Tag: judiciary

Comment: Maldives’ judiciary unreformed and unrepentant

I have read with concern a number of articles and commentaries over recent weeks which appear to be based on two false premises: first, that the Maldives judiciary is independent and impartial; and second, that it is capable of delivering a fair trial to the democratically elected President of this country, Mr Mohamed Nasheed.

Neither premise holds-up to careful scrutiny.

The first false-premise, which is regularly put forward by members of the Government, especially Dr Hassan Saeed, as well as by the Maldives’ own ‘independent’ UN Resident Coordinator, Mr Andrew Cox, appears to be based on a misguided reading of the concept of ‘independence’. In essence, this misreading holds that if our Constitution says that the judiciary is ‘independent’ then it must be so, irrespective of what the on-the-ground reality tells us.

The 2008 Constitution does of course establish a separation of powers and makes clear, in article 142, that “judges are independent”. But just because the Constitution says this is so, does not, of course, magic the situation into existence.

What the Constitution also does therefore is set up mechanisms to ensure judicial independence, impartiality and integrity. It therefore makes clear that all judges will, under the new Constitution, be subject to a reappointment process (article 285) and that to be (re)appointed, judges (article 149) “must possess the educational qualifications, experience and recognized competence necessary to discharge the duties and responsibilities of a Judge, and must be of a high moral character”.

Central to this process is the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), which is responsible for both the (re)appointment process and for upholding the impartiality and integrity of judges including by listening to complaints and taking “disciplinary action” against them if necessary (article 159b).

The importance of these mechanisms is clear when one recalls that all judges at the time of the entry-into-force of the new Constitution had been appointed by, and owed their loyalties to, former President Gayoom during his 30-year rule.

However, as Aishath Velezinee, President Nasheed’s former member on the JSC, has demonstrated in her book “The Failed Silent Coup”, former President Gayoom succeeded, through securing a post-election de facto majority in the Majlis, in controlling the appointment of members to the JSC and thus of controlling the JSC’s reappointment and disciplinary procedures.

As a result, despite ample evidence of some judges possessing neither the competence, qualifications nor moral character to be reappointed, the JSC quickly moved to swear them all in, arguing that the criteria laid down by the Constitution to control reappointment were only “symbolic” .

When Velezinee objected she was manhandled out of the room.

In the years thereafter, the JSC compounded this failure by refusing to process any of the multiple public complaints it received against Gayoom-era justices. When, in 2011, it finally bowed to public pressure and recommended disciplinary action be taken against Judge Abdullah Mohamed, a man accused of serial wrongdoings over many years, the judge in question simply asked his friends in the Civil Court to annul the proceedings.

When the Civil Court did so, it removed the last pretense that the Maldives’ judiciary is independent, impartial or accountable. As of that date, the Maldives’ judiciary became a failed institution.

So what of the second premise: that such a judiciary is capable of delivering a fair trial to President Nasheed, who is ‘accused’ of arresting Judge Abdullah Mohamed after the judge used his friends in the Civil Court to circumvent the Constitution and then used his position in the Criminal Court to repeatedly free not just allies of former President Gayoom, but also a number of known criminals?

Here, it is perhaps worth turning to respected international experts, international organisations and NGOs which have studied the Maldives judiciary and the justice sector more broadly.

The systematic problems facing the judicial system have been widely documented and were perhaps best summed-up by legal expert Professor Paul Robinson who advised the Maldives on judicial reform.

In his 2005 report, he characterised the Maldives criminal justice system as “systematically failing to do justice and regularly doing injustice”.

One of Professor Robinson’s main recommendations – to conduct a complete overhaul of the country’s archaic Penal Code – remains unimplemented. As a consequence, the Prosecutor-General is insisting on prosecuting President Nasheed on the basis of a Code drafted in the 1960s and which is based on a document produced in India in the 19th century.

