adding that ongoing court cases and disciplinary proceedings at the JSC were “two completely different systems.”

High Court Chief Judge Shareef was summoned to the JSC earlier this month almost a year after the complaint was lodged.

Meanwhile, a hearing of Nasheed’s case scheduled at the High Court today was cancelled after one of the judges took a leave of absence.

The chief judge – who is among the three judges presiding over the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) presidential candidate’s case – was suspended over a complaint filed by seven other High Court judges, Justice Adam Mohamed revealed.

The decision was approved at a JSC meeting today with three votes in favour and one against.

According to local media, Attorney General Aishath Bisham, President’s Member Mohamed ‘Reynis’ Saleem and Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Didi voted in favour while Public Member Shuaib Abdul Rahman voted against the motion.

Lawyers’ Representative Ahmed Rasheed and Civil Service Commission (CSC) Chair Mohamed Fahmy Hassan reportedly abstained while High Court Judge Abdulla Hameed did not participate in the vote.

Speaker Abdulla Shahid and Majlis Member MP Gasim Ibrahim did not attend the meeting.

Shuaib told private broadcaster Raajje TV following the meeting that the decision was made in violation of due process and JSC procedures as a report regarding the allegations against the chief judge was not presented to the commission members.

The motion or petition to suspend Shareef was proposed by Attorney General Bisham, who is yet to receive parliamentary consent for her appointment.

Meanwhile, at the press conference this evening, Justice Adam Mohamed refused to reveal either the details of the vote or the members in attendance despite repeated queries from reporters.

He also refused to state which High Court judge would take over the chief judge’s administrative functions.

In June 2012, the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) was asked to investigate allegations that Chief Judge Shareef met officials of Nexbis in Bangkok, Thailand while a case concerning the controversial border control project awarded to the Malaysian mobile security firm was scheduled at the High Court.

According to newspaper Haveeru, Shareef had applied for a leave of absence from May 30 to July 1 before the JSC made its decision today.

The local daily also reported that today’s hearing of the former president’s case was cancelled after Judge Abbas Shareef took a last minute leave.

Former President Nasheed’s office said in a statement today that the hearing was “unexpectedly cancelled three hours prior” to the scheduled time.

“We condemn the actions of the Maldivian courts, which violate the electoral rights of nearly 50,000 Maldivian Democratic Party members. Today’s disruption to President Nasheed’s campaign trip to Raa atoll is an unnecessary, politically motivated challenge. The JSC continues to try and cover up the unconstitutional manner in which they appointed the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench through attempts at influencing the judiciary, while the Courts create logistical challenges such as today’s. However, it does not stop affect the spirit of President Nasheed’s campaign,” MP Mariya Ahmed Didi, Nasheed’s spokeswoman, said after the cancellation.

Nasheed meanwhile returned to Raa Atoll today to resume his presidential campaign.

“Undue influence”

The MDP organised a march against the JSC on Saturday (May 25) to protest JSC Chair Adam Mohamed’s alleged attempts to unduly influence the trial of former President Nasheed.

The party contended that Justice Adam Mohamed was abusing his power and authority as head of the judicial watchdog body to intimidate judges on the High Court bench.

On April 1, the High Court ordered the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court to suspend Nasheed’s trial pending a ruling on the legitimacy of the panel of judges appointed by the JSC to preside over the case.

In the first hearing of the High Court case, the JSC contested the High Court’s jurisdiction to rule on the legality of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench constituted by the commission.

The JSC has sent letters to the High Court requesting expedition of Nasheed’s case, the party noted in a press release.

The MDP objected to the judicial oversight body summoning the Chief Judge of the High Court for questioning over a complaint filed a year ago.

The move amounted to intimidation of judges and undue influence on judicial processes, the party contended, calling on the JSC to cease its “dirty and cowardly” efforts as the commission was the adverse party or respondent in the High Court case.

“Actions such as these are seen as thinly veiled attempts at influencing the Judiciary,” the former president’s office said today.

The JSC responded to the protest march with a statement of its own the following day, appealing against “obstruction” of the commission’s constitutional and legal responsibilities.

