Tag: judge abdulla mohamed

PG withdraws charges against Nasheed

Charges against former President Mohamed Nasheed for the 2012 detention of Criminal Court Chief Justice Abdulla Mohamed have been withdrawn.

The Prosecutor General’s (PG) Office has withdrawn the case against both Nasheed and senior figures of his government – including the current defence minister Moosa Ali Jaleel, says media reports.

Speaking to Vnews during a protest outside the High Court hearing of former defense minister Mohamed Nazim this afternoon, Nasheed said that it was regrettable the case had dragged on so long.

Details of the decision will be revealed by the PG’s information officer, who was understood to be in the court at the time of publication. Nasheed’s legal team has said a statement will follow its own discussions with the PG.

Under the powers granted in the Prosecutor General’s Act and the Constitution, the PG has the authority to discontinue or withdraw for further review any case prior to judgement.

Nasheed and Jaleel stood accused of violating Article 81 of the Penal Code, for detaining a government employee who has not been found guilty of a crime.

Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party had suggested that the case was being expedited ahead of the introduction of the new Penal Code in April, with the potential three year sentence meaning that conviction would have ruled out a Nasheed presidential run in 2018.

The former president’s legal team had been in the process of challenging the assembly of the Hulhumalé Magistrates’ Court bench.

Abdulla Mohamed’s detention in January 2012 followed the failure of repeated attempts to investigate the judge’s conduct, with Nasheed citing grounds of national security.

The judge’s arrest by security forces led to an increase in tension on the streets of the capital, culminating in Nasheed’s resignation on February 7 after elements of the police and Maldives National Defence Force refused to obey his orders.

The Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CoNI) report – released in August 2012 – found that the arrest had been “unconstitutional” and “illegal”, while the PG filed charges the previous June.


Related to this story


Nasheed predicts he will soon be jailed

PG files charges against former President Nasheed over Judge Abdulla’s detention

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Courts overturns dismissal of Thinadhoo terrorism trial

The High Court has today reversed a Criminal Court decision to throw out the case against the 89 Thinadhoo arson suspects.

Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed had dismissed the charges, claiming the Prosecutor General’s (PG) Office was refusing to cooperate with the trial after state prosecutors’ failed to turn up to a trial scheduled for 10am on Saturday, November 22.

A lawyer representing some of the defendants confirmed that High Court had said Judge Abdulla had not given reasonable notice of the hearing to the PG’s Office.

PG Muhthaz Mushin had requested the High Court to rule the dismissal of the case through a letter as unlawful and to order that the terrorism trials continue.

The 89 defendants faced terrorism charges for allegedly setting fire to the island’s police station, court building, and several police vehicles during nationwide unrest on February 8, 2012 in the wake of former President Mohamed Nasheed’s controversial resignation the previous day.

State prosecutors had claimed that the Criminal Court had attempted to handover summons to court outside work hours on Thursday, November 20.

State prosecutor Shaudha Shameem has argued that the Criminal Court could only throw out charges in a courtroom in the presence of the plaintiff and defendant, and claimed Judge Abdulla had failed to follow due procedures in dismissing the case.

The defence lawyer who spoke with Minivan News noted that representatives of the lower court had not been present at today’s hearing. The Criminal Court will now go on recess from December 1 – 15.

Other lawyers representing the defence had previously defended Judge Abdulla’s decision, saying that it was within his powers to dismiss charges if the plaintiff fails to abide by the judge’s orders.

Abdulla’s decision had prompted unexpected praise from former President Mohamed Nasheed – accused of illegally detaining the controversial judge in the final days of his presidency.

“Abdulla Mohamed has decided the case is invalid. When the prosecutor general submits the same cases to his desk again saying he has the power and authority of the state, that is an affront to the rule of law and courts,” Nasheed told reporters last week.

Previously, the judge ordered 55 of the 89 defendants be held in detention pending the outcome of the trials, claiming the accused were intimidating witnesses.

Around 80 people from Addu City are also currently facing terrorism charges in relation to unrest in the southernmost atoll on February 8.


Related to this story

PG to appeal Criminal Court’s dismissal of terrorism cases

High Court concludes hearings into Criminal Court’s rejection of Thinadhoo terrorism cases

Nasheed calls on PG to respect Judge Abdulla’s decision on Thinadhoo arson suspects, says military detention “wrong”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed takes over ‘Sun’ Shiyam’s case

Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed has taken over the alcohol smuggling and possession trial of Maldives Development Alliance (MDA) leader MP Ahmed ‘Sun’ Shiyam.

