Tag: judiciary

US ready to ‘deepen partnership’ with Maldives, seeks progress on democracy

The US Assistant Secretary of State Nisha Biswal has said that the US is ready to strengthen relations with the Maldives but seeks more progress on democracy and human rights in the Maldives.

Following a call with Foreign Minister Dunya Maumoon to offer Ramazan greetings, Biswal tweeted that she had reiterated concerns regarding the “erosion of democratic institutions” and of “fundamental freedoms.”

Diplomatic pressure has been increasing on the Maldives over the jailing of opposition politicians, including ex-president Mohamed Nasheed and crackdown on opposition protests.

During a visit to the Maldives last year, Biswal said judicial independence and politically motivated threats remain an issue in the Maldives, despite the young democracy’s accomplishments.

The assistant secretary of state’s most recent comments come two weeks after the Supreme Court passed a ruling against the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM), barring it from communicating independently with foreign organizations.

The court’s ruling on June 16 found a human rights assessment submitted by the watchdog to the UN unlawful, and imposed an 11-point guideline prescribing how the HRCM should operate within the law.

The US has taken an unprecedented interest in recent events in the Maldives.

Earlier this month, US Senators John McCain and Jack Reed urged their government to press for the release of all political prisoners in the Maldives, including Nasheed.

The two Senators, who head the Senate Armed Forces Committee, warned that the Maldives’ decisions are “having serious adverse consequences on its relationships abroad.”

The US Secretary of State John Kerry in May said that democracy is under threat in the Maldives.

“We’ve seen even now how regrettably there are troubling signs that democracy is under threat in the Maldives where the former president Nasheed has been imprisoned without due process,” Kerry told the Sri Lankan press.

“This is an injustice that needs to be addressed soon.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court bans clubs and associations within judiciary

The Supreme Court has prohibited employees of the judiciary from forming clubs and associations.

In an open letter released today, the apex court said staff at courts can organise fraternal or social activities after informing the department of judicial administration (DJA), but forming clubs or associations is not permitted.

“It is not permitted to create a club or association under any name in any court,” reads the letter signed by Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed.

In February, the Supreme Court issued a circular stating that the judiciary’s staff could only form associations or clubs in accordance with a policy set by the Supreme Court and that their activities must be overseen by the Supreme Court-controlled DJA.

The circular was issued hours an annual inter-court futsal tournament called the ‘Judiciary Cup’ began in Malè.

Participants of the tournament told Minivan News at the time that they went ahead after deciding that the circular would only apply to future activities.

 

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

President asks UN for help to resolve political crisis

President Abdulla Yameen has invited a UN team to the Maldives to help resolve the Maldives’ political crisis triggered by the imprisonment of ex-president Mohamed Nasheed.

In a phone call with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Tuesday, President Yameen asked for help “to cool down” the Maldives’ political crisis. Ban welcomed the offer, a statement by the foreign ministry said.

Nasheed, who is serving a 13-year-jail term on terrorism charges, was transferred to house arrest on Sunday for health reasons. His house arrest was extended by eight weeks, hours after the opposition parties announced they would support a government-backed constitutional amendment to set new age-limits to the presidency.

The amendment passed today with overwhelming bipartisan support.

International pressure has been mounting on the government to release Nasheed and other jailed opposition leaders. Ex-defence ministers Mohamed Nazim and Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu were jailed in March.

Sheikh Imran Abdulla, the president of the Adhaalath Party, is in police custody until a trial on terrorism charges concludes. Two senior Jumhooree Party (JP) officials have fled the country days before terrorism charges were filed. JP leader and MP Gasim Ibrahim has been abroad since late-April in the wake of sanctions on his businesses.

President Yameen, however, told Ban there are no political prisoners in the Maldives. Jailed opposition politicians were convicted of criminal offences, he said.

He assured Ban that the government has opened doors for Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) to sit for talks without conditions, the foreign ministry statement said.

