Tag: judicial service commission

JSC meetings with Fahmy in attendance “not valid,” concedes Attorney General

Attorney General Aishath Bisham told parliament’s Government Oversight Committee yesterday (June 4) that official meetings of a state institution would not be valid if a member with disputed legal status was in attendance.

In response to a question by MP Ali Waheed, the committee’s chair, Bisham insisted that Mohamed Fahmy Hassan would not have to be reinstated as chair of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) after the Supreme Court ruled that his removal by parliament was unconstitutional.

“My stand on this has not changed at all,” she said.

While Fahmy returned to work following the Supreme Court judgment, both Bisham and her predecessor Aishath Azima Shukoor had contended that he could not remain in the post.

Despite the previous Attorney General informing Fahmy of her legal opinion, the CSC later revealed that Fahmy resumed work after a letter from the President’s Office authorised him to do so.

Fahmy also began participating in meetings of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) as an ex-officio member in his capacity as CSC chair.

Bisham told the oversight committee last night that she had shared her concerns with the JSC but refused to answer further questions on the issue.

Fahmy was in attendance at a JSC meeting on May 29 where a petition by Bisham to indefinitely suspend High Court Chief Judge Ahmed Shareef was voted through with three votes in favour and one against. Fahmy reportedly abstained in the vote.

Local media meanwhile reported yesterday that the JSC nominated Fahmy to represent the commission on the 13-member Zakat Committee, which was set up to oversee the Zakat trust fund.

At last night’s committee meeting, MP Ali Waheed asked Bisham whether a meeting of any state institution or independent commission with the participation of a member whose legal status was disputed could be valid.

“It would not [be valid],” she replied.

Following her concession, the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP for Thohdhoo in Alif Alif atoll thanked the Attorney General and immediately adjourned the committee meeting.

Supreme Court ruling

Fahmy was dismissed from his CSC post in November 2012 in a no-confidence vote in parliament following an inquiry by the Independent Institutions Committee into allegations of sexual harassment against a CSC employee.

Both Fahmy and the victim were summoned to committee after the complaint was lodged in the first week of June.

Fahmy was alleged to have called the female staff member over to him, taken her hand and asked her to stand in front of him so that others in the office could not see, and caressed her stomach saying ”it won’t do for a beautiful single woman like you to get fat.”

MPs voted 38-32 to approve the committee’s recommendation to remove Fahmy from the post.

The Supreme Court however ruled 6-1 in March 2013 that Fahmy would receive two punishments for the same crime if he was convicted at court following his dismissal by parliament (double jeopardy).

The apex court contended that the Independent Institutions Committee violated due process and principles of criminal justice procedure in dealing with the accused.

Delivering the judgment, Supreme Court Justice Abdulla Saeed reportedly said that a person should be considered innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law and was entitled to protect his reputation and dignity.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Muthasim Adnan – the only Supreme Court justice with a background in common law – however noted that article 187(a) of the constitution authorised parliament to remove members of the CSC “on the ground of misconduct, incapacity or incompetence.”

Article 187(b) meanwhile states, “a finding to that effect by a committee of the People’s Majlis pursuant to article (a), and upon the approval of such finding by the People’s Majlis by a majority of those present and voting, calling for the member’s removal from office, such member shall be deemed removed from office.”

Justice Adnan argued that an inquiry by a parliamentary committee into alleged misconduct would not be a criminal investigation. Therefore, he added, the oversight committee would not be required to prove guilt to the extent required at trial before making a decision.

He further noted that parliament’s dismissal under the authority of article 187 and a possible conviction at a late date could not be considered meting out two punishments for the same offence.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC suspends Chief Judge hours after High Court postpones case against JSC

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has announced that the High Court has temporarily suspended the hearings of the case against Judicial Service Commission (JSC) filed by the party’s presidential candidate, former President Mohamed Nasheed.

Nasheed is challenging the legitimacy of the JSC’s appointment of the three-member judges panel to the Hulhumale Magistrate Court to hear Nasheed’s criminal trial.

The party’s remarks come just a day after High Court cancelled a hearing of the case in which local media reported that the court was to decide on counter-procedural issues taken by JSC. The JSC has contended that the High Court did not have the jurisdiction to look into a matter.

Member of Nasheed’s legal team, Hassan Latheef, told Minivan News on Wednesday that the hearing was cancelled after the judge who was presiding over the case opted to “take leave” for the day.