In February 2011, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) visited the Maldives and issued a report which echoed many of Professor Robinson’s earlier concerns and demonstrated that, irrespective of the new Constitution, little had changed.

In its report, the ICJ expressed concern at “the apparent failure of the JSC to fulfill its constitutional mandate of properly vetting and reappointing judges” as well as the “judicialisation of politics”.

“The JSC”, according to the ICJ, “was unable to carry out its functions in a sufficiently transparent, timely, and impartial manner”. The ICJ concluded that the complete lack of judicial accountability in the Maldives undermines public confidence and calls into question the institution’s independence.

In July 2012, the United Nations Human Rights Committee considered the state of the Maldives judiciary. In its concluding statement, the Committee said it was “deeply concerned about the state of the judiciary in the Maldives”.

“The State has admitted that this body’s independence is seriously compromised” noted the Committee, which called for serious reform of the Supreme Court, the judiciary more broadly and the Judicial Service Commission.

These findings were mirrored by both Amnesty International and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) in late 2012, following their visits to the Maldives. For example, FIDH in its report “From Sunrise to Sunset” on human rights in the Maldives, noted that despite important constitutional changes, “different sections of the judiciary have failed to become fully independent”, while pointing out that the JSC lacks transparency and its members are prone to “conflicts of interest”.

With the above in mind, it is difficult to understand how members of the government or some parts of the international community can claim with any degree of sincerity that our judiciary is either independent or capable of delivering a fair trial for President Nasheed or the hundreds of other Maldives Democratic Party (MDP) members currently facing prosecution for “terrorism” and other trumped-up charges.

If justice is indeed blind, then why are hundreds of MDP supporters awaiting trial, while not one police officer or member of the current government has been held accountable for the widely-documented brutality unleashed against protesters since February 7?

And if justice is indeed blind, then why are cases against MDP supporters being fast-tracked while there are over 2000 other cases pending with the Prosecutor-General? Why have all the serious corruption cases against Gayoom’s political allies been either sidelined or discontinued?

Perhaps the most damning indictment of the Maldives judiciary is that, at this time of political division, it is the one subject about which nearly everyone in the country can agree. Whether you are for President Nasheed or against him; whether you think February 7 was a legitimate change in government or a coup, nearly everyone – at least outside the President’s Office – agrees that our judicial sector are not fit for purpose.

And yet it is this deeply flawed institution, wielding a two hundred year old legal code that is supposedly able to deliver a fair trial for President Nasheed.

Over recent years, we have achieved much. We have amended our Constitution, embraced party politics, held our first free and fair elections, voted-out a 30 year old autocracy and voted-in our first democratically elected leader.

But the judiciary has failed to come even close to matching this pace of change and remains, by-and-large, the same institution as it was during the Gayoom era – unreformed and unrepentant.

Eva Abdulla is an MP in the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police issued with arrest warrant for Nasheed

Additional reporting by Mariyath Mohamed

The Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court has issued an order to the Maldives Police Service for the arrest of former President Mohamed Nasheed, asking them to bring him to a court hearing at 4:00PM on Tuesday.

Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef confirmed that the new warrant gives the police powers of arrest after a previous warrant allowed them only to present the defendant in court with his consent.

The order has been issued in relation to the case of Nasheed’s arrest of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed last year.

Punishment for a person guilty of this offence is imprisonment or banishment for three years, or a fine of MVR 2,000 (US$129.70).

Nasheed was initially summoned to the court on October 1. After he failed to attend this hearing, instead heading to the southern atolls to campaign, the court ordered police to present him at the next hearing, scheduled for Sunday October 7.

Nasheed then sent a request to the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court on Friday asking for the hearing to be rescheduled. The court rejected the appeal, saying that campaigning was not listed as a reason for absence in the legislation regarding summons.

He had planned to return to Male’ on Saturday October 13. No spokesman from the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) was able to respond to calls at the time of press.

