“I just couldn’t let [Abdulla Mohamed] sit on the bench”, Nasheed tells Guardian

This is definitely not how Mohamed Nasheed imagined he would be promoting a new film about his campaign against climate change, writes Decca Aitkenhead for the UK’s Guardian newspaper.

The documentary follows the charismatic young leader of the Maldives, an island nation slowly sinking into the ocean, as he lobbies world leaders, addresses the UN, and makes international headlines by conducting the world’s first underwater cabinet meeting. But now that The Island President beginning to appear in cinemas, Nasheed is no longer the island’s president. Ousted from power in February, and now a quasi-fugitive in his own country, he arrives for our interview via Skype dishevelled and breathless, following another dramatic day.

“Well it’s been fairly challenging today,” he admits, lighting a cigarette and composing himself with a rueful grin. “First there was this scuffle inside parliament, but mostly there were a number of people who were demonstrating outside. The military charged at the crowd and therefore there were disturbances throughout the day. And after sunset the police and the military moved down to where we have been having our rallies and gatherings, and they ransacked and dismantled that place, and cordoned off almost a good half of Malé town.”

But after 30 years in office, in 2008 Gayoom yielded to pressure and held the country’s first democratic elections, which swept “the Mandela of the Maldives” to power. Quickly claimed by David Cameron as “my new best friend”, the young president became an international folk hero, and the face of a nation that, as he warned the UN, will be underwater “before the end of this century” unless the world acts now on climate change.

The Maldives’ transition to democracy was, however, ominously incomplete. According to Nasheed, elements still loyal to Gayoom were undermining reforms, and in response to repeated constitutional crises many opposition MPs and officials were arrested and detained during Nasheed’s administration. In January, frustrated by the judiciary’s attempts to thwart his reforms, Nasheed ordered the arrest of chief justice Abdulla Mohamed. Protesters loyal to the old regime took to the streets, supported by factions within the police, and on 7 February, after weeks of unrest, Nasheed was confronted by armed military officers. “There were guns all around me and they told me they wouldn’t hesitate to use them if I didn’t resign,” he told reporters that evening. It wasn’t a resignation, he says simply, but a coup d’état.

The picture since then has been, to say the least, highly confused. A warrant was issued for Nasheed’s arrest, and he has been threatened with life imprisonment, but for now he remains at liberty – just about – in his family home in the capital, orchestrating protests and demanding fresh elections. “Well basically the arrest warrant is there,” he explains, “but they haven’t moved on with it simply because there’s always so many people around me, so I suppose they don’t want to risk it yet. But they tried to do it today, and they will continue to try, tonight and tomorrow as well. I wouldn’t put anything beyond them.”

How did he feel about Amnesty International calling for the release of the chief justice? “I didn’t like arresting a judge, and as a long and dedicated Amnesty member I must say yes, Amnesty’s point was that I must try and find a procedure within the system to deal with this another way. And I was asking everyone, can you spot that procedure? But I just couldn’t let him sit on the bench. There is a huge lack of confidence in the judiciary, and I had to do something and the constitution calls upon me to do that. It’s not a nice thing to do. And it’s not a thing that I would want to do. And it’s not a thing that I liked doing. But it had to be done.”

Read more

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court upholds Civil Court injunction against investigation of Judge Abdulla by judicial watchdog

The High Court today upheld a Civil Court injunction against the Judicial Services Commission (JSC)’s investigation of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, Abdulla Mohamed.

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 accused him of political bias, obstructing police, stalling cases, 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.

Abdulla Mohamed obtained the Civil Court injunction against his investigation by the judicial watchdog in September 2011, after it produced a report stating that he had violated the Judge’s Code of Conduct by making a politically biased statement in an interview he gave to private broadcaster DhiTV.

The JSC appealed the injunction on January 24, claiming that the Civil Court had disregarded the commission’s constitutional mandate which allowed it to take action against judges, and argued that the court did not have the jurisdiction to overrule a decision of its own watchdog body.

The commission further argued the Judge Mohamed did not have the authority to seek the injunction preemptively as the commission had not yet taken action against him.

The JSC had therefore requested the High Court to terminate the injunction, citing contradictions to legal and court procedures.

However presiding High Court Judge Dr Azmiralda Zahir contended that the commission had not provided the court “any reason to terminate the injunction”.

Zahir further observed that the High Court would be violating the court procedures if it decided on the injunction before the Civil Court had reached its own verdict in the case.

She also added that that JSC could not establish a connection between the Civil Court’s injunction and jurisdiction of the court, and concluded it is not a reasonable argument to terminate the injunction.