However, shortly after the cancellation, the JSC declared that the commission had indefinitely suspended the Chief Judge of High Court Ahmed Shareef – who also happened to be among the judges presiding over Nasheed’s case against the JSC.

JSC Chair and Supreme Court Justice Adam Mohamed Abdulla insisted at a press conference yesterday that the disciplinary action had no relation to the former president’s case.

In a press conference held today at the party headquarters, Vice Chairperson of MDP Ali Shiyam said the party saw the High Court’s decision to withhold the hearings until next July as an encouragement for Nasheed and the party to continue its nation-wide presidential campaigning.

Shiyam added that if no further disruptions came from the courts, it would mean an additional strength to the party in their bid to secure the presidential elections in the first round. Shiyam also described the move as an end to the obstructions leveled against Nasheed by the courts and the judiciary.

“President [Nasheed] will not have to halt the campaign and come to Male to appear before the court. That is a new strength, a new encouragement to our campaign,” Shiyam said.

Meanwhile, another member of Nasheed’s legal team, Hisaan Hussain, tweeted that despite the indefinite suspension of Judge Shareef, neither the JSC nor the acting chief judge appointed to fill the vacancy of Judge Shareef would be allowed to reshuffle the judges presiding over the case.

Speaking to Minivan News, MDP Spokesperson MP Imthiyaz Fahmy said the move to hold the hearings was also an assurance to the public and the international community that former President Nasheed would be able to take part in the elections, as was unlikely that Nasheed would be given a criminal sentence.

He added that the party were facing a lot of challenges compared to other political parties who are also campaigning for the election.

“Because of the ongoing case concerning President Nasheed, the party has had to spend equal time and resources on its legal battles while running a nation wide presidential campaign. The MDP is battling with everything including the judiciary, the Prosecutor General and all the injustices faced by ordinary people,” he said.

Fahmy further added that the previous scheduling of Nasheed’s cases and sudden cancellations resulted in severe financial losses to the party, as each campaign event is organised by the hard work of party members across the country.

However, Fahmy also echoed Shiyam’s statement that the suspension of the case marked the end of Nasheed’s legal battle, stating that the High Court’s decision would allow the party to focus its energy on campaigning rather than winning court battles.

The Hulhumle-based magistrate court is currently hearing the case against the former President over the controversial detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed by the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) during the last days of his presidency.

During the first trials of the hearing, Nasheed’s legal team contested the legitimacy of the magistrate court.

However, in a Civil Court case filed by lawyer Ismail Wisham, which was subsequently taken over by Supreme Court – and to which Nasheed’s legal team also intervened – endorsed the legitimacy of the much-debated Hulhumale Magistrate court.

As soon as the trials resumed, Nasheed’s legal team challenged the legitimacy of the appointment of the three-member judges panel to the magistrate court. The former president’s counsel is arguing that appointing judges to specific cases was not the JSC’s responsibility, but that of the chief judges of respective courts.

Minivan News contacted a High Court media official but was told the court had no comment on the case.

JSC suspends High Court Judge, appoints acting replacement

The JSC has meanwhile appointed Judge Abdul Rauoof Ibrahim as acting Chief Judge of High Court until the JSC concludes its inquiry into complaints filed against the suspended Chief Judge of High Court Ahmed Shareef.

Speaking to Minivan News, JSC Media Official Hassan Zaheen confirmed the appointment and said that Judge Abdul Rauoof would be in charge of running the High Court until the JSC concludes its inquiry.

The JSC on Wednesday issued Judge Shareef an ‘indefinite suspension’ following a complaint filed by the remaining judges of the court against him during last year.

The ruling came hours after the High Court suspended hearings against the former President.

A similar case was lodged last April in which eight judges of the High Court’s nine-member bench lodged a case with the JSC against Chief Judge Shareef, for suspending the Hulhumale Magistrate Court’s trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed without registering the case in court.

The suspension coincided with the cancellation of a hearing of a High Court’s case in which Nasheed challenged the legitimacy of the JSC’s appointment of the three member panel of judges to Hulhumale Magistrate Court.

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

According to local media reports, the decision was approved at a JSC meeting today with three votes in favour and one against. 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.

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) – of which Nasheed is the presidential candidate – described the actions by the JSC as attempts to influence the case filed by Nasheed against the JSC.

“We condemn the actions of the Maldivian courts, which violate the electoral rights of nearly 50,000 Maldivian Democratic Party members. The disruption to President Nasheed’s campaign trip to Raa atoll is an unnecessary, politically motivated challenge,” the party contended yesterday.