Earlier today, the high court rejected former Nasheed’s appeal challenging the legitimacy of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, and its summoning of him in connection with this case.

Former MP and President of MDP Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail has also cast doubt on the validity of the Hulhumale court’s rulings.

“There is more than ample grounds to contend that the summons was issued by an unlawful panel of judges, sitting in an unlawful court, which had already issued an unconstitutional restraining order which was ultra vires,” said Ibra on his personal blog.

Last week, the MDP vowed to ignore all rulings made by the courts until judicial reforms were introduced.

Nasheed did not return to Male’ for today’s hearing, following which the court issued the current arrest warrant.

The high court has ruled that the order to arrest Nasheed and present him in court on Tuesday cannot be appealed.

An arrest warrant was issued for Nasheed – for unspecified charges –  shortly after his resignation in February although he was never detained by police.

Nasheed was arrested more than twenty times under the regime of 30-year president Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

Since leaving the President’s Office, Nasheed has maintained that figures loyal to the former regime were behind his ousting, although the Commission of National Inquiry’s (CNI) final report in August found otherwise.

Nasheed is also currently facing civil court proceedings related to the defamation – labelling as traitors – the current minister of defence and police commissioner, both installed immediately following his resignation.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Road to reconciliation has to be smooth

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has to be congratulated for the belated decision to return to Parliament and the reported interest in reviving the all-party talks. Already, Parliament has reconvened and the government parties, it can be expected, will process the suggestion for reviving the talks once President Mohammed Waheed returns home from his US trip.

The MDP’s participation in Parliament and promise to rejoin the talks – the latter reportedly indicated to PPM parliamentary group leader Abdulla Yameen by none other than former President Mohammed Nasheed – are clear on specifics. The party wants both Parliament and the political negotiations to address reforms to ‘independent constitutional institutions’ as indicated by the report of the Commission of National Inquiry (CoNI).

The report, as may be recalled, had upheld the constitutional validity of power-transfer effected on President Nasheed’s resignation on February 7 and had recommended on issues of common concern, over which there has been across-the-board unanimity of sorts. There are differences over phraseology and details – as between the need for ‘institutional reforms’, as sought by the MDP and ‘institutional empowerment’ – but no political party in the government has seriously contested the need for a re-look at the independent institutions and their functioning.

In fact, parties are also united on the need for looking at the CoNI recommendations in this regard. It is not impossible to achieve much of this before the deadline possibly set by the presidential polls due this time next year, if political parties put ‘national interest’ and ‘national reconciliation’ ahead of petty political agendas and electoral tactic in the coming weeks and months. After all, the very same players could give themselves a new Constitution some four years back the same way, and there is no reason why they could not do so again.

It is all written into the script of dynamic democracies, all through. Rather, for democracies to retain its characteristics, they have to have dynamic processes of consultations, accommodation and readjustments. By the same token it is not about what has not been achieved at any given point in time but what has been achieved still – despite the inherent contradictions, constituency interests and political compulsions of the stake-holders. It thus implies that the proposed reforms need not be sweeping and all-serving. It can make a start, but with a clear idea as to which road would have to be travelled further, not again and again. This requires a sense of accommodation.

Boycotting courts

It is in this context the recent MDP national council’s decision “not to observe the authority” of the courts sends out a jarring note. It flows from the criminal case against President Nasheed and others, on the charges of the Maldivian National Defence Force (MNDF) illegally detaining criminal court judge Mohammed Abdulla on January 16. Citing the party decision, President Nasheed stayed away from the suburban Hulhumale court trying the case on October 1, and proceeded on a campaign tour of the southern atolls.

The court has since directed the police to produce President Nasheed on Sunday. Nasheed’s lawyers also did not appear before the three-judge trial bench. While directing the police to produce President Nasheed, the court has observed that he has not given any reason for not participating in the trial. It is anybody’s guess why the police did not restrain him from leaving Male for the southern atolls with more than adequate pre-publicity and in full glare of the media when he was under ‘island arrest’ ahead of the commencement of the trial.