Therefore, she ruled that the judges who evaluated the case had found no grounds to change the civil court’s injunction.

Former President’s member on the JSC and whistleblower Aishath Velezinee for several years contended that Abdulla Mohamed was a central, controlling “father figure” in the lower courts, answerable to former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and a key figure responsible for scuttling the independence of the judiciary under the new constitution.

“When Abdulla Mohamed [was arrested by Nasheed’s government] I believe the opposition feared they were losing control over the judiciary, and that is why they came out on the streets. If you look at the so called public protests, it was opposition leaders and gang members. We did not see the so-called public joining them – they were a public nuisance really,” Velezinee observed, in a recent interview with Minivan News.

“For nearly three weeks they were going around destroying public property and creating disturbances. It wasn’t a people thing – we can say that. We locals – we know who was there on the streets. There is footage and evidence available of it. We’ve seen the destruction they were causing in Male’ every day.”

Following the arrest of the judge, Nasheed’s government appealed to the international community – in particular the Commonwealth, the International Committee of Jurists (ICJ) and the UN – for assistance in resolving the spiralling judicial crisis. A Commonwealth team arrived in the Maldives the day before Nasheed’s government was overthrown after a group of police sided with opposition demonstrators, attacking the military headquarters and seizing control of the state broadcaster.

Velezinee bemoaned the local and international focus on the arrest of the judge rather than the decline of the institution that led Nasheed’s government to such desperate interference in the judiciary.

“To the international community [the protesters] were a crowd of people – and to them that’s the public. It’s a public protest to them. But it was not. We need to consider who was involved in the free Abdulla Mohamed campaign. These are the same people I have previously accused of covering up and being conspirators in the silent coup,” Velezinee told Minivan News in an interview in February.

The first complaints against Abdulla Mohamed were filed in July 2005 by then Attorney General Dr Hassan Saeed – now Dr Waheed’s political advisor – and included allegations of misogyny, sexual deviancy, and throwing out an assault case despite the confession of the accused.

Asked in February this year whether he was satisfied with the investigation into the judge’s conduct and the action taken since his complaints in 2005, Dr Saeed replied that “under that constitution [President Gayoom] was the head of the judiciary. So it was my legal and moral obligation to raised that issue with him, which I did.

“I did not know if it was followed up. Obviously if there are issues it has to be resolved in accordance with the established laws and institutions.”

During the same interview, President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan said it was “for the judiciary to decide what to do with him, not for me.”

“I don’t want to interfere in the judiciary. I want our constitution to be respected, and work with everybody to make our constitution work. This is a new constitution, and it is the first time we are trying it out. And so there are difficulties in it. We need to find ways of solving it. It is time for us to work together, and if there are problems with the judiciary we need to work together to solve them – they are intelligent good people in the judiciary and the Judicial Services Commission (JSC).”

The Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) last week summoned former President Mohamed Nasheed, former Home Minister Hassan Afeef, and former Defence Minister Tholath Ibrahim for questioning over their detention of the judge. It had promised to conclude the investigation by April.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Salafists taking root in Maldives amid toxic politics: Reuters

Few of the million or so tourists who visit the Maldives each year would catch even a whiff of the troubled politics or growing militant threat roiling the islands of one of the world’s most renowned get-away-from-it-all destinations, writes Bryson Hull for Reuters.

“Taking a page from the book of Gayoom, Nasheed ordered [Chief Judge Abdulla] Mohamed’s arrest and defied a Supreme Court release order, sparking more than three weeks of sometimes-violent protests by opposition parties that scented a chance for their own Arab Spring in the Indian Ocean.

The reason, Nasheed says, is because the judge, like the other 200-odd criminal court judges, was illegally sworn in for a life term and has blocked every attempt to bring multi-million-dollar corruption, rights abuse and criminal cases against Gayoom’s allies and relatives.

“Gayoom is running the judiciary,” Nasheed said. “When he lost the presidency, he was clever enough to carve out a territory and hide there, or get protected there. And none of the cases are moving.”

So to make good on his electoral promise to enact a new constitution and establish an independent judiciary, Nasheed says he has acted outside of it.

“You have to push everyone to the brink and tell them ‘You do this or we all fall’,” Nasheed told Reuters in an interview at the presidential bungalow in Male, the capital island.

“I think it would be so wrong of me not to tackle this simply because I might fall or simply because people may raise eyebrows.”

And it has done just that, drawing private diplomatic rebukes from Western nations which backed his ascendancy to lead the archipelago of 1,200 islands out of 30 years of Gayoom’s rule, which was widely criticised as dictatorial.

“It’s just indefensible. It’s almost like Nelson Mandela coming out and locking up all the white people,” a businessman based in Male who works with a government-linked company told Reuters, asking not to be identified.

