Tag: judicial service commission

JSC selects panel to appoint new judges

The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has selected a panel to interview and vet candidates “to solve problems caused by lack of judges for magistrate courts and superior courts.”

The panel consists of Supreme Court Justice and JSC Chair Adam Mohamed Abdulla, MP Gasim Ibrahim, Judge Abdulla Didi, Attorney General Abdulla Muiz, Lawyers’ Representative Ahmed Rasheed and Member of the Public Shuaib Abdul Rahman.

The panel has been tasked with deciding the number of judges on superior court benches and presenting a report to the commission before 15 August.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Decision to remove Dr Afrashim from JSC “a victory for all reformists”, says Velezinee

Parliament today voted 38 to 34 in favour of a motion of no-confidence to remove opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Dr Afrashim Ali from the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).

The motion to dismiss controversial religious scholar Afrashim from the judicial watchdog body was submitted by Majority Leader “Reeko” Moosa Manik of the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) last week.

The DRP had issued a three-line whip in an effort to save the embattled JSC member during today’s vote.

Breakdown of the vote

Afrashim’s defence

Responding to the multiple charges of misconduct, Afrashim denied that his appointment as the JSC’s representative to the Supreme Court violated article 163 of the constitution, which requires a majority of the commission’s 10 members to be in attendance for a vote.

Only five members of the JSC had signed in as present at the meeting in question on February 6.

Afrashim argued that seeking the approval of JSC members through telephone calls was standard practice while meetings could be held without a majority in attendance “under special circumstances.”

If members participated through audio conferencing, he added, “they can be considered to be present in a meaningful sense.”

On the matter of drawing allowances, Afrashim pointed out that the decision to award committee allowances was made by the interim commission in January 2009, prior to his appointment to the JSC.

“When we were selected for the commission, the Judicial Service Commission’s administration informed us to give our [bank] account numbers to deposit money,” he said. “We didn’t even know what that money was for. This is not something that we decided for ourselves unlawfully.”

Article 164 of the constitution states that “A member of the Judicial Service Commission who is not a member of the Executive, the Judiciary, or the People’s Majlis shall be paid such salary and allowances as may be determined by the People’s Majlis.”

Afrashim insisted that the article does not explicitly prohibit remuneration for commission members already receiving state incomes.

Moreover, as the article states that parliament could approve salaries and allowances for all commission members, Afrashim argued that the annual JSC budget, including provisions for committee allowances, was passed by parliament “because it was not in violation of the constitution.”

The JSC budget obtained by Minivan News confirmed that JSC members were in some cases receiving up to Rf 9000 (US$700) a month as a ‘committee allowance’; a total of Rf 514,660 (US$40,000) in 2010.

The DRP MP for Ungoofaru also denied any wrongdoing in the vetting process of reappointing judges in August 2010 – which took place amid concerns about the competency and integrity – as stipulated by article 285 of the constitution.

Echoing claims by fellow opposition MPs, Afrashim alleged that the resolution to remove him from the JSC constituted “an attempt to politically influence the judiciary and transfer judges.”

In his closing statement after the two-hour long debate, Afrashim alleged that President Mohamed Nasheed had called him on former DRP MP Alhan Fahmy’s phone and requested that Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed “be removed even if it meant disregarding principles and procedure.”

Former President’s Member on the JSC, Aishath Velezinee, described today’s decision in parliament as “a victory for all reformists.”

“The Majlis’ decision to remove Dr Afrashim for breach of trust and acting unconstitutionally raises a fundamental question about the legality of the courts today,” Velezinee said, highlighting the JSC’s hasty and untransparent reappointment of all sitting judges in August 2010.

“I blame the Speaker [Abdulla Shahid] for having sat in the JSC during Dr Afrashim’s treason,” Velezinee added. “He has lost all authority to remain as Speaker and thereby hold his seat in the JSC. The Majlis must now ensure that Article 285 is honoured in full, and judicial reform in undertaken as guaranteed by the Constitution.”

Dr Afrashim’s allegations that President Nasheed had attempted to bully him into dismissing the Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, Abdulla Mohamed, “sounded to me like a last minute life line,” Velezinee said.

“Afrashim never mentioned that in the JSC. And having sat as the President’s appointed member, I can vouch that President Nasheed never made any such request of me.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Judge Naeem promoted to Chief Judge of the Juvenile Court

Former Civil Court Judge Mohamed Naeem who was transferred to the Juvenile Court last week as a punishment for disobeying Superior Court, has been promoted to Chief Judge of the Juvenile Court.

