Tag: judicial service commission

Civil Court orders JSC to submit all documents related to Judge Abdulla’s misconduct

Civil Court Judge Maryiam Nihayath has ordered the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) to submit all documents relating to the ethical misconduct of Chief Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed, in a case filed by the judge last year to halt his further investigation by the judicial watchdog.

At the hearing held today, Judge Nihayath ordered the judicial watchdog to submit by next Thursday all documents and relevant video recordings , local media reported.

Speaking at the court, Judge Abdulla’s lawyer Ibrahim Riza, who is also the MP for Guraidhoo constituency, said that it was not legally appropriate to consider that his client was guilty of misconduct just because the JSC had decided it.

Riza told the court that the JSC’s decision on his client’s misconduct was taken following a statement Judge Abdulla made in an interview with private broadcaster channel ‘DhiTV’. The persons who interviewed Judge Abdulla had told the JSC that they did not know if he had made the comments implying political bias, Riza said.

Judge Maryiam Nihayath said that after the documents were submitted, a further hearing would be held before the verdict was delivered, local media reported.

Abdulla Mohamed filed the suit against the JSC after it completed a report into misconduct allegations against the Chief Judge last year.

According to the report, which the JSC has not yet publicly released, Abdulla Mohamed violated the Judge’s Code of Conduct by making a politically biased statement in an interview with DhiTV.

Following the JSC’s decision to take action against Abdulla Mohamed, he filed a case against the JSC in the Civil Court requesting that it invalidate the JSC’s report, claiming that DhiTV took his statement out of context.

According to the JSC, a total of 11 complaints have been submitted to the commission against Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

In 2005, then Attorney General Dr Hassan Saeed – now advisor to President Mohamed Waheed – forwarded to the President’s Office concerns about the conduct of Abdulla Mohamed.

Among the allegations in Dr Saeed’s letter was one that Judge Abdulla had requested an underage victim of sexual abuse reenact her abuse for the court, in the presence of the perpetrator.

Following Judge Abdulla’s obtaining of a Civil Court injunction late last year blocking his further investigation by the judicial watchdog, the President’s Office accused him of “taking the entire judiciary in his fist”, alleging that he was a threat to national security and ordering  his detention by the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF).

Nasheed’s government 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, disregarding decisions by higher court, “deliberately” holding up cases involving opposition figures, barring media from corruption trials, maintaining “suspicious ties” with family members of convicts sentenced for dangerous crimes, ordering the release of suspects detained for serious crimes “without a single hearing”, actively undermining cases against drug trafficking suspects, “accepting bribes to release convicts”, “twisting and interpreting laws so they could not be enforced against certain politicians”, deciding that he alone could issue search warrants, arbitrarily suspending court officers, and releasing a murder suspect “in the name of holding ministers accountable”, who went on to kill another victim.

Opposition parties began a series of protests calling for the release of the judge, appealing to groups such as Amnesty International and the International Criminal Court, claiming the judge had been abducted and that Nasheed had violated international treaties.

The High Court and the Supreme Court ordered the release of Judge Abdulla, but the orders were dismissed by the MNDF.

On February 7 Nasheed was ousted from power after a group of police and military allied with opposition demonstrators, assaulting the main MNDF base and storming the state broadcaster while opposition politicians gathered in police headquarters. Nasheed subsequently resigned, later claiming that this was under duress, and the Criminal Court issued a warrant for his arrest.

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)

MDP votes to hold “massive gathering” to show support for judicial reform

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s National Council has decided to hold a massive gathering in Male’ calling for an independent judiciary and to show support for the actions taken by President Mohamed Nasheed in the detention of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, Abdulla Mohamed.

A resolution was passed to the National Council by a council member which was then supported by ‘Sarangu’ Adam Manik, former Mayor of Male’ City.

The resolution also calls MDP to “stand up” against the protests held by the opposition parties, which have occurred every night for the past two weeks near the Maldives Monetary Authority (MMA) building.

MDP Secretary General Ahmed Shah today told Minivan News that the resolution was passed yesterday but that the date had not yet been fixed.