But while the political fray goes on with all eyes on the 2013 presidential election, Maldivian intelligence officers and Western officials say hardline Salafist and Wahabist groups are gaining political ground in the more distant atolls and making a beachhead in Male.

The capital island is home to almost 200,000 of the Maldives’ 330,000 people, all Sunni Muslims. It is also home to the majority of the estimated 30,000 people on the islands who are addicted to heroin, according to UN estimates.

“It’s potentially a tropical Afghanistan. The same forces that gave rise to the Taliban are there – the drugs, the corruption and the behavior of the political class,” a Colombo-based Western ambassador who is responsible for the Maldives told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

“The Salafists are taking over atoll after atoll. They work on the ground and it is insidious. Nero is definitely fiddling while Rome burns.”‘

Read full story

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Maldives facing serious constitutional crisis: Eurasia Review

There is no doubt that the judiciary in the Maldives is in a mess with many unqualified and incompetent people having made it into the judiciary in the void created during the transition period, writes Dr S. Chandrasekharan for the Eurasia Review.

“The ICJ report of July 2010 pointed out the legacy of an authoritarian past in which the President was the supreme judicial architect that has tested the transition.

“Another factor which inhibited proper selection was that the Judicial Service Commission failed to fulfill the constitutional mandate of properly vetting and reappointing the judges. Even the composition of the commission was questionable. Imagine Gasim Ibrahim being a member – he is a politician and leader of one of the active political parties. He has extensive business interests and there will be an unavoidable clash of interests.

“In the year 2005, the then Attorney General and now a leader of the DQP has himself reported against the judge and the allegations included misogyny, sexual deviance, throwing out an assault case despite the confession of the accused. The Judicial Commission took its own time to enquire into the allegations and meanwhile the judge approached the civil court and stopped the enquiry!

“The judge would have got away with all this but what triggered the anger of the government was that he issued orders for immediate release of two persons from custody – Dr Jameel, the Vice President of DQP and Sandhaanu Didi for asserting in a private broadcasting station that the government was working with the Jews and Christian priests and encouraging vice. Didi went further and made personal attacks against President saying that the President was a madman and a Christian!

“Confronted by the police, the two were not able to substantiate the allegations and were therefore taken into custody under 125 of penal code which said that a ‘person can be punished for making a fabricated statement or repeats a statement whose basis cannot be provided.’

“The Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed ordered the immediate release of the accused and the Police with the help of the MNDF in turn arrested the judge of the criminal court.
Police Sources say that the Judge was arrested for unethical conduct in obstructing the Police in exercising their responsibilities to preserve law and order in the society.

“The High Court ordered the release of the judge stating that the arrest was illegal. The Chief Justice Ahmad Faiz and the Prosecutor General also issued orders for the immediate release of the judge.

“The JSC (Judicial Service Commission) also issued a press note that it is not in the jurisdiction of the armed forces or the Police to take action against the judge.

“The Vice President has in his blog has said that the arrest is against article 319 of the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Further it is against the international covenant of civil and political rights and international convention for the protection of all persons from enforced disappearance. He suggested that the judge should be released and then make the JSC fulfill its responsibilities.

“The Secretary General of SAARC and a former attorney General Fathimath Dhiyana Saeed, the youngest and the first female Secretary General, condemned the arrest in a television programme and said that it is a “violation of individual human rights, a violation of independence of the judiciary and a violation of the constitution.” She has put in her resignation papers after the broadcast.

“A team of lawyers filed a case against MNDF in the High Court over the illegal arrest of the judge. A case has also been filed in the International Court of Justice over the arrest.

“President Nasheed appears to be unrelenting and has justified the arrest. He has separately approached the UN for help in cleaning up the judiciary- immediate issues and the long term issues that includes the failure of the judicial accountability mechanism in the constitution.

“It looks that President Nasheed has over reached himself in firstly arresting and in refusing to release the judge when the overwhelming public opinion is against taking such a drastic action. He should have taken this strong stand last year during the transition when some of the judges appointed by the previous regime were found not having “high moral character, educational qualifications or competence.”
One of the charges against the judge now arrested was that in 2005 he was alleged to have requested the under age victim of molestation to re enact her abuse in court. The charge could not be enquired into by the judicial service commission as the judge got a stay order from the civil court.

“By this one act of arrest, President Nasheed is likely to antagonise all his admirers and sympathisers. Earlier it is undone, better it would be for all concerned.”