The JSC noted that the constitution and Judicial Service Commission Act of 2008 mandated the commission to investigate complaints against judges and enforce disciplinary measures.

The commission was entrusted with powers to summon and question persons and take witness testimonies, the JSC stated.

There were “no legal or constitutional grounds” to interpret carrying out the commission’s legal responsibilities as intimidation or exerting undue influence on judges, the statement added.

The JSC statement concluded by calling on all parties to “not commit any act or participate in any activity that could obstruct the constitutional and legal responsibilities and duties of the commission.”

Meanwhile, in her report to the United Nations Human Rights Council following a visit to the Maldives in February 2013, UN Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul wrote that “the trial of the former President raises serious concerns regarding the fairness of proceedings.”

Knaul questioned the constitutionality of the Hulhumale’ Court and the appointment of the three-member panel of judges, “which seems to have been set up in an arbitrary manner, without following procedures set by law.”

She also expressed concern with “the significant backlog of complaints with the Judicial Service Commission that are not dealt with or at least are perceived as not being dealt with. Some judges that have several complaints and cases for misconduct against them are still sitting.”

Moreover, Knaul wrote that according to several judges, “disciplinary procedures before the Commission lead to public humiliation and damages to their reputation.”

“Some even said that, when summoned by the Commission, the principle of presumption of innocence is not respected and they do not have appropriate time and access to information to prepare for their cases. Judges are also often not told for what allegations they are being investigated. It is common that, after an appearance before the Commission, judges are not informed if their case was dropped, if a decision was taken, or if it is still pending,” Knaul wrote.

“The Special Rapporteur is worried that disciplinary proceedings before the Judicial Services Commission are not in line with international law and principles, and may sometimes be used to expose and question the integrity of judges and magistrates before the media and the general public before the conclusion of a proper investigation into the allegations. She wishes to underline that, according to the Basic Principles on the independence of the judiciary, judges are entitled to a fair hearing under an appropriate procedure, which should be subject to an independent review.”

Among a number of recommendations to reform the Maldivian justice system, Knaul suggested taking “appropriate measures to enforce the code of conduct of judges in a transparent and consistent manner, with full respect for the fundamental guarantees of fair hearing and bearing in mind the importance of the reputation of judges and magistrates.”

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

JSC appeals against “obstruction” following MDP protest march

The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has appealed against “obstruction” of the commission’s legal and constitutional responsibilities in a press statement yesterday (May 26), following a protest march by the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) on Saturday (May 25).

The party marched on the streets of Male’ to protest against JSC Chair and Supreme Court Justice Adam Mohamed Abdulla’s alleged attempts to unduly influence the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed.

The MDP contends that Adam Mohamed was abusing his power and authority as head of the judicial watchdog body to intimidate judges on the High Court bench.

The JSC has sent letters to the High Court requesting expedition of Nasheed’s case, the party noted in a press release last week.

The MDP objected to the judicial oversight body summoning the Chief Judge of the High Court for questioning over a complaint filed more than a year ago.

In the first hearing of the case, the JSC contested the High Court’s jurisdiction to rule on the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench constituted by the commission.

“It is strange that the JSC’s legal counsel contested jurisdiction of the High Court to hear the case on the grounds that they had sought the advice of the Supreme Court in determining the bench,” MDP MP Mariya Ahmed Didi, spokeswoman of the former president said after the hearing.

Meanwhile, in its statement issued a day after the MDP protest march, the JSC noted that the constitution and Judicial Service Commission Act of 2008 mandated the commission to investigate complaints against judges and enforce disciplinary measures.

The commission was entrusted with powers to summon and question persons and take witness testimonies, the JSC stated.

There were “no legal or constitutional grounds” to interpret carrying out the commission’s legal responsibilities as intimidation or exerting undue influence on judges, the statement added.

Responding to the statement yesterday, MDP MP and Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor tweeted,

JSC statement is a display of ethnocentric arrogance (vathany kiburuverikan)of petty island mentality. haveeru.com.mv/dhivehi/news/1… via @haveeru
— Hamid Abdul Ghafoor (@haaghee) May 26, 2013

UN Special Rapporteur report

In her report to the United Nations Human Rights Council following a visit to the Maldives in February 2013, UN Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul expressed concern with “the significant backlog of complaints with the Judicial Service Commission that are not dealt with or at least are perceived as not being dealt with. Some judges that have several complaints and cases for misconduct against them are still sitting.”

