Tag: Judge Sujau Usman

New high court judges raise concern as jailed ex-president alleges executive influence

The promotion of two criminal court judges who presided over the widely criticised sentencing of ex-president Mohamed Nasheed to 13 years in jail has raised concerns of corruption and executive influence over the judiciary.

Judges Abdulla Didi and Sujau Usman were appointed to the High Court on Monday, just ten days after the Supreme Court overturned a High Court ruling, which had noted several flaws in the new regulation on selecting judges to the appellate court.

The High Court took issue with the awarding of points on educational qualification and work experience, and with the final secret vote among Judicial Services Commission members to decide appointees.

Minivan News’ attempts to clarify the educational qualifications of Judges Didi and Usman, or the outcome of the evaluation of candidates were unsuccessful.

The High Court said it had not yet received information of the two judges, while Latheefa Gasim, the only JSC member who responded to calls, said the ten-member commission will have to make a decision on the issue.

Minivan News understands that Didi and Usman hold degrees in Islamic Shari’ah and law, a two-year accelerated degree course established at the College of Islamic Studies specifically for judges without higher education.

Usman, who had previously served as a magistrate judge in Gaaf Alif Villingili had been accused of corruption in 2010 for reportedly pocketing MVR 56,600 ($3670) for travel expenses he had not made. The criminal court in the same year dismissed charges.

President Nasheed’s lawyers in a statement yesterday said Didi and Usman’s transfer is a “blatant attempt to strengthen President Abdulla Yameen’s grip over the judiciary.”

Foreign governments and international bodies, including the UN, have noted the criminal court did not give Nasheed adequate time to prepare a defence, barred him from calling defence witnesses, and at times, denied him legal representation.

The pair’s transfer comes at a time when the government has insisted Nasheed must appeal his 13-year jail sentence at the High Court. But lawyers maintain the government has blocked them from filing an appeal.

Didi, Usman and Judge Abdul Bari Yoosuf also sentenced ex-defence minister Mohamed Nazim to 11 years in jail on weapons smuggling charges. The retired colonel has filed an appeal, the high court has said the pair will not oversee the appeal.

Hassan Fiyaz, a lawyer who contested the JSC regulation to appoint high court judges said: “I am concerned over the regulation as well as the selection of the judges. I believe there are qualified lawyers or judges in Maldives. But there are no chances for them here to work in judiciary.”

Other candidates who had filed for the two vacant positions are: civil court Judge Mariyam Nihayath, who holds a masters in law from a U.S. university; Aishath Rizna, the UNDP’s assistant representative who also holds a masters degree from a U.K university; Hussain Mazeed, who holds a degree from a Malaysian University; and Aishath Sujoon, a former civil court judge who holds a masters degree from an Australian university. Sujoon withdrew her name later.

A prominent lawyer, who wished to remain anonymous, also objected to the JSC drawing up new regulations for new appointments.

“This time they’ve favored people with experience more. They also drew up a new regulation, which for me, raises the possibility the JSC wanted specific people to elected,” they said.

The JSC’s new regulation awarded block 30 points to candidates with ten years of experience as a judge.

Some critics said the criteria does not differentiate between judges who have more experience. Others said the criteria does not do justice to the relatively young, but highly qualified people in the legal sector.

Another lawyer, who represents clients at the high court, said: “We need highly qualified people who can do complex research for cases. We can’t do research in Dhivehi. So a judge, especially a High Court judge should be fluent in at least English or Arabic. I believe Didi and Usman do not have that basic qualification.”

The High Court said the criteria appeared to grade candidates on the title of their degrees. For instance, a candidate who had a combined degree in Islamic Shariah and Law received 25 points, while candidates who had done a degree in law would receive 20 points, even though the latter may have studied the same number of modules in Islamic Shar’ah as the former.

The High Court also noted an individual who had done a degree in common law or Islamic Shariah, and held a masters, would receive 25 points, the same as an individual who had just done a degree in Islamic Shariah and common law.

Photo by Vnews. Published with permission.