Full story

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament security committee meeting to resolve political instability breaks down as MPs argue

Opposition protests continued on the streets of Male’ on Saturday night, while parliament’s National Security Committee (NSC) meeting to resolve the political instability was dismissed abruptly after heated arguments broke out between opposition and ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) parliamentarians.

Opposition protests have continued every night since January 16, after the Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed was arrested by military forces and detained at a training facility in Kaafu Atoll Girifushi – an unprecedented move that has led to a judicial impasse, intensified by political polarisation.

Home Minister Hassan Afeef and Defence Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu were summoned to the first session of the meeting and questioned by the opposition MP’s about the arrest of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed on January by military forces, which has subsequently led to consecutive opposition protests calling for his immediate release.

In response, the Defence Minister interjected that the judge is not under arrest, and that he is being “supervised to ensure national security”.

He avoided MP’s repeated requests to explain the reasons for the judge’s arrest, claiming that reasons have been explained in a previous public statement which was aired on state TV channel three days after the arrest. Afeef at the time had accused the judge of “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist”, stating that the executive had been compelled to act to protect the constitution. The judicial watchdog – the body mandated to investigate and act on such allegations – had complied with a civil court injunction filed by the judge against his own investigation.

Several opposition MPs walked out of the meeting, complaining that the ministers did not answer their questions.

In his statement the Defence Minister revealed that police sent a letter to the armed forces on January 16 “requesting assistance to carry out its legal duty under article 71 of the Police Act, stating that the Criminal Court was not cooperating with police and that as a consequence of Judge Mohamed’s obstructing police work, the country’s internal security was threatened and police were unable to maintain public order and safety.”

Therefore, Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) exercised authority under chapter nine of the constitution and the Armed Forces Act of 2008 to take the judge into custody, he said, disputing that the judge’s detention was unconstitutional.

Tholhath added that MNDF would provide assistance to ensure public safety, and that the consecutive protests and unrest had jeopardised it.

Meanwhile, Afeef observed that those accused of causing the current unrest and destroying public property were swiftly being released by the judges, thus encouraging more unrest.

“Public safety is being lost because of judges’ actions,” Afeef concluded.

However, speaking at the NSC meeting’s second session, Judicial Service Commission (JSC) President and Supreme Court judge Adam Mohamed insisted that the current crisis had not been caused by the incompetence of the commission.

He claimed that the commission was executing its duties duly. The “earlier environment did not allow the commission to work,” Mohamed claimed – a comment directed at the former President’s member of the JSC, Aishath Velezinee, who had openly protesting against the unconstitutional appointment of unqualified judges, delays in investigating allegations against judges – including the chief judge – and politically biased decisions of the JSC. She was dismissed from the position in May 2011.

Velezinee  attended the committee meeting with a box full of papers on the judiciary, and maintained her stance that public has “lost confidence in the courts due to the JSC’s failure to take action against the chief judge”, and due to the reappointment of judges with life time tenure in violation of the constitution.

Velezinee has previously alleged that Abdulla Mohamed was at the heart of a “silent coup to hijack the judiciary”, with the complicity of opposition MPs seeking to prevent cases against them moving through court.

The NSC meeting heated up, after opposition MP Abdu Raheem objected to the summoning of JSC members to the national security committee.

Raheem claimed that the JSC must be summoned to parliament’s independent commissions committee, and the NSC’s meeting should be continued under the advice of Consul General.

Committee chair MDP MP Ali Waheed interjected that anyone can be summoned to the committee for questioning and adjourned the meeting after repeated attempts to maintain order failed as MPs continued arguing.

Meanwhile, out on the streets, the opposition continued to call for the release of Judge Mohamed and the resignation of President Mohamed Nasheed. The protests began near the Progressive Part of Maldives (PPM) camp, as pockets of MDP activists obstructed the rally, leading to mild confrontations which were controlled by the police.

The police comfirmed 16 were arrested last night.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Political impasse between government and opposition weakens human rights safeguards

The current stand off between the government and the opposition on how to secure the independence of the judiciary is hampering the much needed reform of the country’s criminal justice system.

Neither the government, nor the parliament or the judiciary can take pride in maintaining an outdated justice system that lacks a codified body of laws capable of providing justice equally to all.

Current laws are mainly remnants of acts of parliament passed at the time of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom when the country’s legal system was even less developed and more prone to political influence. Laws also include religious injunctions, regulations passed by ministries, some acts of parliament passed in recent years, and the 2008 Constitution. Even so, these laws cover penal areas only partially. Some are too vaguely formulated to prevent miscarriages of justice.

Most judges have no formal training in law but exercise considerable discretion – often based on their own interpretation of religious law – in deciding what constitutes an offence and the punishment for it.