Moreover, Knaul wrote that according to several judges, “disciplinary procedures before the Commission lead to public humiliation and damages to their reputation.”

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Letter: JSC claims to have been endorsed by US Ambassador

Dear Madam Ambassador Michele J Sison,

I write to you as a member of the Maldives Judicial Service Commission 2009 to 2011, and as an advocate for rule of law and constitutional democratic government in the Maldives, to express my concern following the recent remarks attributed by the Maldives’ Judicial Service Commission to yourself, Madam Ambassador, in a statement published on the said Commission’s website on May 8, 2013.

The original statement in Dhivehi is to be found on http://jsc.gov.mv/2013/05/1561.

The Dhivehi statement claims that “Ambassador Michele J Sison approves of the functioning of the Maldives’ Judicial Service Commission”, and agrees the actions of the Commission are up to the “best possible standards”.

The statement further suggests that, thus, the Commission is cleared of all the long standing, very serious allegations against it.

The statement appears to be another attempt by the Maldives Judicial Service Commission to cover up its breaches, political activism, abuse of powers, and continued actions against Constitution and State through political activism, misconstruing dialogue, and misleading the public.

Hence, I would like to recall to your kind attention the very serious allegations against the Maldives’ Judicial Service Commission that remain pending without proper Inquiry by the State. These include:

Further, I would also like to bring to your attention the reports of some major independent fact finding missions and international bodies which consistently conclude that the Judicial Service Commission acted outside its mandate, failed to respect Constitution or the democratic principles therein, misconstrued law and legal concepts, is highly politicised and partial, and is not fulfilling its constitutional mandate of building trust in the judiciary by holding judges to account.

Report of the International Commission of Jurists (February, 2011)
Dialogue and Concluding Observations of the UN Human Rights Committee, Geneva (June, 2012)
Report of Professor Tom Ginsburg supported and funded by the United States Embassy and UNDP, and prepared for Raajje Foundation (December, 2012)
Observations by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers at the conclusion of visit to the Maldives (February, 2013)
Press Release and Report of the South Asians for Human Rights (SAHR) mission led by Justice Leila Seth (India) to the Maldives in August 2012 (April, 2013)

Having been a part of the Judicial Service Commission, and being very familiar with the modus operandi of the Commission and its current Chair, Supreme Court Justice Adam Mohamed Abdulla, it is plausible to me that the statement of the Judicial Service Commission is its own politics and does not necessarily reflect the United States’ endorsement of the Maldives’ Judicial Service Commissions’ constitutional breaches or the sitting bench permitted to continue without check or due process as required by section 285 of the Maldives’ Constitution (2008).

Further, the Judicial Service Commission’s role leading up to the February 7, 2012 transfer of power, and in its close personal engagement with prosecuting President Mohamed Nasheed has only confirmed to the Maldives’ public that the Commission is not deserving of public trust, and that the Judiciary is hijacked as I have consistently maintained.

It is also very telling that I have continued to strongly and continuously criticize the Judicial Service Commission and Courts without any legal action whatsoever against myself for “contempt of court” or “tainting the image of the Courts and judges” in a situation where others have been investigated and prosecuted for the said “crimes” for saying far less than I have and continue to do.

It stands to reason the Maldives cannot consolidate democracy with a flawed judiciary; or the questions that hang upon it, and haunt us in the Maldives today.

Yours sincerely,

Aishath Velezinee

Velezinee is a former member of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) and an outspoken whistleblower on judicial corruption. She was stabbed three times in the street in broad daylight in early 2011.

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Nasheed contests JSC’s claim that Supreme Court ‘ruling’ and ‘counsel’ carry equal legal weight

The High Court has granted former President Mohamed Nasheed additional time to respond to procedural matters raised by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) in the case submitted by his defense counsel, challenging the legitimacy of the three-member bench appointed by the JSC to his trial at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

The JSC, raising procedural issues, stated that the High Court does not have the jurisdiction to preside over the case submitted by the former president’s legal team.