However, the President’s Office has previously ruled out negotiations over Nasheed and Nazim’s release and rejected representatives put forth by MDP and the religious conservative Adhaalath Party i.e. Nasheed and Imran, on the grounds that they are serving jail sentences or in police custody.

Discussions with Gasim’s JP, however, are ongoing.

President Yameen also told Ban he had rejected Nasheed’s appeal for clemency and asked the opposition leader to first exhaust all appeal processes.

Nasheed maintains the criminal court has blocked him from filing an appeal by failing to provide required court documents within the 10-day appeal period. Lawyers say the law is silent on late appeals and that there is now no mechanism to file an appeal.

The government, however, insists Nasheed can still appeal.

A New-Delhi based advocacy NGO, the Asian Center for Human Rights (ACHR), has meanwhile reiterated a call on the UN Human Rights Council to adopt a resolution on the deteriorating human rights situation in the Maldives in its ongoing session.

The NGO, which has special consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council, on June 16 urged the UNHRC to appoint a Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Maldives and to suspend the Maldives from the council.

The Maldives was first elected to the council in 2010 and re-elected for a second term in November 2013.

The ACHR said President Yameen has taken more draconian measures since its June 16 statement. It noted the Supreme Court had ruled a Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) report to the UN unlawful and issued a 11-point guideline on the watchdog.

“The president of the UN Human Rights Council and the UN Human Rights Council ought to take necessary measures against such reprisals for cooperating with the United Nations human rights mechanisms,” the statement saud.

No other Supreme Court in the world has passed such restrictions on national human rights watchdogs for cooperating with the UN, the NGO said.

The ACHR also blamed government’s economic sanctions for Gasim’s announcement he will retire from politics and censured the government for hiring a UK based private law firm, chaired by Cherie Blair, the wife of ex-UK PM Tony Blair, to strengthen democracy consolidation.

“That the government of Maldives decided to hire a private law firm rather than seeking support of the United Nations for democratic reforms once again shows that President Yameen is not committed to democratic reform,” the ACHR said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Criticism mounts against Supreme Court

The Supreme Court judgment, which bars the human rights watchdog from communicating with foreign organizations, appears to weaken its ability to engage with the UN human rights system and is “yet another example of the judiciary undermining human rights protection in the Maldives,” a UN rights chief has said.

The apex court on Tuesday declared a rights assessment submitted to the UN by the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) as unlawful, and issued a legally binding 11-point guideline.

The guideline requires the HRCM to communicate with foreign bodies through relevant government institutions, and warn against causing damage to the reputation of the Maldives.

The High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein in a statement on Friday said it was “completely unacceptable” for the Supreme Court to impose restrictions on the commission’s engagement with international bodies.

“In this case, the Supreme Court appears to be yet again overreaching its mandate by playing a legislative role. Laws regulating the very important human rights monitoring and reporting work of civil society and independent institutions must be transparently adopted by legislative bodies following wide consultations and open debate, in line with international human rights and standards,” he said.

The guideline was issued under controversial suomoto regulations that allow the Supreme Court to prosecute and pass judgment.

The charges relate to an HRCM report to the UN’s Universal Periodic Review, in which the commission said the Supreme Court controlled and influenced the lower courts to the detriment of the Maldivian judiciary.

The UPR studies the human rights record of all 193 UN member states and is aimed at supporting and expanding the protection of human rights.

The Maldives underwent a second inspection in May. Nations across the world criticized the Maldives over the politicization of the judiciary and raised concern over the Supreme Court’s prosecution of HRCM.

Zeid reminded the government that it had committed to ensuring the HRCM’s independence after the UPR. The foreign ministry had also committed to ensure that the HRCM and other civil society groups would be able to participate in international mechanisms without reprisals.

Noting that three new commissioners are to be appointed for August and September, Zeid said: “The appointments must be made through a participatory, transparent and consultative selection process, with the extensive involvement of civil society.

“New commissioners must be selected on the basis of their proven commitment to human rights, integrity and independence, not their political loyalties.”