In such a milieu, judicial decisions could be at risk of the judges’ personal or political preferences especially when these relate to complaints by the government or the opposition. One potential remedy for this problem would be to hold judicial personnel strictly accountable for any misconduct, but the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) appears unable to ensure this type of accountability.

So far, the government and the opposition-dominated parliament have failed to address these shortcomings. They have not even, as a first step, enacted a penal code that can reflect Maldives obligations under the international human rights treaties the country has ratified. A draft penal code intended to do this has remained dormant in parliament for at least four years.

While the government and the opposition blame each other for these failures, people whose rights are being violated are at risk of receiving unfair trials.

Respect for human rights has been further undermined by recent arbitrary arrest of Abdulla Mohamed, the Chief Judge of the Criminal Court.

He was arrested on 16 January. His arrest followed a civil court injunction on 27 November that blocked the JSC’s probe into Judge Abdullah’s alleged judicial misconduct. The Judicial Service Commission began this investigation in 2009 after receiving a complaint from the government. JSC found that judge Abdullah was guilty of violating the Judges’ Code of Conduct for making politically contentious statements on a local TV Channel. At this point, judge Abdullah successfully applied to the Civil Court for an injunction against further investigation or any actions against him. By granting that injunction, the Civil Court exposed the judiciary to further allegations from the government that Judge Abdullah can effectively remain in office with no accountability. The government then instructed the police to investigate the allegations against Judge Abdullah. Police went to arrest him but judge Abdullah refused to go with them, saying they had no warrant of arrest. The government then sent the army, still without a warrant of arrest, and he was taken into army custody on 16 January.

Regardless of the allegations against Judge Abdullah, his continued detention since 16 January remains arbitrary. The Maldives Human Rights Commission has confirmed that he is treated well and is allowed access to his family. Amnesty International is calling on the government to either bring formal criminal charges against him or release him.

Amnesty International has no position on the validity or otherwise of the allegations against judge Abdullah. It is for the judiciary to ensure that a mechanism exists to uphold accountability in any case of alleged judicial misconduct.

Sadly, all sides in the debate about the independence and impartiality of the judiciary tailor their arguments only to their own, narrow political ends. What they are missing is the opportunity to turn the Maldives into a hub of respect for human rights where the government, the parliament and the judiciary work alongside each other to strengthen the rule of law.

Abbas Faiz is South Asia Researcher with Amnesty International.

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)

Comment: Maldives goes from one crisis to another

Stone-walling and deflecting one issue with another have been tested methods of political strategy and administrative tactic in ‘matured’ democracies elsewhere. The young Maldivian democracy seems to have fast-tracked the processes and fine-tuned the methodology, and as a result these two aspects alone have remained three years after the nation heralded multi-party democracy and a directly-elected President in a hotly-contested campaign.

The latest in the series is the arrest of Chief Justice of the Criminal Court, Abdullah Mohammed, and the involvement of the Maldivian National Defence Force (MNDF) in executing the request of the police in this regard. Allegations have remained against the judge since the days of the predecessor Government of President Maumoon Gayoom, but his arrest, the involvement of the nation’s armed forces and the subsequent non-compliance of the orders of the civil court and the High Court in the matter, have all raised serious questions about the future of democracy in the country.

The last time, the Government of President Mohammed Nasheed employed the MNDF likewise was in mid-2010. At the time, the MNDF shut down the nation’s Supreme Court, under his orders, following a constitutional deadlock over the inability of the Executive and Oppositions-majority Parliament to pass required legislation on a variety of subjects, under the new Constitution, before the deadline had passed. Saner counsel (particularly low-profile Indian efforts) prevailed and the deadlock was resolved at the time.

Now, as then, ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) leaders, starting with President Nasheed, have called for ‘judicial reforms’. They have also reiterated the request from 2010, for the UN to help the nation introduce new canons of law and judicial practices. There is truth in the Government claims that most of the 170-odd judicial officers across the country were not qualified in law. As was known at the time of the 2010 crisis, only around 30 of all judicial officers in the country had a university degree in law.

As was again explained at the time, in a country where education stopped at A-Level (Cambridge, to be precise) for most, lawyers, and law and judicial officers with university degrees are hard to come by. Qualified lawyers in Maldives, as has been the wont in most other democracies and for historic reasons, either prefer private practice with a corporate clientele, or politics, or both. Yet, it is often argued, that the rest of the 170-plus were qualified in the Islamic Sharia. It is this that the present regime wanted to rewrite. Inherent to the effort is also the belief that most judges, having been appointed by the previous regime and without formal qualifications, tended to be loyal more to the erstwhile rulers than to the present Government and/or the Constitution.