Nasheed and his counsel stated several times during today’s hearing that the JSC’s procedural points were not completely clear.

The High Court judges panel gave Nasheed’s lawyers the opportunity to ask the JSC’s legal representation for clarifications, while posing additional questions regarding the same issue themselves.

They then stated that it was unclear why the JSC had asked for the counsel of the Supreme Court in deciding the composition of the bench, and the justification under which the JSC considered the Supreme Court’s counsel to be of the same legal weight as a ruling of the court.

In responding to the questions posed to them, the JSC revealed that the names of the magistrates they had sent to the Supreme Court for their counsel were not the names nominated by the Hulhumale Magistrate Court.

The High Court bench questioned JSC if there it is a procedure in place which allows the assignment of judges for specific cases.

The JSC responded that there were certain circumstances in which judges can be assigned for specific cases, adding that the commission had done so previously in certain cases.

The bench further asked the JSC several times as to whether they considered the Supreme Court’s ‘counsel’ a ‘ruling’. The JSC’s legal team confirmed that they did.

The JSC’s legal representation stated that the Hulhumale’ Court Bench had been established under the counsel of the Supreme Court, and that this held the weight of a Supreme Court ruling.

Nasheed’s legal team contested this, stating that ‘counsel’ and a ‘ruling’ of the Supreme Court cannot be considered to hold the same strength.

Upon receiving answers for some of the questions posed, Nasheed’s lawyers requested for more time to prepare a response, which the bench granted.

In concluding the hearing, the High Court judge’s bench stated that the next hearing of the case would be arranged in the near future, at which Nasheed’s legal team is expected to respond to the procedural matters raised by JSC.

The bench added that in an additional hearing which will be held closely following the next one, the High Court will reveal its ruling on the same matters.

JSC’s request to expedite case

In April, the JSC sent a letter to the High Court requesting that the case be expedited.

The letter was signed by JSC Vice Chair Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Didi, and it was later revealed that it had been sent without consultation with other members of the commission.

JSC member appointed from among the public, Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman, told media that he believed the letter was sent under orders of JSC Chair Adam Mohamed, adding that the Chair did not have the authority to make such decisions without consulting the commission members.

“I believe that whoever advised for this letter to be sent has done so with the intention of influencing Nasheed’s case to be concluded in a particular way,” he had said at the time.

Shuaib’s contention was later backed by Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid, who also sits on the commission.

However, JSC media official Hassan Zaheen stated that he did not believe that sending the letter would exert any undue influence or pressure, even though the JSC is currently looking into disciplinary matters concerning the Chief Judge of the High Court. He added that similar letters had been sent in the past at the discretion of the JSC Chair.

The case in question is one filed by the defense counsel of Nasheed, challenging the legitimacy of the panel of judges presiding over the case against him for the arbitrary detention during his administration of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Nasheed and his party contend the case is a politically motivated attempt to convict and prevent him from contesting in the upcoming September 7 presidential elections.

Lawyers representing the JSC has even previously requested the High Court dismiss the case, contending the court did not have the jurisdiction to preside on the matter.

Upon accepting the case, the HIgh Court issued a stay order on Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court to suspend all criminal trials concerning the arrest of the judge until a ruling on the legitimacy of the bench is issued.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

JSC Chair asked to expedite Hulhumale’ Bench case without counsel of members: Sheikh Rahman

The Judicial Services Commission (JSC)’s request that the High Court expedite a case concerning the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench overhearing the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed is an attempt to unduly influence the court, JSC member Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman has stated.

“As I see it, a letter like this can only be sent after seeking counsel of commission members in a formal meeting,” Sheikh Rahman said, referring to the request sent by the JSC to the High Court on Sunday.

“However, I only heard about this letter in the media. The next day, I raised the issue at the commission’s meeting, and that is when they finally showed it to me,” he said.

“The letter was signed by the Vice Chair of the JSC [Criminal Court Judge] Abdulla Didi. Abdulla Didi would not send such a letter of his accord. I believe that what has happened here is that he has sent this letter under the orders of JSC Chair [Supreme Court Judge] Adam Mohamed,” he said.