The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) said that the commission decided to appoint Naeem as the Chief Judge of the Juvenile Court during a commission’s meeting held yesterday.

”The decision was made since the Chief Judge of the Juvenile Court has been appointed to the High Court bench, and to keep the court functioning,” the JSC said in its website.

It also said the other judge at the Juvenile Court was currently on a scholarship.

The decision to transfer Naeem to the Juvenile Court was made during a meeting of the JSC held last Thursday.

‘’The commission decided to do so as an action taken against Judge Mohamed Naeem for he has refused to conduct trials of cases concerning the state, before the parliament gives consent to the [then] Attorney General [Dr Ahmed Ali Sawad],’’ JSC then said in a statement.

The JSC said that the case was investigated by the sub-committee formed to recommend disciplinary measures against judges.

The investigation of Naeem came after he reportedly declaring during the first hearing of a case filed against the state that he would not hear cases involving the state before parliament approved the reappointment of former Attorney General Dr Ahmed Ali Sawad.

Naeem’s decision was in defiance of precedent set by both a majority of Civil Court judges as well as the High Court, which had ruled that such cases could be heard before the AG received parliamentary consent.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP requests parliament dismiss Dr Afrasheem from JSC

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Parliamentary Group has sent a letter to the parliament requesting the removal of DRP MP Dr Afrasheem Ali from the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).

The letter was signed by the leader of MDP Parliamentary Group MP Moosa ‘Reeko’ Manik.

In the letter, Moosa alleged that Dr Afrasheem had violated Judicial Service Commission’s Act, Act number 10/2008 Section 20[a] and [b] which states that a meeting of the JSC could be held only if more than half of the total number of members were present and 20[b] which requires majority vote of present JSC members to make any decision.

Moosa referred to the incident where Dr Afrasheem allegedly phoned JSC member Fahmy Hassan also head of Civil Service Commission (CSC) to ask whether he was fine with Dr Afrasheem speaking in the Supreme Court on behalf of the JSC in the trial conducted after Criminal Court Judge filed a case against the JSC’s appointment of Judges to the High Court.

”Records of the JSC shows that Dr Afrasheem Ali has made that decision against the policy that the law state,” Moosa said in the letter. ”Although Article 164 of the constitution very clearly states that persons appointed to the JSC who is not a member of the parliament shall receive allowances and salary as decided by the parliament, records of the JSC shows that Dr Afrasheem Ali has been paid such allowances.”

Dr Afrasheem had played a role in the unlawful and unconstitutional activities the JSC had conducted, and he has been insincere in carrying out the responsibilities of the JSC, Moosa claimed.

”Therefore, [we] find Dr Afrasheem is not an appropriate person to represent the parliament in the JSC, [we] hereby present this complaint according to article 165 of the constitution and request his dismissal,” Moosa said in the letter.

Minivan News understands that parliament is currently conducting a closed door investigation of the JSC, however no information on the progress or outcome has been provided.

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) recently published a report on the JSC critical of the commission’s independence, among other observations. The JSC has not tabled the report.

Dr Afrasheem was not responding to calls at time of press. JSC interim Secretary General, Abdul Faththah, also the JSC’s legal representative, referred Minivan News to the JSC’s media spokesperson, Hassan Zaheen. Zaheen said the JSC had no comment on the matter, but noted that “the parliament decides which MP represents it on the commission.”

Faththah has previously told Minivan News that while there “should be quorum”, in time-sensitive matters such as court summons members sometimes had to make decisions outside formal meetings, with the approval of other members.

“This is not a matter so important to take a decision with the discussion of the members,” he said at the time.

JSC members had also previously decided who should attend court hearings, during a meeting of full attendance, he added, “[but] that day the Chair was not in Male’, so members decided instead that the Deputy [Afrasheem] should attend [court],” acknowledging that “they may not have had quorum that time.”

“These kind of things happen with things like court attendance issues, but no other decisions,” he said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court enters legal wrangle over High Court appointments

The Supreme Court of the Maldives has ordered the Civil Court to halt its case regarding the Judicial Services Commission (JSC)’s appointment of five High Court judges last week, and hand the matter to the Supreme Court.