President Abdulla Yameen has nominated a former MP of the ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM), the wife of a current PPM MP and a senior official at the gender ministry for the HRCM. The three are expected to gain parliamentary approval as the ruling coalition enjoys a comfortable majority in the parliament.

The International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), a Geneva-based advocacy group, has said the Supreme Court’s ruling is a clear breach of the Maldives’ membership of the UN human rights council.

The Maldives was first elected to the council in 2010 and re-elected for a second term in November 2013.

“For a member state of the UN Human Rights Council to retaliate against a national human rights institution for providing a report to the council is tantamount to contempt and is plainly incompatible with membership of that body,” ISHR Program Manager, Eleanor Openshaw.

The Asian Center for Human Rights has also called for Maldives to be suspended from the council over the imprisonment of ex-president Mohamed Nasheed and other politicians.

Zeid, in his statement also said: “We have long been concerned about the deeply flawed role of the judiciary in the Maldives, including in the case against former president Nasheed.”

The UN Special Rapporteurs on independence of judges and lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, and on the situation of human rights defenders, Michel Forst have described the Supreme Court verdict “an act of reprisal” and urged the court to reconsider its verdict.

In March last year, the Supreme Court had sacked the Elections Commission’s president and vice-president when they criticized a 16-point electoral guideline issued by the court after it annulled the first round of presidential elections in September 2013.

In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that the anti-corruption watchdog was not authorized to suspend government contracts even if they suspected major corruption.

The president of the Anti – Corruption Commission at the time said the ruling rendered the ACC powerless to stop corruption.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court renders human rights watchdog toothless

The Supreme Court has declared a rights assessment submitted to the UN by the human rights watchdog as unlawful, and has issued an 11-point guideline barring the independent body from communicating with foreign organizations without government oversight.

Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed delivered a verdict today, eight months after the apex court charged the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) with treason.

He said the September 2014 report submitted to the UN Human Rights Council was biased, encouraged terrorists and undermined judicial independence in the Maldives.

In the report, the HRCM had said the Supreme Court controlled and influenced the lower courts to the detriment of the Maldivian judiciary.

Days after the report was publicised, the Supreme Court brought charges against the HRCM under controversial suomoto regulations that allow the apex court to prosecute and pass judgment.

The case had remained stalled after just two hearings.

The 11-point guideline issued today orders the HRCM to protect unity, peace and order, and uphold Maldivian norms, faith, etiquette and the rule of law.

The Supreme Court said the HRCM must not overstep its mandate and ordered the independent body to cooperate with government institutions, communicate with foreign bodies through the relevant government institutions, and protect the Maldives’ reputation.

The written verdict was not available at the time of going to press.

In March last year, the apex court sacked the Election Commission’s president and vice-president when they criticised a 16-point electoral guideline issued by the Supreme Court after annulling the first round of presidential elections in September 2013.

Judicial control

The HRCM’s two-page report submitted to the UN’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) said: “The judicial system is controlled and influenced by the Supreme Court, weakening judicial powers vested in other superior courts and lower courts.”

The UPR studies the human rights record of all 193 UN member states and is aimed at supporting and expanding the protection of human rights.

The Maldives was first reviewed in 2010 and underwent a second inspection in May.

During the review in Geneva, countries across the world blasted the Maldives for the ‘politicisation of the judiciary’ and raised concern over the Supreme Court’s prosecution of the HRCM.

Several countries then recommended that the Maldives ensure impartiality and independence of the judiciary and provide training to judges.

The foreign ministry has deferred accepting or rejecting the recommendations, pending “national level consultation.” A decision will be communicated before the 30th session of the human rights council in September or October 2015.

Trial summary

At the second hearing on September 30, 2014, the HRCM had denied charges and said that the commission’s observations on the judiciary were based on reports by the UN Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul, the International Commission of Jurists and the national chapter of Transparency International.

Then-Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz said the judiciary had rejected Knaul’s report as invalid and reprimanded the HRCM for alleged failure to consult the Supreme Court in writing the UPR submission.