Rallying cause for the Opposition

Independent of the merits involved in Judge Abdullah’s arrest, it has provided a rallying cause for the Opposition, after the hugely-successful December 23 protest to ‘protect Islam’. In between came the arrest of an Opposition leader, Dr Mohammed Jameel, Vice-President of the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) of Dr Hassan Saeed, one-time Presidential Advisor to incumbent Nasheed and Attorney-General to predecessor Gayoom. The arrest of the otherwise controversial judge, against whom the first charges were laid by Hassan Saeed as Attorney-General as far back as 2005, has seen that the ‘December 23 movement’, launched by non-political NGOs, now consolidating itself into a political front.

With Judge Abdulla’s arrest, the divided opposition that had joined the ‘protect Islam’ rally under the care of religion-based NGOs, have taken over the leadership of the movement, if the latter still claims to be apolitical with a single-point agenda. This may also lend credence to the Government’s argument that the ‘protect Islam’ movement, based on the installation of individual monuments by SAARC member-countries after the Addu Summit in November, was more political and less religious in form and content. In popular perception, that may not be saying a lot, as one after the other, the issues that the Government seems wanting to offer the Opposition, has only helped the latter to sink their differences even more and consolidate their unity, which prior to December 23 protest was not seen as being possible, particularly during the run-up to the 2013 presidential polls.

The controversy surrounding the SAARC monuments, starting with that of ‘Islamic Pakistan’, being idolatrous in nature, may have robbed much of the credit that the Maldivian Government and President Nasheed richly deserved. MDP leaders are not tired of claiming that it was all part of a larger political conspiracy, aimed at upsetting President Nasheed’s growing popularity during the long run-up to the 2013 polls. Conversely, the divided Opposition of the time was arguing that the Government was deliberately flagging religious issues that went beyond the SAARC monuments, if only to ensure that President Nasheed got a party and challenger of his choice in the polls which they were convinced would go into the second, run-off round.

The issues included clearance for liquor sale in a newly-built star-hotel in the national capital of Male, proposals for allowing liquor sale in uninhabited parts of otherwise inhabited islands, both going against existing laws, and the demolition of an Islamic school, again in Male. Neither the pro-Islam NGOs, nor the opposition could have divined the ‘SAARC monuments’ controversy, but when it presented itself, they were not the ones to lag behind. Today, the December 23 rally is being projected as the largest gathering of the type in the country – with most partnering outfits in the erstwhile ‘pro-democratic’ movement of the earlier years having switched sides, since.

Role of the Vice-President

A new dimension has been added to the current crisis with the Opposition leaders and other partners in the December 23 movement calling on Vice-President Mohammed Waheed Hassan. Though it has been a practice for Maldivian political class to hold their public rallies and have their consultations post-dinner time and possibly going beyond 2 am, the urgency with which they called on the Vice-President at 1 am did not go unnoticed. The country’s first PhD-holder (from Stanford University), Waheed has resisted the MDP’s persuasive efforts to merge his GaumeeIththihad Party (GIP, or National Unity Party) with the major electoral partner, for him to be considered for the running-mate of President Nasheed again in 2013. Quiet in temperament, this former UN/UNICEF executive did not take kindly to the MDP later wooing away his senior Cabinet colleagues to its side.

At the end of the meeting with the Vice-President, the interim leader of Gayoom’s newly-floated Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), the controversial Ummer Naseer, told the local media that they had decided to “pledge support to the Vice-President.” Quoting Naseer, local media reports said, “Dr Waheed assured the party leaders that he would “take any legal responsibility he had to within the bounds of the law and was “ready to take over the duties specified in the Constitution.” In an even more significant observation, Naseer was quoted thus: “After these discussions we are now calling upon the nation’s security forces, on behalf of our ‘December 23 Alliance’ of all the Opposition parties in the country as well as the NGO coalition, to immediately pledge their allegiance to the Vice-President.”The stand of the ‘December 23 alliance’ was that President Mohamed Nasheed has “lost his legal status”, the media quoted Naseer as saying further.

The President’s camp did not seem overly or overtly perturbed by the development. President Nasheed’s Press Secretary Mohamed Zuhair was quoted by the media that the Vice-President “has not said anything to cause a loss of confidence in him by the Government. “He was very careful in his statement, which was that he would undertake his duties as stipulated in the Constitution. Had the protesters gone to meet with (Fisheries Minister and MDP president) Dr Ibrahim Didi or (MDP parliamentary party leader) Reeko Moosa they would have said the same thing,” Zubair said.