“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,” said MP Mariya Ahmed Didi.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC contests High Court jurisdiction to rule on legitimacy of Hulhumale’ court bench

The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) on Thursday (Apirl 11) asked the High Court to dismiss a case filed by former President Mohamed Nasheed contesting the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court’s bench controversially constituted by the commission.

At Thursday’s hearing, the JSC contended that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to rule on the case as the panel of judges presiding over Nasheed’s trial – on charges of illegally detaining Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012 – was appointed based on counsel from the Supreme Court.

“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,” Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Mariya Ahmed Didi, spokeswoman of the former president said after the hearing.

“Recently, when eight judges of the High Court bench filed a complaint at the JSC claiming that the High Court had not followed procedure in accepting President Nasheed’s appeal and granting stay to Hulhumale’ Magistrates’ Court proceedings, the JSC had rejected it on what we understood the grounds to be as the matter should be heard in court. We did ask for an adjournment to prepare our response to their procedural issue. The court said they would give us time to prepare for our response and adjourned the hearing.”

Raising the procedural issue at Thursday’s hearing, the JSC lawyer reportedly informed the High Court that the Supreme Court provided counsel on September 4, 2012 on appointing judges to the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench.

The JSC lawyer argued that decisions by the apex court could not be challenged at the High Court.

In response, Hisaan Hussain from the former president’s legal team noted that counsel provided by the Supreme Court in a letter did not carry the same legal weight as a court ruling.

Chief Judge Ahmed Shareef Ali then adjourned the hearing after granting time for Nasheed’s legal team to study and respond to the procedural issue. In addition to the chief judge, the three-judge High Court panel included Judge Abbas Shareef and Judge Abdul Raoof Ibrahim.

Hulhumale’ court bench

In a recent trial observation report, the UK’s Bar Human Rights Committee (BHRC) expressed “serious concern” over the appointment of judges by the JSC to the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench.

Accounts of the appointment process, “if accurate, suggest egregious unconstitutional behaviour by the JSC in selecting the judicial bench to hear Mr Nasheed’s case,” stated BHRC Executive Committee member Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh.

“It is difficult to see how proceedings presided over by a judicial bench, cherrypicked for their likelihood to convict by a highly politicised JSC, which includes a number of Mr Nasheed’s direct political rivals, could in any way be deemed to comply with constitutional and international fair trial rights, including the right to an ‘independent court established by law’,” stated Ghrálaigh, in her concluding remarks.

The MDP maintains that the charges against Nasheed  represent a politically-motivated attempt to bar its presidential candidate from upcoming presidential elections scheduled for September 7, 2013.

Legal wrangle

Nasheed’s trial at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was suspended after the High Court issued a stay order on April 1.

The trial had resumed in March after the Supreme Court declared the magistrate court legitimate in a controversial 4-3 ruling.

At the least hearing of the trial at the Hulhumale’ court, the state prosecutor said that the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) did not have any objections to granting a request by the former president’s legal team to defer the trial until after September’s presidential election.

The Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court however refused to delay the trial and scheduled its next hearing for April 4.

Nasheed’s legal team subsequently appealed the magistrate court’s decision not to grant a deferral while also filing a case challenging the legitimacy of the bench.

The second case followed testimony from members of the JSC at parliament’s Independent Institutions Oversight Committee suggesting that the commission exceeded its mandate in appointing judges to the magistrate court bench.

Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman, member of the general public on the JSC, testified that the commission arbitrarily appointed three magistrates from courts across the Maldives to Nasheed’s case after dismissing the three names first submitted by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

“Moosa Naseem (chief magistrate of the Hulhumale’ Court) initially submitted names of three magistrates, including himself. This means that he had taken responsibility for overseeing this case. Now once a judge assumes responsibility for a case, the JSC does not have the power to remove him from the case,” Sheikh Rahman explained. “However, the JSC did remove him from the case, and appointed three other magistrates of their choice.”

Rahman further stated that the judicial watchdog body was highly politicised, and openly attempting to eliminate former President Nasheed from contesting the presidential elections.

Meanwhile, Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid – also a member of the JSC – told the oversight committee that he believed the JSC acted unconstitutionally in assigning magistrates to oversee Nasheed’s trial.

“In deciding upon the bench, the JSC did follow its rules of procedures. That is, 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.

“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,” he added.

During a visit to the Maldives in February, United Nations Special Rapporteur (UNSR) on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul also criticised the appointment of judges to the magistrate court bench..