Faiz and Judge Muthasim Adnan were removed from the seven-member bench in December.

The HRCM in March said the Supreme Court’s suomoto case was the biggest challenge the watchdog has faced in its 11-year history.

The HRCM Act grants members immunity from prosecution in relation to acts carried out as part of the commission’s duties.

Today’s ruling comes as the parliament prepares to appoint three new members to the HRCM as the five-year terms of three members are due to expire in August.

The three members are HRCM president Mariyam Azra, vice-president Ahmed Tholal and member Jeehan Mahmood.

President Abdulla Yameen has nominated a former ruling party MP to the position. The opposition has accused the president of stacking independent commissions through the ruling-party controlled parliament.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

PPM constituencies will be prioritised for development, says president

Constituencies represented by ruling coalition MPs will be prioritised for development projects in the state budget for 2016, President Abdulla Yameen has said.

During a visit to Meemu Atoll Dhiggaru to campaign for the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) candidate, Yameen yesterday urged Dhiggaru constituents to vote for Ahmed Faris Maumoon to ensure development.

“If you do this, no doubt when the budget comes, under the principle where constituencies with our members are prioritised now, this constituency will be noted very early on,” he said.

The by-election is scheduled for Saturday, June 6.

The PPM and coalition partner Maldives Development Alliance (MDA) controls a comfortable majority of the 85-house.

The rhetoric of the main opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) is unimportant for Dhiggaru constituents, Yameen said.

The MDP, the Adhaalath Party and members of the Jumhooree Party have been protesting for three months over the imprisonment of ex-president Mohamed Nasheed.

Yameen said Dhiggaru constituents wanted a seawall, new classrooms, and a school hall.

“[A] 140 kilowatt generator to ease the electricity problem in this island before Ramadan will be important for the people of this island,” he said.

The generator will arrive before Ramadan, and projects to establish water and sewerage systems in Dhiggaru will begin early next year.

An outer wall for the Dhiggaru football field will also be built in two months and a futsal pitch will be built during the year, he pledged.

President Yameen’s pledges follow PPM MPs assuring development of the five islands in the Dhiggaru constituency if Faris wins the by-election, prompting allegations of undue influence and bribery.

The PPM was previously accused of bribery over the delivery of an x-ray machine to Muli last month.

The government has also signed an agreement with the state-owned Maldives Transport and Construction Company to build a harbour in Dhiggaru.

The ruling party was also accused of vote buying after handing over air-conditioners to a school in Raa Atoll Alifushi, shortly before an island council by-election.

The government’s efforts to develop the Dhiggaru constituency will speed up and be made easier if Faris is elected, Yameen continued, as he would have the president’s ear and be able to share the concerns of his constituents.

In contrast, Yameen said, MDP MPs voted against the 2015 budget and had “hijacked” parliament since March to “obstruct” proceedings.

He also accused opposition-dominated island councils of refusing to allocate land to develop futsal pitches, stressing the importance of electing PPM councillors and lawmakers for cooperation with the government.

Faris is the president’s nephew and eldest son of PPM leader, former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom. He will be facing MDP candidate Ahmed Razee and independent candidate Moosa Naseer Ahmed in the June 6 poll.

Dhiggaru is a PPM stronghold and a support base of the former president.

The by-election was triggered by the jailing of former MP Ahmed Nazim, also a PPM member. He was convicted of defrauding the former atolls ministry and imprisoned for life.

Yameen said Nazim had “sincerely served” the party and the PPM wished to keep hold of the seat.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Maldives human rights situation ‘rapidly deteriorating’

The human rights situation in the Maldives is “rapidly deteriorating” with the government cracking down on peaceful protests, stifling dissent, and imprisoning opposition politicians, Amnesty International has said.

A delegation from the international human rights organisation conducted a fact-finding mission in the Maldives from April 17 to 22 and released a briefing report titled ‘Assault on civil and political rights’ today.