Citing a letter sent from the criminal court secretariat to Judge Ahmed Sameer Abdul Aziz, who was previously overseeing proceedings, Haveeru has reported that the action was taken in response to a letter from the Supreme Court.

The decision has come amid media reports that Judge Aziz was to be replaced with Judge Shujau Usman after a request from government coalition leader Shiyam

According to the court spokesperson, the action was taken following complaints regarding the case, and was done under Article 55 (e) of the Judicature Act.

The article specifies that it is the responsibility of the senior judge in superior courts to “take action in relation to delays and other complaints related to cases submitted to the court”.

Shiyam request allegedly stated that Judge Aziz’s “hand gestures and facial expressions” indicated a personal grudge against him which could lead to an unfair trial.

According to reports, in addition to making the request for the removal of Judge Aziz from the Criminal Court and Supreme Court, Shiyam wrote a letter to Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz stating his belief that his complaints regarding the judge had further increased the risk of receiving an unfair trial.

In a letter addressed to the chief justice, which was acquired by the media, Shiyam was reported to have said he had received reports that the judge may be “considering a hastened and strict verdict” against him.

Denying reports that the case had already been handed over to a new judge, the court today said it still remains with Chief Judge Abdulla.

Shiyam was charged with smuggling and possession of alcohol in March 2012 after customs officers at Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) discovered a bottle of alcohol in his luggage.

The case remained in the investigation stage for a year after the Prosecutor General’s Office sent it back to the police in August 2012 citing a lack of necessary information.

Since the trial began in November 2013, the Criminal Court has cancelled four scheduled hearings after being unable to deliver the summons chit to Shiyam.

He appeared before the court for the first and the only hearing held in the case on March 13 this year after a court order was issued to bring him before the court under police custody. Shiyam denied the charges and requested more time to research the case.

The second hearing in the trial has been rescheduled three times, the most recent instance occurring earlier this week.

In late March, CNM reported that Judge Abdulla – prior to the official schedule date for the second hearing – had attempted to hold an unofficial hearing while judge Aziz was on leave.

If found guilty Shiyam could lose his seat in parliament as per Article 73(c)(2) of the constitution which states that members of the parliament will be disqualified upon receiving a criminal sentence of more than twelve months.

Meanwhile, a hearing in the trial of Shiyam’s brother, Ahmed Salim Mohamed, for disobedience to order have also been cancelled this week, on the same date Shiyam’s latest delay.

Haveeru reports that Chief Judge Abdulla has on several occasions asked presiding Judge Muhtaz Hussein to hand the case over to him, though the court informed Minivan News today that this has not yet happened.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Sun Shiyam’s alcohol possession trial delayed again

The second hearing in the alcohol possession and smuggling trial of Maldives Development Alliance (MDA) leader and MP Ahmed ‘Sun’ Shiyam has been cancelled for the third time in two months.

According to the Criminal Court, a scheduled hearing was cancelled today as the court was unable to deliver the summons chit.

Media reports that the presiding judge has been changed have today been denied by the court.

In March 2012, customs officers at Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) discovered a bottle of alcohol in the MP’s luggage. After a police investigation, the case was forwarded to the Prosecutor General’s (PG) Office in August 2012 before being returned to police due to incomplete information.

The relative speed at which cases related to opposition MPs have travelled through the justice system prompted the Maldivian Democratic Party to seek a no-confidence motion against then PG Ahmed Muizz.

Muizz’s subsequent resignation last November has indirectly led to the current crisis in the country’s courts.

Shiyam was eventually charged – more than a year later – although a hearing scheduled for November 7 2013 was cancelled after a summons chit was not delivered to Shiyam.

The Criminal Court subsequently ordered police to present the MP in court, after which he appeared for the first hearing on March 13, 2014.

With local media reporting that Shiyam was kept in the guest area of the court – unlike other suspects – Shiyam denied the charges and requested more time to research the case.

A scheduled hearing for April 10 was again cancelled due to Shiyam’s absence from the capital, with the rescheduled hearing also cancelled as the court was unable to deliver the chit.

An unannounced hearing was attempted on March 27 prior to these official hearings, while Judge Ahmed Sameer Abdul Aziz – who is presiding over the case – was on leave. Citing an anonymous source at the court, local media outlet CNM reported that Criminal Court Chief Justice Abdullah Mohamed was behind this attempt.

“[Criminal Court Chief] Justice Abdulla [Mohamed]was to finish the case. In this regard he sent summoning chits to witnesses while they have not even been presented [by the state], and tried to hold a hearing today at 10am,” CNM quoted the official as saying.