“Being totally technical, it seems to me that the set-up, the appointment of judges to the case, has been set up in an arbitrary manner outside the parameters laid out in the laws,” Knaul told press after delivering her statement.

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.

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 later attended the committee meetings.

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)

Statement accusing Mulay of interference was forged, says JSC

The High Commission of India in the Maldives has expressed disappointment with the Agence France-Presse (AFP) newswire after it published a story on what the high commission claimed was a “forged” media statement from the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).

The statement, with JSC header and dubbed an ‘official translation’, said the JSC “regrets the interference of the High Commissioner of India in Maldives in his personal capacity with the judicial process of the Maldives, by keeping former President Mohamed Nasheed within the diplomatic confines  of the High Commission thereby impeding the due process of the Law.

“We appreciate the official stand of the Indian Government to refrain from interfering with the internal affairs of Maldives and respect independence of the judiciary,” read the statement.

It was emailed from an anonymous gmail account, [email protected].

The High Commission of India issued a press release on Sunday (February 17) admonishing the AFP for circulating the report based on the false JSC statement.

“The High Commission expresses its disappointment that a respected news agency like AFP has chosen to give undue publicity to such a cheap gimmick against the High Commissioner in the current sensitive atmosphere, without even bothering to check the veracity of the said letter with the JSC or High Commission of India in Male’,” the statement read.

The high commission statement was accompanied with an email from the JSC Secretariat denying having issued the release.

JSC Secretary General Aboobakuru Mohamed said the letterhead was “forged” and the statement was “false”.

“Regarding the issue of sheltering by the Maldivian ex-president, Mr Mohamed Nasheed within the compound of the High Commision of India, Male’, Maldives, we, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) of Maldives, categorically deny issuing any statement on this regard,” the statement said.

The Indian High Commission called on AFP “to immediately retract its report and issue an apology prominently for the damage caused to the reputation and good will of the High Commissioner and the Indian Mission.”

Various new outlets have reported senior Maldivian government officials echoing the sentiment of the “forged” JSC statement: “The fact of the matter is that some individual Indian diplomats are interfering in our internal affairs. This must stop,” a senior government official told AFP, asking not to be named.

Maldives-India relations

Indian High Commissioner D M Mulay was meanwhile summoned to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Sunday (February 17) – the first time a high commissioner has been summoned by the ministry according to local media.

Mulay reportedly delivered a brief diplomatic note discussing the Indian government’s accommodation of Nasheed.

“We have not interfered with Maldivian politics and have no intention of even doing so. India also wants the Maldives’ judicial process to go on. We also want stability and peace in the Maldives. We want political reconciliation through peaceful dialogue,” Mulay told local media afterwards.

Following India’s initial warning that a failure to allow all political leaders to contest the elections would call into question the integrity of the electoral process and perpetuate instability, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ministry declared it was “unfortunate that the government of India has decided to comment on the types of candidates that could contest the upcoming Presidential Elections in the Maldives scheduled for September 2013.”

Local newspaper Haveeru quoted an unnamed government official as stating that the “political atmosphere in the Maldives would reach a boiling point” if India allowed it.

Meanwhile, President Waheed Hassan Manik  promised to promote democracy and maintain law and order in a statement issued Saturday (February 16).

He emphasised his “dismay” that Nasheed had sought refuge in the High Commission, instead of heeding his court summons, which expired on February 13.

“There is no reason for him to remain in the High Commission and to instigate street violence. The court order has nothing to do with my government. Upholding the rule of law means nobody is above the law,” Waheed said.

President’s Office Media Secretary Masood Imad implied that India was trying to fuel political turmoil in the Maldives.

“Mulay should take direct responsibility for the fresh unrest and violence in the capital,” he told local media.

Home Minister Mohamed Jameel Ahmed has also expressed his disappointment over the Indian government’s decision to provide refuge to Nasheed in the Indian High Commission.

Nasheed’s trial

Former President Mohamed Nasheed failed to attend the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court hearing on February 10, resulting in a court order for police to produce Nasheed for trial regarding his controversial detention of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

In response to rumours of Nasheed’s imminent arrest, he entered the Indian High Commission on February 13 seeking India’s assistance.

His Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) maintain that the charges – based on his detaining Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed during his final days in office – are a politically-motivated attempt to prevent him contesting the 2013 elections.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Judicial Council decided Hulhumale’ court could not hear criminal cases, reveals Nasheed’s legal team

Members of the Judicial Council raised doubts over the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court at a meeting in late 2010 and decided that criminal cases were out of its jurisdiction, former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team have revealed.