“There’s a climate of fear spreading in the Maldives, as safeguards on human rights are increasingly eroded. The authorities have a growing track record of silencing critical voices by any means necessary – be it through the police, the judicial system, or outright threats and harassment. This must end immediately,” said Abbas Faiz, Amnesty International’s Maldives researcher, after launching the briefing at a press conference in New Delhi, India.

“The international community must wake up and realise that behind the façade of a tourist paradise, there is a dark trend in the Maldives where the human rights situation is rapidly deteriorating.”

Raghu Menon, Amnesty International India’s advocacy coordinator, who was part of the fact-finding mission, said India as a regional power “has a responsibility to work towards a human rights-friendly environment in the Maldives.”

The delegation also sought meetings with government officials this week, but were offered meetings in May.

President’s office spokesperson Ibrahim Muaz Ali told Minivan News today that he did not wish to comment on the report.

“The government has invited various international organisations. So they will come and reveal [information about] their work. The government does not have to respond to each report. The government will take the initiative and respond in cases where it believes it has to,” he said.

The delegation also requested a visit to the Dhoonidhoo detention centre to meet former president Mohamed Nasheed and other detainees, but the foreign ministry offered to facilitate a visit in May.

Faiz meanwhile called on the government to “immediately end its disturbing crackdown on human rights.”

“Political tensions are already at a boiling point, and further harassment and attacks on those opposing the authorities will only make the situation spiral out of control,” he warned.

“The international community cannot turn a blind eye to what is happening in the Maldives. The upcoming UN [Universal Period Review] session in Geneva in May is a key moment to push the Maldives authorities to immediately take concrete action to improve the country’s human rights situation.”

Crackdown

Amnesty said the government was “abusing the judicial system” to imprison political opponents, including opposition leader Nasheed, ex-defence minister Mohamed Nazim, and former ruling party MP Ahmed Nazim.

“Mohamed Nasheed’s imprisonment came after a sham trial, but he is far from the only one locked up on trumped-up charges and after unfair trials. It is disturbing how far the Maldives government has co-opted the judiciary as a tool to cement its own hold on power,” said Faiz.

Amnesty also noted that at least 140 people have been arrested from opposition protests since February, with the court releasing several protesters on the condition that they do not attend protests for 30 to 60 days.

The opposition, human rights NGOS, and the prosecutor general have said the condition is unconstitutional as freedom of assembly is a fundamental right.

“Additionally, police have imposed far-ranging restrictions on where and when protests in the Maldives capital Male can take place,” Amnesty said.

“Demonstrations are only allowed in certain areas far away from official buildings, contrary to international law and standards.”

The briefing also noted increasing threats and attacks against journalists, civil society organisations, and human rights defenders, adding that police have not “meaningfully” investigated threatening text messages or phone calls.

Amnesty said that “vigilante religious groups allegedly in cahoots with the police have in recent years stepped up kidnappings and attacks on social gatherings, in particular against those accused of promoting ‘atheism.'”

“This year, such gangs have in connivance with police attacked peaceful demonstrators, yet no one has been brought to justice for these attacks.”

The briefing also noted that the Supreme Court last year charged the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) with “high treason and undermining the constitution” following the state watchdog’s submission on the state of human rights in the Maldives to the UPR.

Meanwhile, in an op-ed published on The New York Times this week, Mariyam Shiuna, executive director of local NGO Transparency Maldives, observed that “political persecution has intensified, civil society is silenced and media intimidation has become the norm.”

“The international community needs to put pressure on the government to halt its crackdown on opponents and dissidents from all parts of the political sphere. Without basic freedoms and space for dissent the Maldives is slipping back to the dark days of dictatorship,” she wrote.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed conviction “grossly unfair,” highlights “judicial politicisation,” says ICJ

The conviction of former President Mohamed Nasheed on terrorism charges was “grossly unfair” and highlighted “judicial politicisation,” the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) have said in a press release today.