He said opposition political parties were “creating unrest in the country to obstruct government projects that are being conducted.”

‘’Only a few are turning up to those protests now,’’ he claimed.

Opposition political parties have been protesting every night following the detention of Abdulla Mohamed by the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF), on the evening of January 16 in compliance with a police request. The judge had earlier sought a high court ruling to overturn his police summons.

The judge’s whereabouts were not revealed until January 18, and the MNDF has acknowledged receipt but not complied with Supreme Court orders to release the judge.

Meanwhile, a group of lawyers campaigning for the release of Abdulla Mohamed have requested the Supreme Court not hear any case related to Judge Abdulla before the court decided on the request made by the lawyers to issue a writ to free the judge.

Today the High Court issued a warrant for the third time to produce Judge Abdulla, in an appeal against the Civil Court injunction he sought to halt his investigation by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).

The MNDF has not responded to any of the warrants issued.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP Parliamentary Group call for Gasim’s removal from JSC

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MPs have called for the removal of opposition Jumhoory Party (JP) leader and MP ‘Burma’ Gasim Ibrahim from the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) – the commission mandated to appoint and investigate complaints against judges.

Gasim is a well-known business tycoon, media owner and leader of the opposition-aligned Jumhoree Party (JP). He was in 2010 accused by the government of treason and bribery after phone calls of his conversations with People’s Alliance MP and the former President’s half-brother Abdulla Yameen were leaked to the media.

Gasim replaced opposition Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP) MP Dr Afrashim Ali on the JSC, after Afrashim was dismissed by parliament 38-34 in favour amid claims of misconduct and corruption. Gasim was then narrowly appointed to the judicial watchdog after 38 members of of the 77 member parliament voted in his favour, to 36 against.

Former President’s Member on the JSC, Aishath Velezinee, observed at the time that Gasim “is a man of wealth, and every seat he has ever sat on has benefited him. We can expect the same from the JSC. I don’t think anyone is under any other impression. The people’s representatives have sold out to the devil, and this is a very sad day.”

DRP Deputy Leader Ibrahim Shareef also expressed reservations at the time, suggesting the Gasim’s extensive business interests could prove a potential conflict of interest when overseeing the Maldivian justice system: “That is a real possibility. I think the judiciary must be totally free from political influence. We have to see how this unfolds – this is a small country and it is hard to have complete impartiality.”

“What is required is sincerity. We need to build a judiciary that is competent, efficient and capable of delivering justice,” Shareef told Minivan News in June 2011.

Speaking at an MDP rally today, several MDP MPs and senior figures accused Gasim and Speaker of the Parliament Abdulla Shahid – both of whom are members of the JSC representing parliament – of not fulfilling their legal duties on the committee.

The MDP called on Gasim and Shahid to carry out the responsibilities at the JSC and conclude cases presented against Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed, to end the current political tensions in Male’. The JSC’s investigation of the judge stalled after the Civil Court issued an injunction to its own watchdog body, which the JSC obeyed.

The MDP Parliamentary Group expressed concern that the judicial watchdog was defunct while the situation of the country was deteriorating, accusing the JSC of taking no action against the judge which had allowed him “to destroy the entire judiciary.”

Speaking to Minivan News, Spokesperson for MDP Parliamentary Group’s Mohamed Shifaz said that they had not officially decided to remove Gasim.

”What we want most is a professional JSC. If removing unprofessional persons to professionalise the JSC is the only way then we will do it,” Shifaz said. ”It is possible that the MDP Parliamentary Group will make such a decision.”

He said that JSC members attending protests and trying to defend a particular judge was not very professional.

”I believe that JSC members protesting is an ethical issue,” he said, in reference to Gasim who has been a key opposition figure throughout last week’s rallies in Male’.

Speaking at the MDP rally last night, MDP Chairperson and MP ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik said that the citizens of the Maldives handed the administration to President Mohamed Nasheed to establish justice.