Sheikh Rahman added that the JSC’s Chair was only granted authority to autonomously answer letters concerning administrative matters.

“This letter, however, is certainly not to do with an administrative issue, nor is it a response to a letter. They have taken the initiative and sent a letter to a court concerning an ongoing case, speaking of the case outside of court proceedings. There are already lawyers appointed for this. Such decisions must be made in commission meetings,” he stated.

“I believe that whoever advised for this letter to be sent has done so with the intention of influencing Nasheed’s case to be concluded in a particular way,” Sheikh Rahman declared.

“The JSC, even prior to the sending of this letter, is looking into a number of complaints against the Chief Judge of the High Court and some concerning him or other judges of that same court. The fact is that the JSC has the mandate to appoint or remove the High Court Chief Judge, therefore it is very likely going to exert pressure and influence when this oversight committee sends such a letter,” Sheikh Rahman explained.

The case in question is one filed by the defense counsel of former President Mohamed Nasheed, challenging the legitimacy of the three member bench appointed by the JSC to the case against him for the arbitrary detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Nasheed and his party contend the case is a politically-motivated attempt to convict and prevent him contesting the presidential elections in September.

Lawyers representing the JSC previously requested the High Court dismiss the case, contending the court did not have the jurisdiction to preside on the matter.

Upon accepting the case, the High Court issued a stay order on Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court to suspend all criminal trials concerning the arrest of the judge, until a ruling on the legitimacy of the court’s bench is issued.

“Far more concerning cases”

Sheikh Rahman stated that there were other “far more concerning cases” pending in the country’s courts, which the JSC had not sought to expedite.

“There is a case concerning matters relating to the appointment of judges to the superior courts. The JSC has then appealed it at the Supreme Court. This case has been pending for over an year. Within this period, the JSC has sent only two letters regarding the matter,” Sheikh Rahman said.

“The appointment of judges to the superior courts is at a standstill until a verdict is reached on this case. This is a far more pressing matter.”

Not the first time such a letter is sent: JSC

JSC Media Official Hassan Zaheen initially declined from commenting on the issues raised by Sheikh Rahman.

“Shuaib is a member, right? Now when a member has said something, I do not know what to say with regard to that. As I have told media before, this is not the first time we have sent such a letter. I don’t know what has to be said.”

Approached for comments, JSC Vice Chair Abdulla Didi requested that Minivan News contact the JSC’s media official instead.

When informed that the media official had declined from commenting on the matter, Abdulla Didi stated that as media officer, Zaheen was mandated to respond to media.

“Just this week we decided in a commission meeting that Zaheen will answer all media queries regarding this matter, under the counsel of JSC Chair or myself. If he asks me for counsel, I will definitely not stop him from providing explanations. However, I am not the media person, so I do not want to comment on the matter to any media,” Didi said.

Under counsel from the Vice Chair, Zaheen later responded to Sheikh Rahman’s statements.

“I don’t know what Shuaib means by that. We [JSC] believe this is an administrative step taken in order to carry out our work in a more timely manner. The law says the chair, as the highest authority, can take administrative decisions,” he stated.

“It does not matter to us whether the case has to do with [former President Mohamed] Nasheed or whoever. As respondents, we have the right to make this request,” he continued.

“Remember the case of Abdulla Ghazi [Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed]? When there was a case concerning him in Civil Court, this commission sent a letter asking it to be expedited. Even that letter was sent as an administrative letter under the Chair’s orders, not after a decision made in a commission meeting,” Zaheen explained.

Regarding the allegation that the letter may have exerted undue influence, Zaheen replied, “I do not believe that any influence will be exerted. JSC will look into disciplinary measures of any judges, as it is our mandate. That does not mean that we can’t send a letter when a case concerning us in being tried in one of these courts. Who else will come to raise that point? If, as you all claim, there is a conflict of interest, then there are policies the JSC has shared with the judges on how they can abstain from such cases. I trust the judges will do so if need be.”

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

MDP withdraws no-confidence motions against ministers

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has withdrawn no-confidence motions in parliament against Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed and Defence Minister Colonel (Retired) Mohamed Nazim as well as a motion to remove MP Gasim Ibrahim from the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).