The Judicial Service Commission appointed five judges, Shuaib Hussein Zakariyya, Dr Azmiraldha Zahir, Abdul Rauf Ibrahim, Abbas Shareef and Ali Sameer to the High Court bench last week. Zahir is the first woman to be appointed to the High Court bench in the Maldives.

However once the appointments were concluded, Criminal Court judge Abdul Baary filed a case in the Civil Court against the appointment of the new judges, claiming that there were policy and legal issues in the JSC’s appointment procedure.

Judge Baary told Haveeru that there were issues with the High Court Judges Appointment Policy as established by the JSC itself.

He claimed that the JSC’s policy stated that if a female and a male scored even marks, higher priority should be given to the female when appointing judges for the High Court bench. This, he said, was against the Constitution and the Labor Act.

The Civil Court issued an injunction halting the appointment of the High Court judges prior to taking their oath.

However the Supreme Court today stated that it had issued a Writ of Prohibition to the Civil Court, ordering it to hand over the case file to the Supreme Court before 4:00pm tomorrow.

Six JSC members have been accused of criminal charges by the President’s Member on the Commission, Aishath Velezinee, while the Commission as a whole is under investigation by the Anti-Corruption Commission for allegedly embezzling money by paying itself a ‘committee allowance’.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

ICJ condemns violent assault on Velezinee

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has condemned the violent assault earlier this week on Judicial Service Commission (JSC) member Aishath Velezinee, calling on the government to “immediately launch an independent, impartial, and transparent investigation into this shocking crime.”

Velezinee, President Mohamed Nasheed’s outspoken member on the JSC, was stabbed three times in the back by unidentified assailants on Monday morning while walking in Chandanee Magu in Male’.

“The ICJ is gravely concerned that the attack may be politically motivated. The stabbing took place in daylight in a public space, with no evidence of robbery or theft,” reads a press release issued by the ICJ yesterday.

“Ms. Velezinee’s fearless and controversial advocacy on behalf of justice for ordinary citizens of the Maldives has earned her a constant barrage of verbal attacks from prominent political figures,” said Roger Normand, the ICJ’s Asia Pacific Director. “The government must take swift action, not only to investigate this cowardly stabbing, but equally important, to reaffirm the centrality of rule of law in the new constitutional order.”

After visiting Velezinee at the Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital (IGMH) shortly after the attack, President Nasheed vowed that “no stone will be left unturned” to bring the perpetrators to justice.

Sub-Inspector Ahmed Shiyam said today that police were not ready to disclose details at this stage of the investigation or confirm if any arrests have been made.

The ICJ notes that Velezinee has publicly criticized the JSC for “abandoning its constitutional mandate under articles 159 and 285 by failing to follow transparent and lawful procedures during the vetting process of the judiciary.”

Article 285 of the constitution mandated the JSC to determine, before 7 August 2010, whether or not the judges on the bench possessed “the educational qualifications, experience and recognized competence necessary to discharge the duties and responsibilities of a judge, [and] high moral character”.

In May 2010, the JSC decided to reappoint all sitting judges unless they have been convicted in court of either a crime with a punishment prescribed in the Quran, criminal breach of trust or treason – a decision that, Velezinee warned at the time, could “rob the nation of an honest judiciary” by giving tenure to 19 judges with either prior convictions by other state institutions or allegations of gross misconduct.

In August, a majority of the 10-member JSC – including MPs of the opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), Speaker Abdulla Shahid and Afrashim Ali, together with the three judges on the commission – decided to reappoint 191 of 197 sitting judges despite Velezinee’s vocal opposition and concerns about the competency and integrity of a number of judges appointed under the former administration.

President’s Press Secretary Mohamed Zuhair observed at the time that while two members opposed the move to rush the reappointments – Velezinee and General Public Member Shuaib Abdul Rahman – “a common thread ties all the other eight members. They either belong to the opposition DRP, or they are strong supporters.”

“The outgoing government has made sure it would retain control of institutions like the judiciary,” he noted.

Zuhair explained that while the government was communicating with international institutions on the issue, such as the ICJ, “so far we have been advised to do everything possible to keep to ‘norms and standards’. But that’s difficult when of the 197 judges, only 35 have any recognised qualifications. All the others have a local diploma.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC members ‘too busy’ to meet and adopt Standards of Procedure

The need to spend quality time with family, party political duties, and other outside commitments has prevented the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) from meeting to adopt its Standards of Procedure, now overdue by 10 months.