The attempt eventually failed after after a number of court officials were absent from work, CNM was told.

While the case was not on the hearing schedule published on their official website, the court’s spokesperson told CNM such arrangements were not unlawful.

Replacing the judge

Meanwhile local media has reported that the court has now replaced Judge Abdul Aziz with Judge Shujau Usman upon Shiyam’s request.

The Criminal Court has denied these reports, saying that today’s hearing had also been scheduled to be conducted by Judge Abdul Aziz.

The media has published contents of a letter attributed to Shiyam which requests the removal Judge Abdul Aziz from the case stating the he has a personal grudge against the Meedhoo MP.

The letter, dated 24 April 2014, and addressed to to Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz is said to states that, during the first hearing, Judge Abdul Aziz displayed hand gestures and facial expressions which suggested the possibility of acting impartially against Shiyam.

It stated that Judge Abdul Aziz was also displeased with the MDA leader following his complaints, and that Shiyam had received information the judge may be considering a hastened and strict verdict against him.

The letter described the case against Shiyam as “a devious plot by some powerful people” and a politically motivated lie invented by Shiyam’s enemies.

If found guilty, Shiyam could lose his seat in the parliament as per Article 73(c)(2) of the constitution which states that members will be disqualified upon receiving a criminal sentence of more than twelve months would.

Import and possession of alcohol without a special permit form the Ministry of Economic Development is is a criminal offence in the Maldives. The penalty for the crime under the Unlawful Imports Act is 1-3 years imprisonment, banishment or a fine between MVR1000 – 5000.

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)

MP Easa withdraws bill reducing penalty for refusal to provide urine

Opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ahmed Easa has withdrawn a bill reducing the penalty for refusal to provide urine from a one year jail term to 15 days in jail.

Easa proposed the amendment to the Drugs Act after the Criminal Court sought to prosecute MDP MPs Abdulla Jabir and Hamid Abdul Ghafoor for refusal to provide urine when they were arrested on Hondaidhoo Island in August 2012.

If convicted with a one-year jail term, the two MPs may lose their parliamentary seats.

At the time, the MDP accused the judiciary of “purging” MDP MPs from parliament in order to influence the party’s simple majority in parliament ahead of several no-confidence motions against ministers of former President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan.

Easa said he had withdrawn the bill due to criticism from his own party and because he believes the police will be more professional with the election of President Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom.

The Criminal Court’s Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed has sentenced Hamid to six months in jail for disobedience to order after he refused to obey court summons to attend a refusal to provide urine trial.

Hamid contends the court summons were issued in violation of the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act which prohibits the judiciary from scheduling hearings during Majlis work hours.

Hamid had sought refuse inside the People’s Majlis when the six month jail term was issued. The MDP then amended the parliament’s standing orders to allow an MP convicted of criminal acts to continue to attend Majlis sittings.

The Home Ministry transferred Hamid to house arrest in mid November and Hamid has now left the parliament after four weeks.

New Home Minister Umar Naseer has said enforcing Hamid’s jail sentence would be difficult as the Department of Penitentiary and Rehabilitation Department (DPRS) does not have the facilities to transport Hamid back and forth from Maafushi Island jail to Malé.

“We have to arrange a speed boat to bring him to every single session if he is kept in a jail outside Malé. We may have to bring him two or three times a day,” he told local newspaper Haveeru.

Furthermore, Naseer explained that incarcerating Hamid in the Malé City jail was not an option because the jail was at full capacity.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament Committee summons Chief Judge of the Criminal Court

Parliament’s Government Oversight Committee has decided to summon Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed to clarify details regarding the controversial transfer of power on February 7, 1012.

Speaking to the press today Committee Chair, Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ali Waheed, said the committee made the decision as a part of its probe into the CoNI report.

Ali Waheed said that the committee needed to ask Judge Abdulla Mohamed how the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) treated him during his detention.

The committee also summoned Chair of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) Adam Mohamed, who is also a Supreme Court Justice, as well as Home Minister Dr Ahmed Jameel and Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim.

In addition, the committee also summoned the Prosecutor General, and heads of the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) and Police Integrity Commission (PIC) to clarify information.

The committee has furthermore decided to write to the Home Ministry and Defence Ministry asking them to forward a list of names of officers who violated laws on Februry 7, 8, 9, 2012, and to send a list of officers who were promoted to higher ranks after the controversial transfer of power.

All the the decisions made by the committee today were part of its ongoing investigation into the controversial transfer of power and the CoNI report.