Translated, the term ‘island arrest’ means that an accused in a criminal case has to stay put in the island where the trial is taking place and appear before the courts whenever required. It may sound an archaic part of legal procedures, suited to the times when inter-island and inter-atoll transport facilities were inadequate, and may be among the provisions requiring a review – either by the judiciary on its own or by the legislature, or both. Such a review could also be considered for such penalties as ‘banishment’, still contained in the Maldivian penal laws.

Yet, near-similar provisions exist elsewhere too, where an accused in criminal cases are directed by courts to leave, or not leave, the jurisdiction of such other courts of police stations and also report to them periodically, pending the conclusion of the trial. The possibility of the accused exerting influence over the witnesses is often cited as the reason for such directives by the court. The alternative to such ‘bail conditions’ is for the accused in criminal cases in these countries – neighbouring India and Sri Lanka included – to return to jail, pending the conclusion of the trial and the pronouncement of the verdict.

In deciding to boycott the courts, the MDP seems to have concluded that they could not expect justice from the existing system. Even as they agitated for ‘institutional reforms’, this was the judiciary they had inherited and they had left behind when President Nasheed was in office. Not that they were happy about, but in the eyes of law, the constitution of the Supreme Court Bench, however controversial and however perceived to be partisan it might have been, had the approval of the government and the President of the day.

Having agitated for further reforms, it may now be up to the MDP as the majority party in Parliament to initiate the process and specifics of such reforms under the executive presidency scheme with the government parties still in a minority in Parliament.

By not submitting to the authority of the nation’s courts, the MDP nominee runs the risk of adding to the litany of criminal cases that the party expects would be heaped on him, if left unchallenged. The place to agitate the position again should be the courts, and Third World democracy, that too in the neighbourhood, is full of instances where political party leaders in particular have played within the walls of the existing scheme for tactical approaches whose legality could be questioned only in a higher court.

At present, President Nasheed in this specific case has already run the risk of adding to the offences listed against him. The party has called the original criminal charges against him in ordering the arrest of Judge Abdulla as ‘politically motivated’. However, absence from the court, attracting ‘contempt of court’ charges stand on a different footing. They are offences in themselves, punishable with a six-month prison term as penalty, complicating his chances of contesting the presidential polls even more. Already, the MDP apprehends – and has not minced words in giving expression to such expression – that the original criminal case, as also two defamation cases filed against him – were aimed at impeding his path to the presidential polls.

Before leaving Male for the southern atolls this time, President Nasheed is reported to have asked all concerned to review their position on the criminal cases against him. He may have a point. At the end of the day, there is a political process involved in the independent handling of the criminal cases being independently handled by the Prosecutor-General’s (PG) office. Those processes, and appeals based on facts, law and their constitutionality, do not apply to contempt of court proceedings. These are often ‘open-and-shut’ cases, as the phrase is understood.

Otherwise, the MDP may have to revisit its national council decision to see if one such as this one on boycotting courts would draw adverse decisions from the Election Commission, another ‘independent institution’ under the Constitution. In such a case, the party would only itself have to blame – for confusing tactic and strategy, ideology and adaptability in a dynamic democracy. While numbers are the MDP’s strength, and so is the conviction of those followers, it should be allowed to operate within the inherent limitations that the party has inherited under the multi-party scheme until it has been able to ‘convert’ the rest, or adapt the constitutional means to reach where it wants the nation to be – or, both.

Midnight killing of MP

These developments came ahead of the midnight killing of PPM Member of Parliament, Dr Afrasheen Ali, a religious scholar, on the staircase of his Male’ home. The incident occurred on the ‘UN International Day of Non-Violence’, commemorating the birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi, India’s non-violence icon, who fought the British colonial rulers without sword and guns – and won Independence for his deeply-divisive country by promoting unity of purpose and conviction about the cause and the process. Gandhiji punished himself for whatever he perceived as the sins of his followers, and would fast for days until they atoned, and subjected himself readily to the rules, laws and courts of the colonial ruler, without question. His was a battle born out of conviction, and remained one until the very end.