The opposition leader was sentenced to 13 years in prison on March 13 over the “kidnapping or abduction” by the military of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

“The Maldivian judiciary’s independence has been compromised for years by serious pressure from the government, and this grossly unfair conviction highlights the numerous problems with the politicization of the judiciary in the country,” said Sam Zarifi, the ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.

“It is crucial for Maldivian authorities to allow Mr. Nasheed to appeal his case effectively, with transparency and monitoring by Maldivian and international observers.”

ICJ contended that trial was marred by “gross violations of international standards of fair trial, including Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the Maldives acceded in 2006.”

Among the violations listed by the ICJ included two of the three judges presiding over the trial having testified in the 2012 investigation, denial of legal representation for Nasheed during the first hearing on February 23, and the denial to the defence team of both full access to evidence and state witnesses and the opportunity to consult with Nasheed.

Moreover, ICJ noted that the court denied Nasheed the opportunity to seek new representation after his lawyers quit in protest of the court’s refusal to grant sufficient time to mount a defence.

“The defence was also denied the opportunity to call its own witnesses,” the press release added.

Following Nasheed’s conviction, President’s Office Spokesperson Ibrahim Muaz Ali told Minivan News that the president could not “interfere in judicial proceedings and is not to blame for court proceedings,”

“If you study this case, from the beginning to the end, it is clear the charges are not politically motivated,” Muaz insisted.

President Abdulla Yameen meanwhile called on all parties to respect the verdict and noted that the opposition leader has “a constitutionally guaranteed right of appeal.”

“The government calls on its international partners to engage constructively, based on mutual respect and dialogue in consolidating and strengthening democratic values and institutions in the country,” read a statement issued by the President’s Office.

Appeal

ICJ contended that Nasheed’s “right to appeal has been infringed by the unprecedented amendment of the statutory period for appeal from 90 days to 10 days, via Supreme Court circular six weeks prior to the trial.”

“In addition, the court has still not released to Mr. Nasheed’s defense team the full court record required to prepare and present an effective appeal within this accelerated timeframe,” the press release added.

It noted that the organisation has previously documented both the “politicisation of the judiciary” and the “polarised political climate in the Maldives, calling attention to a justice system characterised by vested interests and political allegiances rooted in the country’s authoritarian past.”

“Recent events reflect a justice system that still remains deeply politicised along the same lines of entrenched political loyalties that pre-date the transition period,” said Zarifi.

“The Maldivian judiciary must allow a proper appeal in this case if it is to establish itself as a separate and equal branch of the government dedicated to supporting the rule of law.”

The ICJ called on the government to ensure full acess and adequate opportunity for Nasheed’s lawyers to prepare an appeal, “and to ensure that the appeal proceeding is conducted fairly and transparently, with full access to media and domestic and international observers, in compliance with fair trial and due process standards under both Maldivian and international law.”

“The Maldives must also take effective measures to ensure that such violations do not reoccur in this or future cases,” the ICJ said.

Related to this story:

Nasheed to wait on appeal until Criminal Court provides full case report

Nasheed’s terrorism trial “a mockery” of Constitution, verdict “may have been pre-determined,” says Knaul

UN human rights chief expresses strong concern over “hasty and apparently unfair” Nasheed trial

US, EU, and UK concerned over lack of due process in Nasheed trial

Respect Criminal Court verdict, says President Yameen

Former President Nasheed found guilty of terrorism, sentenced to 13 years in prison

ICJ says Majlis has “decapitated the country’s judiciary”

Runaway judiciary leaves the Maldives “at a dangerous junction,” says Velezinee

 

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Get up, stand up

This article first appeared on DhivehiSitee.com. Republished with permission

It is an extremely tense day in the Maldives as tens of thousands of people wait on tenterhooks for what seems to be the inevitable: the imprisonment of opposition leader, former president and icon of democracy, Mohamed Nasheed.

The outcome of the ‘trial’ which Nasheed has been subjected to is certain, the verdict written long before he was charged with ‘terrorism’ and remanded in custody on the island of Dhoonidhoo on 22 February.