Meanwhile, the government has decided not to comply with any summons send by the parliament government oversight committee to cabinet ministers and government senior officials if it is regarding the investigation into the CoNI report.

The government has previously alleged that the committee’s probe into the CoNI report was against its mandate.

Attorney General (AG) Aishath Azima Shakoor previously issued a letter to the Majlis Speaker Abdulla Shahid stating that the investigation was a violation of Parliamentary rules of procedure, local media reported.

Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed was arrested by the MNDF on the evening of Monday, January 16, 2012, in compliance with a police request.

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

The judge was released on the afternoon of February 7. Following his resignation, the Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for the former president.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court to rule in appeal on Hulhumale’ court legitimacy

The High Court is expected to rule Monday (February 4) on a Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) appeal against the Supreme Court’s decision to back the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed, who is currently facing charges in the Hulhumale’ court over the detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed, today appealed against the legitimacy of the legal body alongside lawyers from the MDP.

Nasheed’s legal team have claimed that the Supreme Court ruling legitimising the Hulhumale’ court could be ignored by a lower legal body in the country, if oversights were made in the original verdict.

The High Court hearing follows attempts by the MDP to file a Civil Court case against serving Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed over allegations he had sought to influence the judiciary against the former president.

Dr Jameel was himself arrested under the Nasheed administration last year after the President’s Office requested an investigation into so-called “slanderous” allegations he made that the government was working under the influence of “Jews and Christian priests” to weaken Islam in the Maldives.

Minivan News was awaiting a response from Jameel at time of press.

“Per incuriam”

According to MDP spokesperson and MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor, Nasheed’s legal team today invoked the principal of “per incuriam”, whereby an order from a superior court could be ignored in cases where “oversights” where found in the legal body’s ruling.

“In this regard, there are many precedents where the High Court has ruled against the Supreme Court,” he claimed, without specifying examples.

Hamid contended that rather than arguing the appeal hearing on just a legal technicality, the principal of “per incuriam” was relevant to what he claimed were the questionable grounds by which the Hulhumale’-based court was founded.

“The existence of Hulhumale’ magistrate Court is illegal. Our lawyers have submitted proof such as letters by former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom showing this,” he claimed.

Nasheed came under international criticism last year after detaining Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed. The arrest followed his successful blocking of investigations into his alleged misconduct by the judicial watchdog and quashing of his own police summons.

The former government also accused the judge of political bias, obstructing police, stalling cases, having links with organised crime and “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist” to protect key figures of the former dictatorship from human rights and corruption cases.

Nasheed’s government faced ongoing protests following the detention that led to his controversial resignation on February 7, 2012.

The MDP has maintained that the charges against Nasheed, which would potentially see him facing possible imprisonment or being banned from running for office in elections scheduled for later this year, were politically motivated.

Nasheed, who also spoke at the trial, observed that the chief presiding judge at the hearing had formerly served under Home Minister Dr Jameel during his tenure at the now defunct Ministry of Justice, during the autocratic rule of former President Gayoom. The MDP alleged that the judge, having previously reported to directly to Dr Jameel during his time as justice minister, had a conflict of interest.

Appeal aim

Hamid claimed that should the appeal be upheld by the High Court, the invalidation of the Hulhumale’ Magistrates Court would also call into question the nature of the charges against former President Nasheed.

He claimed additionally that the state was “on the back foot” in the case, with the Prosecutor General’s (PG’s) Office not contesting the issue today during the hearing.

Hamid added that Attorney General Azima Shukoor and a representative for the court watchdog, the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), had also declined to turn up for the hearing.

He was critical however of the chief judge providing the MDP just 20 minutes with which to present the opposition’s case against the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ court.

The three presiding judges are expected to deliver a verdict on the appeal by tomorrow.

Action against home minister

Meanwhile, President of MDP’s Male’ City Branch Mohamed Rasheed Hussain ‘Bigey’ filed a case at the Civil Court Thursday (January 31) concerning Home Minister Dr Jameel’s comments regarding the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed.

The case, which has been accepted by the court, is currently in the process of registration.

“We are submitting this case to the Civil Court requesting that they order current Minister of Home Affairs Mohamed Jameel Ahmed to stop making remarks to local media that will stand in the way of judges presiding over cases fairly and in a manner free of influence,” Hussain said.

Aishath Leesha, the lawyer representing the MDP in the case, claimed that the home minister’s comments concerning an ongoing case were outlawed not only under the Judicature Act and Judges Act, but by previous Supreme Court rulings and the Maldives constitution.