Whatever the motive and whoever the killers, the midnight massacre of a Member of Parliament has come at a difficult time for Maldives, when the nation for readjusting to the post-CoNI ground realities. These realities pertained to an end to the MDP street-protests over the circumstances leading to President Nasheed’s resignation and at the same time leading to a political decision by his party to boycott the nation’s courts, instead. Just a day old, the murder will take the police time to resolve, though it could also revive the national discourse on the need for more reforms in more areas – this one, involving the police and criminal investigations.

Sure enough, Maldives as a nation, and the capital city of Male, accounting for a third of the nation’s 400,000-minus population lives, has begun limping back to normalcy of some sort when the MP’s killing has shocked and rocked the nation as none before in recent times. This had been preceded by the crude killing of a senior advocate by a drug-addict and his girl-friend some months ago, but which was resolved promptly by the police force.

What is also at stake thus is the continuance of a peaceful political atmosphere, law and order situation, at a time when the country can do with more tourists and more tourist resorts to egg on the nation away from the economic perils that it finds itself now – and again! Even more important is for the nation and its population to recreate that sense of security and safety, which Maldivians have prided themselves through years of unprecedented and un-calibrated growth, where social equity and societal tranquility have often been victims elsewhere.

The road ahead

For the post-CoNI reconciliation efforts to be meaningful and purposeful, there is an urgent need to create the right political and social atmosphere. The responsibility for this rests with all stake-holders, but the initiative has to come from the government of the day. The criminal cases against President Nasheed, for instance, belonged to a particular point in the contemporary political history of the nation.

It also owed to the kind of political climate that the present-day government parties contributed in equal measure, if not more, when they were in the Opposition. Today, the shoe is on the other foot, and no great national purpose would be served – instead, it could tantamount to dis-service after a point – if there is no attempt at national reconciliation as much in spirit as in word. To that extent, if either side feels strongly and sincerely about reconciliation, they need to smoothen out the road ahead, and at the same time, smooth out the edges, too.

Before President Nasheed, his predecessor Maumoon Abdul Gayoom had worked on reconciliation in his own way. Maybe late in recognising the realities of the new era as they dawned on him, President Gayoom reconciled himself first, and reconciled with the rest, over what needs to be done, and how it needs to be done. Both he and President Nasheed after him reconciled themselves to the ground realities – based at times on numbers in vibrant democracies – by respectively providing for a smooth transfer of power on the one hand, and absence of legal recrimination for what had been done or not done while in power in the past. Much of it seems to have been undone over a short span, and there is an urgent need for the nation as a whole to walk that path – and together – all over again!

The writer is a Senior Fellow at Observer Research Foundation

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP decides to stop following court orders until judicial system is reformed

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has released a statement saying it will no longer follow any orders given by the courts of the Maldives until the changes proposed by international entities are brought to the Maldivian judicial system.

The party said the decision was reached as to date, they had observed no efforts to improve the judicial system based on the recommendations put forward in reports released by numerous international organizations.

Former Minister of Foreign Affairs Ahmed Naseem proposed a motion regarding the matter at the party’s 128th National Executive Council (NEC) meeting Thursday, which was seconded by Former Minister of Environment and Housing Mohamed Aslam.

The motion stated that the party believed the increasing number of arrests and allegations of serious crimes like terrorism against a large number of citizens, parliament members, city councillors, and other elected political leaders were politically motivated. It further stated that this was unjust manipulation of the judiciary by the government to weaken political competition, and an attempt to prevent Nasheed from contesting in the upcoming presidential elections.

The MDP also states that with reference to the reservations put forward by former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team on Wednesday, it does not believe any of the existing courts would be able to give Nasheed a fair and just trial.