Everything that followed since that Sunday, over two weeks ago now, has been a sham and a travesty against justice. The barbarity was put on full display to the world, when Nasheed was brought to ‘court’ for the first hearing. Policemen, belonging to the notorious Special Operations, pushed and shoved Nasheed to the ground.

Pictures and videos of the event shocked the country, and the world.

The current rulers, led by Yameen Abdul Gayoom, shrugged off the outcry with nonchalance. Locally, the police claimed Nasheed had pulled a stunt, fallen to the ground voluntarily like a footballer faking an injury looking for to be rewarded with a penalty. It did not matter that video and pictorial evidence told a different story.

Internationally, foreign minister Dunya Maumoon was recalcitrant, insisting that Nasheed’s trial is a ‘domestic issue’ that no foreigners have a say in. The government remained impervious to all outside criticism. Even the cancellation of a planned trip by India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a diplomatic slap of substantial magnitude, did not make any impact on its determination to pursue with their chosen path of leading Nasheed to jail. In fact, as time passed, the government grew more belligerent.

Yameen Abdul Gayoom said on March 9 that people in distant foreign lands should butt out of Maldivian affairs. Brushed aside were the many international treaties which the Maldives is signatory to, which gives the international community the right to particular actions during certain circumstances — such as in times of the destruction of rule of law.

‘Trial’

And what a destruction it has been. Every hearing in the court, itself unconstitutional, has dealt a deathblow to the concept of rule of law. The Prosecutor General’s appointment now appears to have been engineered for the very purpose of this prosecution, as are the panel of three ‘judges’. None of them have adequate legal qualifications, and all of them are in each other’s pockets. All of them have close ties to the man at the centre of these ‘terrorism’ charges—Ablow Ghaazee, himself accused of misconduct and corruption—who Nasheed allegedly ‘kidnapped’.

The three man bench has obstructed justice at every opportunity, refusing to give Nasheed’s lawyers enough time to study evidence; giving them evidence on CDs that do not open or have been damaged; refusing Nasheed the opportunity to appoint new lawyers when the current ones objected to their unlawful treatment; and incredibly, refusing to allow Nasheed to present witnesses with the judgement that no witness can disprove the prosecution case.

Every hearing has been held after sundown, and Nasheed brought to court in darkened vehicles under heavy police escort. The lengths to which prosecutors have gone to separate Nasheed and his supporters, and to prevent media from taking pictures of him, have been ludicrous at times.

On 8 March, about an hour before Nasheed was brought to court, the powers that be spread a blue banner across the entrance to the building, placed strategically to cover the camera angle from which Raajje TV usually shoots Nasheed’s court arrival. The banner read ‘Welcome, International Women’s Day.’ A blatant mockery not of justice alone, but also of women.

There has been much anguish among Nasheed’s supporters. On February 27 tens of thousand came out to protest against the court’s decision to remand Nasheed in custody throughout the trial. It was the biggest political gathering the capital island of Male’ had ever seen. People flooded the main street of Majeedhee Magu almost covering it from end to end.

Since then there have been protests every night and every day in various different locations across the country. But the government is refusing to listen to them no matter how many there are; it seeks to shut them down instead.

Every protest is manned by hundreds of Special Operations police, sometimes with reinforcements from the army. Almost every other protest ends in brutality and/or arrests. Scores have been arrested, taken to prison, then released with the unconstitutional condition that they don’t protest for periods of time as set by the court-–sometimes days, sometimes months.

Leaders of the MDP are handpicked for the arrests, making sure that less and less of them will be able to join protests against Nasheed’s arrest. One person—MP Fayyaz Ismail—refused to sign the court’s unlawful protest ban. He was given an extra 15 days in custody. There is no legal basis for such an order.