The parliament secretariat released a statement yesterday (April 14) confirming the move, explaining that MPs had the discretion under parliamentary rules to remove no-confidence motions before they are put to a vote.

Speaking to press before departing for Denmark last night, former President Mohamed Nasheed said the MDP parliamentary group made the decision in the interest of averting political turmoil and ensuring calm and order in parliament ahead of the presidential election on September 7.

The MDP presidential candidate added that the party would “always consider public interest”.

MP Ibrahim Mohamed Solih, parliamentary group leader of MDP, told local media that the decision was made to avoid strife caused by the dispute among MPs over secret voting.

Voting on the no-confidence motions tabled for the parliament sitting on April 8 was postponed after MDP MPs insisted on conducting voting through secret ballot.

With 29 MPs out of the 77 in parliament, the formerly ruling MDP needed the support of at least 10 MPs to pass the no-confidence motions.

At last week’s sitting, MDP MPs claimed that the government-aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) agreed to vote in favour of the motions before reversing the decision at the eleventh hour.

MPs of the government-aligned Jumhooree Party (JP) and DRP had voted in favour of secret ballot for no-confidence votes in December 2012.

However, on March 16, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional the amendment to parliamentary rules stipulating that no-confidence motions must be conducted through secret ballot.

In its judgment (Dhivehi) on the constitutionality of secret ballots for no-confidence votes, the Supreme Court majority opinion contended that the rule contravened article 85 of the constitution as well as parliamentary principles and norms of free and democratic societies.

The Supreme Court also ruled in March that parliament’s removal of Civil Service Commission (CSC) Chair Mohamed Fahmy Hassan was unconstitutional.

Both rulings were criticised at the time by opposition, government-aligned and independent MPs as an unconstitutional “challenge to the separation of powers.”

On March 19, parliament’s Independent Institutions Committee voted to seek a replacement for Fahmy at the CSC despite the Supreme Court judgment reversing his dismissal.

“The committee decided today that he [Fahmy] should go and we should continue looking for another person. Effectively we are ignoring the Supreme Court’s decision. The MDP will continue to raise this issue in parliament, it is a policy and it is legally non-negotiable. We cannot compromise on that,” MDP MP Hamid Abdul Gafoor told Minivan News at the time.

The committee’s decision has since been approved at the parliament floor, passing with 42 votes in favour during last Wednesday’s (April 10) sitting.

Supremacy

On the following day, the Supreme Court released a press statement declaring that judgments, orders and rulings of the apex court with their attendent legal ramifications must be accepted “without further debate or interpretation.”

The Supreme Court called on all persons and institutions subject to the Maldivian constitution to comply with and respect its decisions.

The statement referred to article 145(c) of the constitution, which states, “the Supreme Court shall be the final authority on the interpretation of the Constitution, the law, or any other matter dealt with by a court of law.”

The press release also noted that article 141(b) establishes the Supreme Court as “the highest authority for the administration of justice in the Maldives.”

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Parliament notifies Gasim of case to remove him from JSC

Parliament has sent a notice to Majlis-appointed member to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), Gasim Ibrahim, regarding a case to remove him from his post.

Deputy Speaker of Parliament Ahmed Nazim told local media on Friday (March 22) that a notice had been sent to Gasim, who is also the presidential candidate for Jumhoree Party (JP), as per parliament procedures.

Nazim stated that the case submitted by the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) to remove Gasim from the JSC would be put on parliament’s agenda only after speaking with leaders from various political parties.

The notice follows a meeting held last week by Parliament’s Independent Commissions Oversight Committee, in which the entire JSC board was summoned to attend.

Throughout March, the oversight committee has been speaking with members of JSC in regard to the manner in which judges were appointed to the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench. The court is currently hearing the trial of former president Mohamed Nasheed, who is Gasim’s presidential rival in the upcoming elections in September.

Oversight Committee member and MDP Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor told Minivan News that during the meeting held on Wednesday (March 20), Gasim had lacked integrity when faced with questions from the committee.

“The focus of my questions was on the integrity of the JSC members and of the independence of judges.