Gasim did not respond to calls and text messages at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court overturns Criminal Court suspension of MP Imthiyaz

The High Court yesterday ruled that the suspension of lawyer and MP Imthiyaz Fahmy for six months by Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed for alleged contempt of court in February 2010 was unlawful.

The ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP for Maafanu North had appealed the decision in May 2010.

The three-judge panel of the High Court found that the suspension violated principles of procedural fairness and due process for declaring persons in contempt of court.

The judges noted that while the suspension was reported in local media the following day, Imthiyaz was not officially informed of the sanction until March 9, 2010.

Existing regulations however required that contempt of court must be declared either immediately during proceedings or established in a separate trial after offering the opportunity for the contemnor to answer the charge of contempt.

Speaking to Minivan News today, Imthiyaz observed that Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed faced multiple allegations of misconduct and political bias.

“Whatever do you expect again from a judge whom in fact the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has decided to take action against for his ethical misconduct?” he asked.

“This judge has a history of such issues. And never have I heard of a judge other than this judge who was in contempt of court by calling his own court ‘a political campaign camp’. One fatal flaw in the judiciary is that judges like him still sit in court.”

In 2005, then Attorney General Dr Hassan Saeed forwarded to the President’s Office concerns about the conduct of Abdulla Mohamed after he allegedly requested that an underage victim of sexual abuse reenact her abuse for the court.

In 2009 following the election of the current government, those documents were sent to the JSC, which was requested to launch an investigation.

“A good judge would always work towards priding himself on his ability to make good quality decisions but Judge Abdulla Mohamed seems to pride himself on something else,” Imthiyaz contended.

“In fact, if anything goes well in his court, it happens quite by chance.  And this is inevitable since the independence of judges was not well served by the vetting process that took place in August 2010 by the JSC. There are in fact criminal convicts sitting in courts as judges. The amended constitution does not allow for kangaroo courts like this.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil Court orders JSC to halt misconduct case against Chief Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed

The Civil Court yesterday ordered Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to take no action against Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed, until the court reached a verdict in the case filed against him.

Abdulla Mohamed filed the suit against the JSC after it complete a report into misconduct allegations against the cheif judge. According to the report, which the JSC has not yet publicly released, Abdulla Mohamed violated the Judge’s Code of Conduct by making a politically biased statement in an interview he gave to private broadcaster DhiTV.

Following the JSC’s decision to take action against Abdulla Mohamed, he filed a case against the JSC in the Civil Court requesting that it invalidate JSC’s report, claiming that DhiTV took his statement out of context.

In the Civil Court’s order, Judge Maryam Nihayath said that if the JSC took any further action against Abdulla Mohamed while the case was in court, it might disrupt the case and Abdulla Mohamed would suffer irreparable damages.

Last week the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) completed its investigation into the alleged misconduct of Abdulla Mohamed.

The case against  was presented to the JSC in January 2010 by former President’s member of the JSC, Aishath Velezinee.

According to local media, during the first hearing of the suit filed by Abdulla was conducted yesterday Abdulla Mohamed’s lawyer MP Ibrahim Riza claimed that DhiTV editor Midhath Adam and journalist Hidhayathulla’s statement had been taken by the JSC as testimonials to prove Abdulla’s misconduct.

Riza claimed that both Midhath and Hidhayathullah had since told JSC that broadcasted Abdulla’s statement out of context.

He said that at the time the alleged incident occurred the Judges Act was not passed, and thus the JSC could not take any action against Abdulla Mohamed.

In 2005, then Attorney General Dr Hassan Saeed forwarded to the President’s Office concerns about the conduct of Abdulla Mohamed after he requested that an underage victim of sexual abuse reenact her abuse for the court.

In 2009 following the election of the current government, those documents were sent to the JSC.

Velezinee told Minivan News last week that this was the first time the JSC had ever completed an investigation into a judge’s misconduct.

“There are many allegations against Abdulla Mohamed, but one is enough,” she said.

“If the JSC decides, all investigation reports, documents and oral statements will be submitted to parliament, which can then decide to remove him with a simple two-thirds majority.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police question Ibra over “unclear” offence

Police summoned President’s Advisor Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail for questioning last night after the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) requested the former Male’ MP be investigated for calling on the public to “rise up and sort out the judges” at a Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) rally on September 2.