An increasing number of locations are being declared ‘no-protest zones’ for various reasons: for residents’ peace; for local business interests; for law and order, etc. etc. Freedom of assembly is being rolled back swiftly, and without hesitation. Other associated freedoms are under similar attack. Journalists are being barred from covering the trial without legal reason. Reporters are being banned from videoing places they are legally allowed to. Police are forcing them to delete footage already recorded without legal authority to do so. The state broadcaster is continuing to ignore the biggest ‘trial’ in the country’s recent history, completely ignoring its duty to keep citizens informed.

Thumbs down

Meanwhile, Yameen and members of his ruling cabal are relishing the distress and helplessness of supporters of democracy and Nasheed. Decorum and statesmanship are nowhere to be seen. When MDP MPs protested against Yameen’s inaugural speech in parliament, he gave into his indignation, getting up and waving his thumbs up and down, then up again, like a crazed Caligula in Roman times.

Yameen’s trusted sidekick, Tourism Minister Ahmed Adeeb, who has shrugged off corruption charges amounting to millions of US dollars and engineered the unconstitutional removal of the auditor general who dared bring up the charges, led a motorbike procession on the streets of Malé this weekend, calling to expedite Nasheed’s conviction.

Among the rats led by this pied piper on a bike with a Rolex watch on his wrist and a sapphire ring on his finger, was the current defence minister, ex-military General Moosa Jaleel. Jaleel in his eagerness to belong to Yameen’s cabal, and thus enjoy automatic immunity, forgot that he is himself on trial for the same charges he was calling Nasheed to be convicted for.

To further increase the public disgust level [or degree of impressiveness, if the onlooker is a supporter of Bro Adeeb], Adeeb has led a ‘movement’ that mimics Yameen’s thumbs-down gestures as if it is something to be celebrated and not shamed by. He has posed with his thumbs down with cabinet ministers and parliament members—as well as with his usual string of young, disaffected men on the fringes, and in the heart of, Maldives’ violent gang culture. Everyone in the Motorcade of The Shamelessness wore t-shirts emblazoned with a thumbs-down signal.

This hatred of Nasheed as a person cultivated with relish by Yameen and Adeeb has been embraced by thousands of their supporters. It has blinded them to the fact that what is being destroyed in this sham is not just Nasheed’s personal freedoms but also every single Maldivian’s many civil and political rights and their right to equal justice for all.

The fundamental problem with the Maldives’ transition to democracy was that it was unable, and oftentimes unwilling, to reform the judiciary. Few had the foresight to see where the democratic transition would end without an independent judiciary based on the principles of rule of law. Now, even on hindsight – with the results on full display – many are still too blinded by personal vendettas, grudges and hate to see that this ‘trial’ of Nasheed is the last nail in the coffin for a democratic future for the Maldives.

Years of anti-Nasheed propaganda have closed people’s eyes to the fact that whatever wrong he may have done, if they want themselves to be treated fairly and equally and live in a just society, they must protest against the injustice he is being subjected to.

Today it is the moral obligation for every Maldivian to stand up against injustice. The subject of concern is not a particular individual, be it Nasheed, Nazim, the common man jailed for six years for stealing a jar of fish-paste; or the murderer who is allowed to walk free because he is in the inner cabal. It is justice itself.

Last time the people should have stood up en masse for justice and did not, the Maldives was robbed of a free and fair election. The result is in office, orchestrating injustice, via the courts that engineered his election. This time if the people fail to stand up, it will shut all doors to another election in the foreseeable future; along with the doors to equal justice for all, quite likely for generations to come.

Dr Azra Naseem has a PhD in International Relations

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]


Related to this story

“I was not afforded the rights of the accused,” says Judge Abdulla

Nasheed’s lawyers quit

State prosecutors influencing witnesses, claim Nasheed’s lawyers

Nasheed contests credibility of police and military witnesses in terrorism trial

Judges Didi and Yoosuf refuse to step down from Nasheed’s terrorism trial

Former President Nasheed arrives in court with arm in makeshift sling

Nasheed denied right to appoint lawyer and appeal “arbitrary” arrest warrant, contend lawyers

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)