In a press statement, Nasheed’s legal team said that minutes from a meeting of the Judicial Council were among documents submitted by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to the High Court.

The JSC entered as a third party into an appeal lodged by Nasheed at the High Court challenging a ruling by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, which had summarily dismissed procedural points raised by the former President’s lawyers.

The procedural issues included the legal status of the magistrate court.

However, before the High Court was due to issue a ruling on Nasheed’s appeal, the Supreme Court instructed the High Court to suspend proceedings as the apex court had been asked to determine the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

The Judicial Council minutes meanwhile revealed that Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz, former Chief Judge of the High Court Abdul Gani, former Chief Judge of the Juvenile Court Shuaib Hussain Zakariyya, Magistrate Mohamed Niyaz from the north judicial district and Magistrate Ali Shareef from the south judicial district “all raised questions over the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ court.”

The Judicial Council was abolished after the Supreme Court unilaterally struck down articles in the Judicature Act concerning the council.

“Presenting the case [to the council], the Chief Justice said that following the enactment of the law on courts, members of the judiciary as well as lawyers were saying that the court in Hulhumale’ could not function under the law and that the Hulhumale’ court had been stopped following the passage of the [Judicature Act in 2010],” the press release explained.

The Judicature Act states that magistrate courts should be set up in inhabited islands aside from Male’ without a division of the trial courts (Criminal Court, Civil Court, Family Court and Juvenile Court).

According to appendix two of the constitution, Hulhumale’ is a district or ward of Male’ and not a separate inhabited island. The former magistrate court at Hulhumale’ – controversially set up by the JSC before the enactment of the Judicature Act in October 2010 – should therefore have been dissolved when the Judicature Act was ratified.

Moreover, the minutes revealed that the Judicial Council had decided that criminal cases were out of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court’s jurisdiction.

The Chief Justice had said at the Judicial Council meeting that the magistrate court had been dealing with civil cases and family disputes.

The press statement noted that it was the opinion on record of all judges at the council meeting that the Hulhumale’ court could not function as a separate court following the enactment of the Judicature Act.

Supreme Court intervention

Nasheed’s legal team also expressed concern with the Supreme Court ordering the High Court to suspend hearings on the appeal.

If the Supreme Court decides to take over the procedural point raised at the High Court, “President Nasheed would lose one stage of appeal,” the legal team said.

Following the High Court granting an injunction or stay suspending the former President’s trial at the Hulhumale’ court, the magistrate court announced that it has suspended all ongoing cases.

However, the Supreme Court last week instructed the magistrate court to resume the cases and took over a case filed at the Civil Court a year ago by a lawyer, Ismail Visham, contesting the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Speaking to press yesterday after a ceremony to open new offices for the Drug Court, Chief Justice Faiz criticized the JSC as “inept” and contended that “challenges faced by the judiciary would have been resolved” if the judicial watchdog body “properly” carried out its responsibilities.

Faiz also said that the case concerning the legitimacy of the Hulhumale Magistrate Court presently before the Supreme Court had not been addressed before because the JSC had not filed the case.

“When a case was filed in Civil Court contesting the legitimacy of Hulhumale Magistrate Court, the JSC sent a letter to [the Supreme Court] arguing that the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction to look into the case. We then asked the JSC to file a case as per the procedure and they only filed the case just a few days ago,” he explained.

The Chief Justice added that the Supreme Court would be considering the case as a “high priority”.

The JSC filed the case while Nasheed’s appeal was ongoing at the High Court.

Meanwhile, MP Mariya Ahmed Didi, former President Nasheed’s spokesperson, said that the Supreme Court deciding on the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court without allowing the High Court to rule on Nasheed’s appeal would “give weight to what many are saying about the politicization of the Supreme Court.”

The former Special Majlis MP urged the highest court of appeal to allow the High Court to issue a ruling as those unhappy with the judgment could appeal at the Supreme Court.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court suspends all cases

The Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court has announced that it has suspended all ongoing cases following an injunction issued by the High Court on Sunday halting the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed.

The High Court granted the temporary injunction or stay of the former President’s trial pending a ruling on procedural points raised by Nasheed’s legal team, which included the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

In its announcement on Monday, the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court said it has suspended proceedings on cases involving marriage, divorce, guardianship, family matters, property lawsuits, civil cases, criminal cases involving extension of detention periods as well as other matters that could be affected by the questions raised over its legal status.

Meanwhile, at Sunday’s hearing of Nasheed’s appeal at the High Court, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) revealed that it had filed a case at the Supreme Court to determine the legitimacy of the court.