Speaking to press outside police headquarters, Ibra’s lawyer Ahmed Abdulla Afeef said “it was unclear” what offence or crime Ibra was suspected or accused of committing.

“Police said it was to clarify information after a letter was sent from the Judicial Service Commission,” he explained, adding that the alleged offence, or under which specific penal provision the investigation was to be conducted, was not clearly stated.

The letter from the JSC referred to an article on newspaper Haveeru reporting Ibra’s remarks at the September 2 MDP rally at Kaafu Thulusdhoo, Afeef said, stressing that neither police nor the JSC letter referred to any violation of laws.

“Judges are issuing verdicts any way they please. The effort we have to make against this is not inconsiderable. It was citizens who came out and ousted Maumoon from power. The matter of judges too can only be sorted out by citizens rising up,” Ibra, who was also the first elected president of MDP, was quoted as saying in newspaper Haveeru.

Ibra said last night he had “complete assurance” that criminal charges could not be pressed against him “because I have not committed a crime specified in the law.”

The former chair of the Special Majlis’ constitution drafting committee urged police to conduct a full investigation.

Ibra added that he was “very happy” that “today we have police who brings the law to bear on people in high posts of the government.”

“I won’t [exercise the right to] remain silent to evade the law, I won’t obstruct police investigations and court trials through various means to evade the law,” he asserted.

“Runaway judiciary”

The JSC is constitutionally mandated to investigate complaints of misconduct by judges, take disciplinary action and recommend dismissal of judges by parliament (through a two-thirds majority). Last year, 143 complaints were filed at the commission; by its own statistics none were tabled and only five were ever replied to.

Outspoken whistle-blower and then-President’s member on the JSC, Aishath Velezine, was meanwhile stabbed in the street in January this year.

In late 2010, Velezinee launched an emotive appeal against “a runaway judiciary” and the constitutionally-mandated reappointment of judges after vetting by the JSC, despite a quarter of sitting judges possessing criminal records and many having only finished seventh grade.

The majority of the current bench was appointed by former President Maumoom Abdul Gayoom, who was “the highest authority on administering justice” under the old constitution, with powers to appoint and dismiss judges as well as grant pardons and amnesties.

In an interview with Minivan News in September, Ibra argued that the JSC had been “compromised” and “the Supreme Court and key elements within the judiciary are still controlled by Gayoom – directly or indirectly.”

Ibra’s criticism of the judiciary at a ruling party rally in September prompted the JSC to conduct an “emergency meeting” where it decided to ask the “relevant authorities” to carry out an official investigation.

The Supreme Court meanwhile issued a press statement contending that Ibra’s remarks encouraged “the illegal curtailment of the tasks of the judiciary” and could lead to “the loss of peace and security of the Maldivian state and plunge the nation into unrest.”

Supreme Court Justice Adam Mohamed Abdulla is also the chair of the JSC, which has three judges from three tiers of the judiciary, one lawyer elected by licensed lawyers, one member of the public, the Speaker of parliament, an MP elected by parliament, a member of the President, the Attorney General and the chair of the Civil Service Commission (CSC).

Ibra meanwhile sued the Supreme Court last month for defamation in light of its statement. Shortly after the case registered, the apex court issued a writ of prohibition and took over the defamation case against itself from the Civil Court.

As a result, Ibra said at the time, “I now have to go before the Supreme Court and say to them ‘You have defamed me, now please decide in my favour.’”

He suggested that the Supreme Court’s reaction “establishes what I originally claimed. We as citizens – the public – have to do something. We can’t let seven idiots hijack the justice system of the entire country.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Lawyers contest legality of JSC appointment process

A group of lawyers filed a case at the Civil Court today contesting the legality of the Judicial Service Commission’s (JSC) evaluation criteria for selection of judges to superior courts, requesting a court order to halt the appointment process.

On August 29, the JSC announced that 17 shortlisted candidates have been invited for interviews on Saturday (September 10).