“When I asked Mr Gasim whether he had announced his [presidential] candidacy before or after he was nominated to his post within the JSC, he said ‘I am not sure’,” Hamid claimed.

Gasim’s presidential rival and leader of the MDP, former President Mohamed Nasheed, is currently facing charges at Hulhumale’ court over the controversial detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

The MDP has maintained that the charges against Nasheed are a politically motivated attempt to bar him from the election in September.

Despite the JSC Chair and Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed declaring that the commission refused to discuss matters regarding the Hulhumale’ Court, individual members of the JSC still attended the oversight meetings.

“It is like a domino effect – the chair of the JSC has lost his authority. We believe this is the first step of the JSC being shaken to its core,” Hamid said. “Even on Wednesday the chair was still resistant to being questioned.”

Statements from individual JSC members given to the oversight committee revealed there had been concern as to how the Hulhumale’ Court bench had been appointed.

Furthermore, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul raised concerns over the politicisation of the JSC last month.

“I have heard from numerous sources that the current composition of the JSC is inadequate and politicised.

Because of this politicisation, the commission has been subjected to all sorts of external influence and consequently has been unable to function properly,” Knaul stated last month.

JSC composition does not allow independence of judiciary to be maintained: Shakoor

On Wednesday (March 20), Attorney General and JSC member Aishath Azima Shakoor told local media that the current composition of the commission did not allow it to maintain independence of the judiciary.

“I believe that, even though JSC has been composed according to constitution, it does not allow [it] to maintain the independence of the judiciary.

“I do not believe that JSC’s configuration is based on the most effective model. But JSC is how the Constitution says it should be, so we have to function like that,” Azima was quoted as saying in local media.

In regard to Gasim, who voted in favour of establishing the Hulhumale’ Court bench, Azima told local media that if she had been in Gasim’s position when the vote for the court bench had been undertaken, she would not have participated in the vote.

“I believe that the Parliament Committee on Independent Institutions’ review or investigation of the manner in which Hulhumale’ Court bench of judges was established will affect the trail that is currently proceeding in that court,” Azima was quoted as saying in Sun Online.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

JSC again summoned to Parliament’s Oversight Committee

Parliament’s Independent Commissions Oversight Committee is to summon all members of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to attend the committee on Wednesday (March 20).

Members of the JSC are being summoned to face questions regarding the manner in which judges were appointed to the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench.

Earlier this month, the JSC had informed Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid that the commission would not be held answerable to the oversight committee.

Oversight committee member and Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Spokesperson, Hamid Abdul Ghafoor, said that the committee had received a total of 18 documents and recorded minutes from the JSC regarding the formation of the Hulhumale’ Court bench.

Citing the minutes from the meeting, Hamid said that a magistrate from Hulhumale’ court had originally proposed a bench of judges to the JSC on September 2, 2012.

Two days later on September 4, Hamid claimed that the JSC had met “in a panic” and had sent a letter to the magistrate telling him to “hold everything, we will tell you what to do”.

“The JSC went into this meeting and propose their own bench because they want their own people. Between 12.30 and 4.30pm on September 4 the JSC had decided on a new bench. The magistrates suggested bench was never even discussed,” Hamid told Minivan News.

The oversight committee member alleged that in “just four hours” the JSC had proposed a new bench, written to the Supreme Court and the Judicial Administrator and had received a response, “They got through six acts of documentation in just four hours”, he added.

In regard to the JSC minutes, Hamid stated that on September 10, 2012, a judge from “different judicial administration” sent a letter to the JSC under the heading ‘Is the Hulhumale’ Court Legitimate?’

“Once again the JSC went into panic mode and hold another meeting. According to the minutes, they start posing questions like ‘does he have the right to use the letterhead to write such things?’ while another member states the JSC needs to take disciplinary action against the man,” Hamid claimed.

Various members of the JSC have criticised the formation of Hulhumale’ court during the committee meetings held earlier this month.

Vice Chair of the JSC, Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Didi told the oversight committee that he did not believe the JSC could establish a court through a vote.

Ealier this month, when asked directly whether he believed the court to be a legitimate entity, Didi answered: “I am not saying it is a legitimate court. Then again, nor am I saying it is illegitimate. All I can say is I don’t believe it will be liquidated.”