MDP furthermore intends to go ahead with the trips to the atolls planned to commence on October 1, after the motion was passed unanimously at the NEC meeting.

The Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court has placed Nasheed under island arrest effective from Tuesday, with regard to a case concerning the arrest of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed last year.

In reaction to this, MDP has also announced its intention to conduct a nationwide protest on Friday.

A number of international actors, including the UN Human Rights Committee, Amnesty International, European Union and the United States have previously emphasised the importance of judicial reform in the Maldives.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

CNI report “based on false premise that Abdulla Mohamed is a constitutionally appointed judge”: Velezinee

The Commission of National Inquiry (CNI)’s report into the circumstances surrounding the controversial transfer of power on February 7 mistakenly presumes that the Maldives has an independent and constitutionally-appointed judiciary, former President’s Member of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), Aishath Velezinee, has stated.

The report, focused on the events of February 6 to 8, claimed there was no evidence to support allegations by former President Mohamed Nasheed that he was ousted in a coup d’état, that his resignation was under duress, or that there was any mutiny by the police and military. It dwells heavily on “unlawful orders” given by Nasheed as justification for police disobedience and protests, in particular his ordering the detention of Chief Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed by the military.

“The report, by its failure to probe the events leading up to the removal of Abdulla Mohamed and the January 2012 protests, fails to recognise the systematic breach of the Constitution by the JSC and Majlis that forced President Nasheed to use the powers of Head of State to address the issue of Abdulla Mohamed,” said Velezinee, in a detailing statement responding to the report.

“The inquiry is based on a false premise, the assumption that Abdulla Mohamed is a constitutionally appointed judge, which is a political creation and ignores all evidence refuting this,” she stated.

Velezinee noted that Article 285 of the constitution – concerning the appointment and qualification of judges on conclusion of the interim period – was discarded by the JSC in 2010 as “symbolic”, “the CNI report indirectly legitimises a judiciary where at least 196 judges sworn in by the JSC/Interim Supreme Court between 4 August and 7 August 2012 are a nullity, having been appointed without due procedure, and without fulfilling the qualifications and qualities required of a Judge under the Constitution.”

She noted that many of the “prominent lawyers” and politicians who protested the arrest of Abdulla Mohamed’s removal “were MPs with criminal cases before Abdulla Mohamed and their lawyers.”

Furthermore, “the report does not mention that many of the ‘prominent lawyers’ who protested at the removal of Abdulla Mohamed now sit in office.”

“Suspicion is further raised when it is observed that the MPs who led the January 2012 [protests] were the same MPs who had obstructed attempts to get a parliamentary inquiry [into the JSC] by disrupting Committee [hearings], and included the current Chair of the Majlis Committee,”

The report further failed to note recent observations by the UN Human Rights Committee in July 2012 substantiating the JSC’s nullification of Article 285, she noted.

In its concluding observations, the UNHRC noted “concerned at the fact that the composition and the functioning of the JSC seriously compromises the realisation of measures to ensure the independence of the judiciary as well as its impartiality and integrity.”

The Committee is also concerned that such a situation undermines the judicial protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the State party (art. 2 (3), 14).

“The State party should take effective measures to reform the composition and the functioning of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). It should also guarantee its independence and facilitate the impartiality and integrity of the Judiciary, so as to effectively protect human rights through the judicial process.

The CNI report itself recognised the poor standard of the judiciary, Velezinee observed, citing from it:

Perhaps the most fundamental requirement for a vibrant democracy is the rule of law which appears weak in the Maldives. Notably, the Commission was confronted regularly by allegations of the breach of the rule of law and clear absence of confidence in the institutions which are entrusted with upholding it.

Indeed, this appeared central to the frustrations of government under President Nasheed and his own lack of recourse to the judiciary to redress grievances and settle disputes. He did not appear alone.