The protesters claimed to represent 13 political parties and 21 NGOs, Zuhair said, “but all the rallies have seen the involvement of no more than 300-400 people. It is very disproportionate”. According to him, “The protests are slowing down and now they are trying to save face – pledging allegiance to the Vice-President is the same as pledging allegiance to the government. The VP is working in Cabinet today – there is no rift. This is a non-story,” Zubair maintained. The government was not concerned about Dr Waheed’s late night meeting with Opposition leaders, as letting the protesters into his house “was the polite thing to do,” Zuhair said. He also dismissed Opposition claims that there was anti-Government sentiment brewing in the security forces.

As in most democracies, the President – and by extension, the Vice-President, can be removed from office only through an impeachment motion in Parliament, with two-thirds of the members voting in favour. In a People’s Majlis with 77 members, the figure comes to 51. Neither the ruling party, nor the opposition (combine) has the number, and both have been falling back on the Independents to add up the numbers for obtaining a simple majority for their legislative initiatives, from time to time. Like the US pattern, the Maldivian scheme does not provide for fresh elections in case the presidency fell vacant mid-term. The Vice-President steps in, instead, to complete the unfinished term.

At the height of the ‘constitutional crisis’ triggered by the Government, entailing the en masse resignation of the entire Cabinet in mid-2010, Vice-President Waheed, would not comply with the MDP initiative, for him to quit, too. Owing to Vice-President Waheed’s considered stand, the Executive could not proceed with a politico-electoral showdown with the Opposition-majority Parliament, particularly over their criticism of the GMR contract for the modernisation of the Male International Airport, involving the Indian infrastructure major.

The Opposition, going by sections of the local media, has twisted President Nasheed’s alleged statement that he would not go in for fresh elections until he had ‘reformed’ the judiciary. The observation was contained in a leaked tape, which was broadcast by sections of the local media, and is purported to be contained in a conversation with the MNDF. The Opposition has interpreted this to argue that President Nasheed had no intention of holding elections, when due, by arguing that the promised judicial reforms were not yet over. It was also the reason for their mid-night meeting with Vice-President Waheed.

A surprising element in the current controversy is the unexpected criticism of the Government’s action by Dhiyana Sayeed, the Maldivian Secretary-General of SAARC since the Addu Summit in November. A nominee of the Nasheed leadership for the top job in the SAARC, which is as rotational as the SAARC Chair, the first woman Secretary-General of SAARC promptly put in her papers, as the SAARC Charter specifically prohibits the organisation from interfering in the internal affairs of member-countries. In between, she had also courted arrest for a brief while along with the ‘December 23 movement’ leaders, protesting Judge Abdullah’s arrest. Though not very well known nearer home or overseas, given in particular, her short stint at SAARC, the former Attorney-General has still stirred the net, nonetheless.

The writer is a Senior Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation.

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)

Parliament’s National Security Committee to summon Home Minister and Defence Minister

Yesterday the Parliament’s National Security Committee has decided to summon Home Minister Hassan Afeef and Defence Minister Thalhath Ibrahim and Home Minister Hassan Afeef to clarify some information following the protests in Male’ every night after the military detained Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed.

The issue was presented to the National Security Committee by Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP for Manadhoo Mohamed Thoriq.

Former Judicial Service Commission (JSC) members Aishath Velizinee and Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP) MP Dr Afrasheem Ali will also be summoned regarding the issue.

Yesterday a closed door meeting of the Parliament’s Security Services Committee was also held. No information about the meeting was provided by parliament except for the MPs that were present at the meeting.

Parliament said the meeting attendees were Jumhooree Party (JP) Leader and MP ‘Burma’ Gasim Ibrahim, MDP Chairperson and MP Moosa Manik, MDP MP Eva Abdulla, MDP MP Ahmed Sameer, MDP MP Ibrahim Mohamed Solih, MP for Guraidhoo Constituency MP Ibrahim Riza, Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) MP Riyaz Rasheed, MP for Kimbidhoo Constituency Moosa Zameer, DRP MP Ali Azim and MDP Vice President and MP Alhan Fahmy.

A meeting of Parliament’s Independent Commissions Committee regarding the detention of Judge Abdulla was also held yesterday, following which the MPs decided to summon members of the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) today.

The Committee also decided to summon the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and Prosecutor General (PG) to the committee.

Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed was arrested by the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) on the evening of Monday, January 16, in compliance with a police request after the judge had his police summons overturned in the High Court.

After his arrest, the High Court issued several warrants to produce Judge Abdulla to the court. The MNDF has not responded to the requests.