Likes(1)Dislikes(0)

Two judges in ex-president’s terrorism trial appointed to high court

Two criminal court judges who sentenced ex-president Mohamed Nasheed to 13 years in jail in a widely criticised trial have been appointed to the High Court today.

Judges Abdulla Didi and Sujau Usman took the oath of office at a surprise ceremony at the Supreme Court this morning.

Two seats on the nine-member bench have been vacant since the high court’s chief judge was demoted to the juvenile court in August, and another judge retired in February this year.

The appointment of new judges was stalled when the high court in October last year said the evaluation criteria was flawed.

But the Supreme Court on May 28 overturned the ruling, paving the way for Didi and Usman’s appointment.

The third judge in Nasheed’s terrorism trial was Judge Abdul Bari Yoosuf. He was awarded a discounted flat in a newly built luxury apartment complex in Malé.

The former chief judge Ahmed Shareef was suspended in 2013, shortly after the high court suspended court proceedings against Nasheed on charges of arbitrarily detaining a judge during his tenure. The high court was reviewing the composition of the bench overseeing the trial.

The Prosecutor General’s Office in February withdrew the lesser charges of arbitrary detention and filed new terrorism charges against Nasheed at the criminal court.

Evaluation criteria

The high court, in an October 2014 ruling, ruled that the criteria on evaluating a candidate’s educational qualification and experience was flawed and ordered the Judicial Services Commission to amend the criteria.

The 100-point mark sheet awarded 35 points for education, 30 points for experience, 10 points for ethical conduct and 25 points for an interview.

All candidates were to be put to a secret vote in the order of the candidates who received the highest points. The first candidates who received a majority in the vote would be appointed.

In evaluating the educational qualifications, a candidate with a degree in Islamic Shariah or a degree in common law would receive 20 points. But a candidate with a combined degree in Islamic Shariah and common law would receive 25 points.

Candidates with a masters or a doctoral degree would receive an additional five points each.

The criteria appeared to grade candidates on the title of their degrees, the high court said. For example, an individual who had a degree in common law may have done the same number of modules on Islamic Shariah as a candidate who had a combined degree in Islamic Shariah and common law.

The high court noted an individual who had done a degree in common law or Islamic Shariah, and held a masters, would receive 25 points, the same as an individual who had just done a degree in Islamic Shariah and common law.

The evaluation criteria for qualification awarded 30 points for ten years of experience as a judge, meaning it did not differentiate between candidates who had served as a judge for ten years or 20 years.

The appellate court said judges must be awarded points proportionate to the number of years they had served as judges.

The high court also ruled that the JSC cannot hold a secret vote to select candidates arguing the procedure was not transparent.

The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the high court’s ruling

Flawed trial

Foreign governments and international bodies have expressed concern over Nasheed’s 19-day trial, noting he was not given adequate time to prepare defense, barred from calling defense witnesses, and at times, denied legal representation.

The UN special rapporteur on independence of judges and lawyers, Gabriela Knaul said: “The speed of the proceedings combined with the lack of fairness in the procedures lead me to believe the outcome of the trial may have been pre-determined.”

Amnesty International said Nasheed’s sentencing “after a deeply flawed and politically motivated trial is a travesty of justice.”

The three judges who oversaw Nasheed’s trial also sentenced ex-defence minister Mohamed Nazim to 11 years in jail in a weapons smuggling charge.

The retired colonel said the weapons were planted at his home by rogue police officers on the orders of Tourism Minister Ahmed Adeeb.

Adeeb has denied the allegations.

Despite growing calls for Nasheed and Nazim’s release, President Abdulla Yameen said he has no constitutional authority to release the pair.

Nazim’s appeal at the high court is scheduled to begin on June 21.

Nasheed was unable to file an appeal after the criminal court delayed releasing required case documents within the shortened ten-day appeal period.

The government insists Nasheed can still file an appeal, but his lawyers say the law is silent on late appeals.

They argue that the Supreme Court in January has removed the high court’s discretionary powers to accept late appeals in the ruling that had shortened the 90-day appeal period to ten days.

Photo by Raajje TV

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)