The group of lawyers, represented by Ali Hussein and Ismail Visham, contend that regulations drafted by the JSC containing the evaluation criteria conflicted with both the constitution and article 15 of the Judges Act. The lawyers requested that the regulations be abolished and the shortlist be cancelled.

In addition, the lawyers claimed that two shortlisted candidates had close ties – as a spouse and a business partner – with two members of the commission, suggesting a clear conflict of interest as neither had recused themselves from voting in the JSC panel.

Briefing press today, Ali Hussein argued that the evaluation criteria formulated by the JSC unfairly favoured graduates of the College of Islamic Education (Kulliya).

While article 15 of the Judges Act stipulate that candidates for superior courts must possess a first degree in “either Shariah or law,” Ali Hussein explained that under the regulations drafted by the JSC, a candidate with a masters degree and a graduate of Kulliya both receive 25 marks for educational qualification.

“We are saying this is not fair,” he said. “We especially note that the Faculty of Sharia and Law teaches shariah subjects to the same extent as Kulliya [Islamic College], but graduates of the faculty receive 20 marks while students from Kulliya receive 25 marks.”

Kulliya graduates also received higher marks than graduates of the Islamic University of Malaysia, he said.

As 25 marks are to be awarded for the interview, Hussein noted, candidates who were not shortlisted would not receive any marks: “They should also have the chance to receive those 25 marks,” he said.

Moreover, he continued, the JSC criteria also conflicted with the academic rankings of the Maldives Qualification Authority (MQA), formerly the accreditation board, which places Kulliya certificates below those of overseas institutions.

The lawyers noted that shortcomings of the judiciary and lack of public confidence were tied to the lack of qualified judges on the bench.

“One of the main points of concern is that the JSC is the independent statutory body with a legal mandate to develop and improve the judiciary,” said co-counsel Ismail Visham. “But their actions so far suggest that they are trying to service the existing judiciary instead of introducing foreign elements or trying to develop the judiciary.”

As judges are appointed for life, said Visham, “they should be screened better” to ensure necessary academic qualifications, integrity and competency.

The eight claimants against the JSC include Abdul Hameed Abdul Kareem, Hassan Fiyaz, Mohamed Fareed, Husnu Suood (former Attorney General), Anas Abdul Sattar, Mohamed Nizam, Mohamed Iyaz and Ahmed Abdulla Hameed.

In March this year, two senior judges accused the Supreme Court of violating due process and unfairly dismissing a case challenging the legitimacy of the JSC’s appointment of five judges to the High Court.

Criminal Court Judge Abdul Bari Yousuf – an applicant for the bench – filed a case at the Civil Court in January claiming procedural violations in the JSC vetting process.

The Supreme Court however transferred the case from the lower court a day later and conducted two hearings before dismissing it without issuing a verdict. The highest court of appeal had announced on January 21 that it was taking over the case as it involved “a matter of public interest”.

In a letter sent to President Mohamed Nasheed at the time, Chief Judge of the Family Court, Hassan Saaed, claimed that “the fact that the case was dismissed in violation of legal principles and procedures came as a shock to the judiciary.”

Saeed added that as a result of the incident, “the growing confidence that I and ordinary citizens had in the judiciary is lost,” urging the President to “stop this process continuing unlawfully.”

President Nasheed meanwhile appointed former MP Hussein Ibrahim as the President’s member on the JSC yesterday.

In August 2010, the JSC’s controversial reappointment of judges – the majority of whom were appointed by former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, who was the highest authority on justice under the old constitution – was characterised by the President’s former representative on the commission, Aishath Velezinee, as “nothing less than treason to rob the nation of an honest judiciary.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC invites applicants for superior court benches under revised criteria

The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has reopened applications for judges and magistrates to superior courts after revising its criteria on requisite experience.

The commission however noted that interested candidates who applied in response to the announcement on July 6 would not have to submit new applications.

The JSC is seeking two judges each for the Civil Court and Criminal Court and three judges for the Family Court.

Application forms are available from the commission’s website.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)