“I can’t really recall the law too well but the JSC certainly cannot form a court,” he added.

Meanwhile, Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid, who is also a member of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), told the committee he believed the judicial watchdog had acted unconstitutionally in assigning magistrates to a particular case.

“In deciding upon the bench, the JSC did follow its rules of procedures. As in, it was voted upon in an official meeting and six of the seven members in attendance voted on the matter. The seventh member being the Chair, does not vote in matters,” Shahid explained to the committee.

“However, whether it is within the commission’s mandate to appoint a panel of judges in this manner is an issue which raised doubt in the minds of more than one of my fellow members.”

Parliament’s Independent Commissions Oversight Committee is summon the JSC to be present at Wednesday’s meeting scheduled for 2.30pm.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

“Difficult” to consider elections credible unless Nasheed is allowed to contest: European Union

The European Union (EU) has declared that it would be “difficult” to consider the Maldives’ upcoming presidential elections credible unless former President Mohamed Nasheed is allowed to contest.

Nasheed is currently being tried in the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court over his detention of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed.

His Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) maintain that the charges are a politically-motivated attempt to prevent Nasheed from contesting elections in September, and have condemned the former President’s repeated arrest on the court’s order by squads of masked special operations police.

A number of international institutions including the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Judiciary, Gabriela Knaul, and the UK’s Bar Human Rights Commission, have recently expressed concern about the politicisation of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court it created, and its appointment of the three member panel of judges overhearing the Nasheed trial.

The JSC’s members include several of Nasheed’s direct political opponents, including rival presidential candidate, resort tycoon and Jumhoree Party (JP) leader Gasim Ibrahim.

Last week, several members of the JSC also testified to parliament’s independent commissions oversight committee that the creation of the court and appointment of the judges were politically suspect.

JSC Member appointed by the public, Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman, last week revealed that the JSC had openly discussed their intent to eliminate Nasheed from the upcoming elections.

Chair of the Commission, Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed, had abused his post and powers as the chair to try and eliminate Nasheed from contesting the elections, said Shuaib, alleging that Adam Mohamed had “used the commission as a political tool”.

“The politics of the majority control the commission, hence the rule of law, due process and due diligence do not exist in the JSC,” Sheikh Rahman stated. “The commission has no amount of respect for constitutional principles.”

“It is common now to hear a lot of MDP and Nasheed bashing in commission meetings. This was not how things usually were before. I believe politically biased comments like this have increased since Gasim joined the JSC as a representative of the parliament,” Sheikh Rahman said.

In a statement on Thursday, the European Union said it “reiterates its view that the participation of the preferred candidates from all political formations in the Maldives is essential to ensuring the success of the forthcoming elections; it would be difficult to consider them credible and inclusive if Mr Nasheed and his party were to be prevented from standing or campaigning.”

“The EU takes note of the acceptance by the prosecution of a defence request to defer the trial until after the upcoming presidential elections in September and hopes that this would offer the means to ensure that ex-President Nasheed is able to participate in the electoral campaign, under the same conditions as other candidates,” stated EU High Representative Catherine Ashton.

In the statement, the EU also reminded Maldivian authorities of their “commitment to ensuring [Nasheed’s] personal safety and security.”

“The EU encourages all parties to exercise restraint, to act responsibly, and to work together to ensure that the outcome of these elections fully reflects the wishes of the Maldivian people, so safeguarding the Maldives’ democratic institutions and enabling its next government to confront the serious economic, social and environmental challenges which the country faces,” the statement concluded.

Following the EU’s comments, President’s Office Spokesperson Masood Imad tweeted on Saturday (March 16) that “it’s not proper for governments to discredit the independence and integrity of our judiciary. Doing so is undermining Democracy in Maldives.”

Masood added that the 2013 elections would be free, fair and exclusive, but would be “exclusive” of individuals who did not meet the legal criteria.

Nasheed’s trial is meanwhile due to resume on April 4 following a four week recess granted by the court. The hearing has been scheduled despite the state prosecution stating it had no objection to delaying the trial until after the September 7 elections.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)