“Hence, we are asking the court to declare that neither Jameel nor anyone else can make comments of this nature,” Leesha said.

Dr Jameel was reported in local media as stating that it was “crucial to conclude the case against Nasheed before the approaching presidential elections, in the interests of the nation and to maintain peace in it.”

He alleged that delays to the trial were due to “various reasons”, and would very likely have “adverse effects on the political and social fabric of the nation”.

“If things happen this way, people will start believing that it was due to the failure to address some issues in the Maldives’ judicial system, which need to be looked into. And in my opinion, the courts will have to take responsibility for this,” Jameel said in his interview with news website Haveeru.

Expressing concern that it would be an “extremely worrisome matter” if people started speculating that the reason for the delay in prosecuting Nasheed was that the country’s judiciary was not performing to par, Jameel said, “Every single day that goes by without the case being concluded contributes to creating doubt in the Maldivian people’s minds about the judiciary.”

http://minivannewsarchive.com/politics/mdp-accuses-home-minister-of-influencing-former-presidents-trial-52062
Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP accuses Home Minister of influencing former President’s trial

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) have accused Minister of Home Affairs Dr Mohamed Jameel of attempting to influence an ongoing court case against former President Mohamed Nasheed.

The party has previously alleged the charges against Nasheed – of illegally detaining Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed in the final days of his presidency – are a politically-motivated attempt to prevent him competing in the upcoming election.

Jameel was reported in local media as stating that it was “crucial to conclude the case against Nasheed before the approaching presidential elections, in the interests of the nation and to maintain peace in it.”

Jameel, who served as Justice Minister under the tenure of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, said that delaying the trial against Nasheed for “the abduction of a judge” risked “compromising national interest”.

He alleged the delay was due to “various reasons”, and would very likely have “adverse effects on the political and social fabric of the nation”.

“If things happen  this way, people will start believing that it was due to the failure to address some issues in the Maldives’ judicial system, which need to be looked into. And in my opinion, the courts will have to take responsibility for this,” Jameel said in his interview with news website Haveeru.

Expressing concern that it would be an “extremely worrisome matter” if people started speculating that the reason for the delay in prosecuting Nasheed was that the country’s judiciary was not performing to par, Jameel said, “Every single day that goes by without the case being concluded contributes to creating doubt in the Maldivian people’s minds about the judiciary.”

Jameel stated that the case has a direct relation to the interest of the upcoming elections since the arrest of Abdulla Mohamed was a criminal case which involved citizens’ rights, trust of the judiciary, as well as the the running of the state.

Stating that the conclusion of the case was imperative for the sake of maintaining peace in the country in the upcoming days, Jameel added that it was constitutionally mandated for all involved to find methods to expedite such cases.

Minister attempting to influence courts: MDP

Following Jameel’s remarks, former President Nasheed released a statement condemning “attempts by the sitting Minister of Home Affairs, Dr Mohamed Jameel, to exert undue influence on the courts over the trial against President Mohamed Nasheed.”

The statement further expressed concern that a representative of the government had made such remarks while it had failed to date to act upon the recommendations of international organisations, including the UN Human Rights Commission (UNHRC), the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG), to reform the judicial system.

“Just days after Commonwealth envoy Sir Don McKinnon left the Maldives, Dr Jameel calls on the judiciary to sentence the MDP’s presidential candidate,” said former Chairperson of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), MP Mariya Ahmed Didi.

“MDP members believe Sir Don’s silence on the issue of Nasheed’s prosecution emboldened the Home Minister to make his comments,” she said.

“Jameel’s call on the courts to sentence President Nasheed prior to the presidential elections adds to the impression that the charges are politically motivated. We urge the Home Minister to refrain from intimidating and exerting undue influence on the the judiciary,” she added.

Nasheed  has previously alleged that the objective of the trial was to obstruct him from contesting the upcoming presidential elections.

“The Prosecutor General’s only objective is to ensure that I cannot contest in the next presidential elections. To do so, he has identified an article which would provide just the required period of detention to cancel my candidacy,” Nasheed told an MDP rally in October 2012.

Nasheed is being tried under Article 81 of the Penal for the arrest of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Article 81 of the Penal Code states that it is a criminal offence for any employee of the state to use the constitutional powers to arrest vested on him to deliberately arrest a person who has not committed a crime. The article further details that the maximum penalty for this offence is either a jail sentence or banishment for a period of up to three years, or a fine of up to MVR 2000 (US$130).

Home Minister Mohamed Jameel Ahmed was not responding to calls at the time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)