The judicial crisis remains at an impasse after the JSC reiterated that it was unable to continue investigating Judge Abdulla Mohamed because of a Civil Court injunction filed by the judge.  The government has sought international legal assistance to resolve the matter.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil Court injunction stops us taking action against Abdulla Mohamed: JSC

Judicial Service Commission (JSC) President Adam Mohamed has claimed the body is “impatient” to take action against the Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdullah Mohamed, and claimed that the only thing preventing the move is the Civil Court injunction filed by Abdulla Mohamed ordering the judicial watchdog not to take any action, until the court decided otherwise.

Adam Mohamed made the statements in response to questions asked at the Saturday’s meeting of parliament’s independent institutions committee where the JSC members, including opposition MP Gasim Ibrahim and Speaker of Parliament Abullah Shahid, were summoned to clarify the reason for delay in taking action against the judge.

In the committee meeting, broadcasted live, Mohamed restated that  it would be a “violation of law” to take any action against Chief Judge before the Civil Court injunction was overruled, stating that and the commission has to proceed within the legal bounds.

“If we take action against Judge Abdullah, we will be in violation of law. [Because] violating a ruling is violating the law. We are very cautious,” said Mohamed, the Supreme Court’s representative on the judicial watchdog.

“We are impatient to take action [against chief judge] within the legal bounds” he claimed, adding that the case had now been appealed in High court.

The civil court granted the injunction in November 2011 – on the judge’s request – during the 30 day period he was given to respond to the report completed by JSC in which was found guilty of violating the Judge’s Code of Conduct for making politically contentious statements on a local TV channel.

According to the JSC, a total of 11 complaints have been submitted against the judge.

While the JSC’s decision remains stalled due to the injunction, questions have been raised as to whether the civil court has the jurisdiction to rule against its own watchdog body.

Aishath Velezinee, former president’s member at the JSC, argues that “if the judicial watchdog can be overruled by a judge sitting in some court somewhere, then the JSC is dysfunctional. But that’s what has been happening,” she asserted.

While the injunction issued last November was appealed at the higher courts, JSC also cited that the commission does not consider that the civil court has authority to hear the case.

The JSC first appealed the case at Supreme Court, which instructed it to forward the matter to the high court.

The high court scheduled its first hearing on the case last Thursday, but was cancelled by the judge who decided the case cannot be heard in absence Judge Abdulla Mohamed, after the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) refused to produce him. He remains under MNDF custody on the training island of Girifushi.

The military arrested the judge on January 16 after he attempted to block his own police summons – subsequently all the courts , JSC, Prosecutor General Ahmed Muiz, and later Vice President Dr Mohamed Waheed called for his immediate release citing the arrest as unlawful.

President Mohamed Nasheed met with some of the JSC members at a meeting held at the president’s office on Sunday to discuss his concerns related to the judiciary, local media reported.

UN calls for judge’s release

Associated Press (AP) has meanwhile reported that the United Nations (UN) has called for the Maldives to release the judge from custody or charge him with a crime, as the  body considers a government request for help resolving a dispute with the country’s judiciary.

“While acknowledging the challenges Maldives faces in reforming and strengthening its judiciary, we believe that Judge Abdulla should either be treated with due process, meaning he should be properly charged moved from military detention, and brought before a court, or released,”  Ravina Shamdasani, a spokeswoman at the UN human rights office told AP on Saturday.

She also observed that the officials are still discussing how to respond to the request made by the Foreign Ministry last week, requesting international legal assistance.

The government has meanwhile listed 14 cases of obstruction of police duty by Judge Abdulla, including withholding warrants for up to four days, ordering police to conduct unlawful investigations and disregarding decisions by higher courts.

Afeef accused the judge of “deliberately” holding up cases involving opposition figures, and barring media from corruption trials.

Afeef said the judge also ordered the release of suspects detained for serious crimes “without a single hearing”, and maintained “suspicious ties” with family members of convicts sentenced for dangerous crimes.

The judge also released a murder suspect “in the name of holding ministers accountable”, who went on to kill another victim.

“We have been working to improve the judiciary since we came to power, but we have not succeeded,” said Foreign Minister Ahmed Naseem last week, calling for a delegation from the United Nations Human Rights Commission (OHCHR) to help resolve “an issue of national security.”

The first complaints were meanwhile filed against  Mohamed in July 2005 by the Attorney General at the time time Dr. Hassan Saeed, president of the minority opposition party, which is leading the call for judge’s release.

The allegations  included, misogyny, sexual deviancy, and throwing out an assault case despite the confession of the accused.

Meanwhile, group of lawyers have  sent a case to the International Criminal Court (ICC), appealing that the judge’s detention is an “enforced disappearance” under the ICC’s Rome Statute  – while opposition activists have  taken the fight to free the judge to the streets, as protests continue for a second week.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)