According to the JSC Act, the Standards of Procedure should have been adopted by January 26 this year.

The Standards of Procedure, or House Rules, are required to set the rules and regulations according to which the JSC should carry out its Constitutional responsibilities.

The JSC is an independent body constitutionally mandated to oversee the ethical standards and principles of the country’s judiciary.

Without the Standards of Procedure, the Commission is run on ad-hoc basis, often according to the discretion of the chairperson.

The day-long meeting in which members were to work on adoption of the Standards of Procedure was scheduled for Saturday.

It was also decided that the meeting would be held outside of Male’ from 9:00 in the morning till 8:00 pm.

JSC Chairperson, Supreme Court Justice Adam Mohamed, excused himself from the meeting citing court work and family commitments on Saturday.

Dr Afrasheem Ali, Deputy Chair and Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), could not attend the meeting as his Saturdays, he told the JSC, are reserved for party political work.

Majlis Speaker Speaker Abdulla Shahid and Civil Service Commission President Fahmy would not be in the country on Saturday.

For Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Didi, the reason for being unable to attend was the location of the meeting. He was unwilling to travel outside of Male’.

The venue of the meeting had not been finalised when the meeting was cancelled. JSC Interim Secretary General Moomina Umar told Minivan News that it would have been a place where members had access to full conference facilities, allowing them to focus on the urgent issue at hand fully.

Moomina also said that subsequent attempts by her to move the meeting to Male’ to facilitate objections had not received a positive response, forcing the meeting to be cancelled.

The ten member JSC needs six members present before a meeting can be held.

On 21 October, JSC Chairperson Justice Mohamed walked out of a meeting in which some members pushed to have adoption of the Standards of Procedure put on the agenda as a matter of urgency.

Judge Abdulla Didi, who excused himself from Saturday’s meeting because it was to be held outside of Male’, also walked out of the meeting with Justice Mohamed, making it impossible for members to put the Standards of Procedure on the agenda of its next meeting.

Justice Mohamed, speaking to media, blamed his decision to desert the meeting on the ‘vulgar behaviour’ of the President’s Member at the JSC, Aishath Velezinee.

Velezinee, along with Attorney Ali Sawad, JSC Lawyer Ahmed Rasheed and JSC Member of the General Public had objected to the continued and systematic manner in which the JSC Chair avoided making adoption of the SoP a matter of top priority.

The JSC released news of Justice Mohamed’s desertion of the meeting immediately, an act which he has claimed is against JSC Regulations as communications with the media cannot be done without prior majority consent of members.

The claim, however, is inaccurate.

A unanimous JSC decision dated 2 September this year (JSC-B1/10/200), authorised Media Officer Hassan Zaheen, Deputy Legal Officer Abdul Fatthah Abdul Ghafoor and Moomina Umar to speak to the media on its behalf.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC President deserts emergency meeting, refuses to adopt House Rules

The Chair of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) deserted an emergency meeting of the JSC Thursday night, refusing to meet members’ demands for adoption of the Commission’s House Rules as a matter of high priority.

The JSC’s deadline for adopting House Rules, as stipulated in Article 40 of the Judicial Service Commission Act, expired ten months ago on 26 January of this year.

Without House Rules, the Commission’s work has no set standards of procedure according to which to carry out its responsibilities, allowing for Commission business to be conducted on an ad hoc basis, and according to the discretion of the Chair himself.

JSC is the independent body Constitutionally mandated with oversight of the country’s judiciary. It is responsible for maintaining the standards, principles, ethics and discipline of members of the judiciary.

Chair of the JSC Supreme Court Justice Adam Abdulla convened Thursday’s emergency meeting, which he later deserted, to discuss the impending departure of three Chief Judges who are travelling abroad to finesse their English Language skills.

The JSC is required to appoint substitute Chief Judges to replace any that leave their post on a temporary or permanent basis.

Four members of the JSC, however, refused to discuss the substitutes’ appointments unless Justice Abdulla acceded to their requests to put House Rules adoption at the top of the Commission’s agenda when it meets later today.

Justice Abdulla refused the demand of the dissenting members who included the Attorney General Ali Sawad, JSC Lawyer Ahmed Rasheed, Member of the General Public, and President’s Member Aishath Velezinee. He chose to abandon the meeting instead.

Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdullah Didi, one of the three judges scheduled to travel to India yesterday to brush up their English Language skills, joined Justice Abdulla in the walkout.