Writing in his personal blog last month, Independent MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed explained that a magistrate court could not legally be established at Hulhumale’.

The Judicature Act states that magistrate courts should be set up in inhabited islands aside from Male’ without a division of the trial courts (Criminal Court, Civil Court, Family Court and Juvenile Court).

According to appendix two of the constitution, Hulhumale’ is a district or ward of Male’ and not a separate inhabited island. The former magistrate court at Hulhumale’ – controversially set up by the JSC before the enactment of the Judicature Act in October 2010 – should therefore have been dissolved when the Judicature Act was ratified.

Meanwhile, local media reported yesterday (November 5) that the Supreme Court ordered the Civil Court to send over all files and documents on a case submitted by a lawyer, Ismail Visham, over a year ago challenging the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

The Supreme Court had issued a writ of mandamus ordering the lower court to suspend its hearings and had taken over the case. The apex court had however not conducted any hearings on the case.

A court official told local media that a hearing on the case of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court’s legal status has not been scheduled.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP MPs call on JSC to suspend CSC Chair Fahmy

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MPs have called on the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to suspend Civil Service Commission (CSC) Chair Mohamed Fahmy Hassan from the judicial watchdog body as a sexual harassment case against the JSC member had been forwarded for prosecution.

In a joint statement on Wednesday, MDP MPs ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik, Hamid Abdul Gafoor, Ibrahim Rasheed, Mohamed Rasheed and Mohamed Thoriq criticised the JSC’s public statements insisting that parliament could not summon judges to committee.

The MPs contended that the JSC continuing to hold meetings with Fahmy in attendance was against the spirit of the constitution, adding that Fahmy had a conflict of interest in sitting in the JSC while a criminal case against him was being prepared to be filed at court.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Hulhumale’ Court rejects case against former President Nasheed

Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court rejected a case forwarded by the Prosecutor General against former President Mohamed Nasheed and three Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) officers for their alleged role in detaining Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Hulhumale’ Court Magistrate Moosa Naseem told Minivan News that the case was sent back to the Prosecutor General’s Office after the court stated it did not have the jurisdiction to deal with such cases under the Judicature Act.

‘’We studied the case and we found that we do not have the jurisdiction to deal with the case according to article 66 of the Judicature Act,’’ Naseem said.

Naseem today told local media that the Hulhumale’-based court can only accept the case after the Chief Justice issues a decree in agreement with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and the Judicial Council as stated in the article 66[b] of the Judicature Act.

Article 66[b] of the Judicature Act states that “In accordance with Section (a) of this Article, if additions or omission to the jurisdictions stipulated in schedule 5 of this Act has to be carried out, the modification has to be done in agreement with the Judicial Service Commission and the Judicial Council and by a decree issued by the Chief Justice.’’

Deputy Prosecutor General Husaain Shameem said he was presently on leave and was not aware of the exact details of the matter when contacted by Minivan News. Prosecutor General Muiz was also not responding to calls by Minivan News at the time of press.

Earlier, Muiz has said that the case was sent to Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court because it related to the Chief Judge of the Criminal Court.  He contended therefore that the case cannot be filed at the same court overseen by the judge owing to a conflict of interest.

Former President Nasheed has said that he is “prepared” to justify the reasons for the arrest of Judge Abdulla, and said he was ready to appear in court and prove his actions were valid.

Nasheed also dismissed accusations of the High Court, the Supreme Court and the prosecutor general that he had ordered the military to arrest Judge Abdulla unlawfully.

“I did nothing unlawful during my tenure,” he challenged.

He also called on the population to be present at his trial and witness what happened in the court, alleging that the whole case was politically motivated and that his opponents were seeking to gain an unfair upper hand from the “political scandal”.

The Chief Judge was detained by the military, after he had opened the court outside normal hours to order the immediate release of former Justice Minister and current Home Minister and deputy leader of the Dhivehi Quamee Party (DQP), Dr Mohamed Jameel.

In late 2011, Judge Abdulla was himself under investigation by the JSC, the country’s judicial watchdog, for allegedly politically biased comments made to private broadcaster DhiTV. The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) was due to release a report into Judge Abdulla’s ethical misconduct, however the judge approached the Civil Court and successfully filed an injunction against his further investigation by the judicial watchdog.

Judge Abdulla’s arrest sparked three weeks of anti-government protests in January, leading the Nasheed administration to appeal for international assistance from the Commonwealth and UN to reform the judiciary.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)