Despite this, Velezinee noted that the report failed to recognise “that judicial reform is a fundamental Constitutional requirement under Article 285, or comprehend the centrality of Article 285 to the establishment of de facto independence of the judiciary in a state where de jure Independence of the judiciary was first introduced with the ratification of the Constitution in 2008.”

Instead, Velezinee stated, the report “explicitly politicises judicial reform as the political agenda of President Mohamed Nasheed and the Maldives Democratic Party (MDP); and fails to note that the political pledge in the MDP’s manifesto echoes Article 285 of the Constitution and its’ obligation upon the state of Maldives.”

By concluding that Judge Abdulla was just the “focus of their antipathy and antagonism”, the report “disregards major events that led to the events of January 2012, including but not limited to:

  • Events of 2010 around Constitution Article 285 and re-appointment of Judges
  • JSC’s unconstitutional nullification of Article 285 declaring it a “Symbolic Article” and re-appointing the sitting bench without due check
  • Failure of the Majlis to hold an inquiry into the JSC’s alleged Constitution breach and loss of an independent judiciary despite a commitment to hold an inquiry given by the Independent Bodies Oversight Committee on 2 August 2010
  • The fact that amongst those MPs and other political figures leading the January protests calling to “Free Judge Abdulla”, and seen celebrating President Nasheed’s “resignation” on 7 February 2012, were those same MPs who had obstructed all attempts to probe the said issues in Majlis Committees
  • The fact that these MPs, instead of upholding their duty and establishing the truth of the matter by holding an Open Inquiry allowing me to present evidence, politicised the issue and resorted to publicly attack myself, engaging in defamation and character-assassination whilst denying an inquiry. Action that gives good reason to believe in a cover-up, and a wider conspiracy against Constitutional Democratic Government that link events of 2010 (and beyond) to the events of 7 February 2012.
  • The fact that the matter of Abdulla Mohamed being a threat to national security was known to the Judicial Service Commission, the Maldives Police Services, the Maldives National Defence Forces and the Parliament in addition to the President; and that the system had failed to hold Abdulla Mohamed accountable, or the JSC accountable. Instead the JSC and Majlis were covering up for each other.”

The CNI report, Velezinee stated, “fails to consider how the collapse of Rule of Law could possibly have been engineered by those in positions of power, despite evidence of JSC’s Constitution breaches and Majlis cover-up provided to the CNI by myself.”

“The case of Abdulla Mohamed takes a completely different turn if it is established that Abdulla Mohamed is a political plant of President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, and is unconstitutionally retained by political influence, and placed as Chief Judge of Criminal Court by law, with the Majlis encroaching upon Constitutional powers given to the Judicial Service Commission alone,” Velezinee concluded. “Were it so, it is incumbent upon the Head of State to exercise his powers to prevent abuse of the Criminal Court by a political plant.”

“I am deeply concerned that the CNI report legitimises a dangerous precedent to permit de facto lowering of international standards despite the assurance of the highest standards of democracy as practiced in an open democratic society throughout the Constitution.”

CMAG to meet

The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) is due to meet and a consider the report in the next week.

The Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Bob Carr, on Tuesday issued a statement acknowledging its release.

Senator Carr will chair next week’s meeting of the CMAG which suspended the Maldives from the organisation’s human rights and democracy arm and placed the Maldives on its formal agenda after the events of February.

“Australia urges all party leaders to take part in discussions which pave the way to free and fair elections and strengthen Maldives’ democratic institutions,” Senator Carr said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: So long, and thanks for all the democracy

On the night of August 29, groups of uniformed officials of the Maldives Police Service were observed going around Malé in trucks, singing songs and mocking opposition MDP activists – the same ones they brutalised in a nationally televised theatre of violence during the events of February 7th and 8th.

The next morning, large groups of uniformed police were huddled together on the streets in their riot gear, their faces concealed by balaclavas, while the country awaited an announcement from the Commission of National Inquiry (CoNI) appointed by the Waheed regime to ‘investigate’ the controversial transfer of power.