In a leaked audio recording of Thursday’s meeting listened to by Minivan, Chief Judge Didi is heard urging Justice Abdulla to leave saying, “Let’s go. Nothing can be done in this place. Let’s leave, Adam”.

The two men then walked out of the meeting. Both the matter of the House Rules and the matter of appointing substitute judges to stand in for those taking English lessons remain yet to be addressed.

Minivan has learned this morning that Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed remained in Male’, foregoing the English language training after the JSC’s failure to appoint his substitute.

The two jurisdictions without a magistrate, however, could remain a legal limbo until the JSC appoints substitutes.

Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed is one of the six judges under official investigation by the JSC for alleged misconduct

So far the Investigating Committee of the JSC appointed to look into allegations against Judge Didi has spent over a Rf100,000 solely on reimbursing its members for their attendance. The Investigating Committee, too, is yet to adopt any House Rules.

Before deserting the meeting Justice Abdulla told the dissenting members of the Commission that nobody had the authority to impose conditions on him, as stated in a press release issued by the JSC on Thursday night.

JSC regulations state that any matter which the Commission, or any member of the Commission, wishes to include in the agenda of its meeting should be duly included in the agenda.

When contacted by the media subsequent to the JSC press release, Justice Abdulla said he walked out because he could not tolerate what he described as “the vulgar behaviour of Velezinee”.

Justice Abdullah did not mention that three members of the JSC other than Velezinee, including the Attorney General, had joined together in demanding the adoption of House Rules as a matter of urgency.

Placing the blame squarely on Velezinee’s behaviour, he told the media she had “belittled the importance of the meeting” and accused her of being a disruptive force in the Commission’s work.

“Yes, I do try and disrupt the ‘work’ that they do”, Velezinee said. “They are not carrying out the responsibilities as required by the Constitution. It is my duty, and the obligation of every member of the JSC, to ensure that the JSC performs its proper functions.”

Velezinee said certain members of the JSC appear to have a false perception of the Commission as “a welfare organisation for members of the judiciary with the oversight to ensure their individual and collective well being”.

Justice Abdulla’s claims that Velezinee’s behaviour forced him to leave the proceedings contradict the press release by JSC, and also the proceedings as heard in the leaked audiotape.

When referred to the the JSC press release, which had been issued after his desertion and of which he was not aware until contacted by the media, Justice Abdulla told Haveeru that it was not a valid document as it had been issued without a required approval of the majority.

After the recent controversy over Article 285 of the Constitution and the re-assembling of JSC at the end of August, however, JSC had approved three senior Secretariat staff as media spokespersons with the authority to brief the media.

Dismissing Justice Abdulla’s claims as a frequently used strategy of “character assassination to deflect attention from the JSC’s sustained negligence of its Constitutional responsibilities”, Velezinee listed a variety of issues deliberately left out of the JSC agenda.

“Adopting the House Rules and other regulations required of the Commission under the JSC Act, appointing Justices to the High Court, and appointing a Secretary General to JSC”, she said, are vitally important issues that are yet to receive any attention.

Velezinee said that without House Rules the JSC has not been able to perform some of its chief responsibilities such as preventing impunity among judges and building public confidence in the judiciary.

The Complaints Commission of the JSC, mandated to examine complaints against members of the Judiciary, for instance, has met only once in the last five months despite having over a hundred complaints awaiting its examination.

To date JSC has not settled a single complaint it has received regarding the conduct of a judge.

Minivan has also learnt that Judge Abdulla ignored requests by the US Embassy and Commonwealth delegations to meet with the Commission, and failed to inform Commission members of such requests.

The 10-member JSC voted Justice Abdulla as Chair with five votes, while waiting to decide whether or not to investigate his involvement in the High Court Declaration of 21 January 2010.

The Declaration removed High Court Chief Justice Abdul Ghani from JSC accusing him of misconduct and installed Justice Abdulla as head of JSC.

Meanwhile, Justice Abdulla moved up to the Supreme Court, vacating the High Court seat in the JSC. To the seat was returned Chief Justice Abdul Ghani, who had been removed from the JSC by the High Court Declaration only months previously.

The allegations of misconduct against Chief Justice Abdul Ghani have not come to the fore since his re-instalment at the JSC.

A report of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) is due out soon, revealing the findings of its visit to the Maldives last month. The ICJ delegation was lead by former UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Dr Leandor Despuoy.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)