The announcement surprised exactly nobody; the council of pigs had found in favour of Napoleon. There was no coup, it ruled. In fact, there wasn’t even a police mutiny. And if there was one, it didn’t quite break any law, the report found.

By evening, the Waheed regime’s Police Service – now apparently empowered to make their own laws – had declared that calling them ‘traitors’ was now a crime, and any person indulging in the act would be arrested.

The declaration followed in the footsteps of two citizens being arrested in recent days for the offence of calling Waheed a ‘traitor’. Journalists witnessed one lady being taken away on 30th August, allegedly for the crime of taking photographs of the police.

Over the course of the day, scores of MDP protesters would be detained by the police in ancticipation of large scale protests against the findings of the report, and the continued demands for early elections.

With the international community apparently eager to wash its hands off the Maldives, there will be plenty of time and opportunity for the police to deal with troublesome critics over the remainder of Waheed’s rule.

The CoNI Report

Ahmed ‘Gahaa’ Saeed, the sole representative of President Nasheed on the 5 member Commission, resigned the day before the report was to be made public. In a press conference following the publication of the report, Saeed pointed out what appear to be serious lapses in gathering evidence and recording testimony in preparation of the final report.

Among them, he highlighted that CCTV footage was provided for only 3 out of 8 cameras around the MNDF area, and even those had hours of footage edited out. No sufficient explanation was given by the security forces.

The Commission was not provided any CCTV footage by the Police and the President’s office, according to Saeed. Nor was CoNI granted access to information gathered by the Police Integrity Commission.

Furthermore, no interviews were held with any official of the notorious ‘Special Operations’, the highly trained riot control force that played a crucial role in the ouster of the first democratically elected government, as well as the subsequent targeted attacks on civilians, MDP leaders and party activists. Also missing was the testimony of Umar Naseer, the Deputy Leader of PPM who has publicly declared his role in the overthrow of the elected government, and revealed the existence of a ‘command centre’.

According to Saeed, other prominent interviewees alleged to have played a role in the coup d’etat appeared to have been coached, with all of them giving standard, non-commmital responses.

None of these alleged lapses or limitations were highlighted in the final report.

Illegal duress

Section 4F of the report, defining ‘Coercion in Law’ begins as follows:

“Coercion, as used in the Decree, refers to the American legal concept of illegal duress or the English legal concept of intimidation. This is a real threat delivered by one or more wrongdoers to another to harm and injure the latter or his family if the victim does not do something as demanded”

But surprisingly, the report makes no mention of the leaked audio recordings, first aired by Australia’s SBS Dateline program, that clearly reveal the President pleading for the safety of his family in return for his resignation on the morning of February 7.

There were a few other sections of the report that raises eyebrows. Regarding an allegation about an SMS purpotedly sent by the then Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Environment, allegedly asking for the disbursement of 2.4 million Rufiyaa to the mutinying cops, the Commission had this to report:

“[Mr. Saleem] debunked the message effortlessly, claiming that he did not recall sending such a message. After hearing him, the Commission would not invade and investigate the privacy and personal affairs of all and sundry…”

While the first sentence suggests some truly extraordinary levels of trust placed by the Commission in the testimony of the accused, the second reveals an inexplicable reluctance in pursuing every possible avenue of inquiry to uncover all relevant facts behind the power transfer – which, by definition, was the Commission’s job.

Furthermore, the report seems to paint a picture that the President was completely secure and faced no threat inside the MNDF HQ, when in reality it is undisputed that sections of the already outnumbered military had broken ranks and joined with the hostile police and opposition protesters in rioting outside.

Video recordings aired on National television showed military officers refusing to obey the President’s orders. Retired colonel Mohamed Nazim, in the video clip where he is seen addressing the mutinying forces outside, talks about being received warmly inside the MNDF HQ.

Indeed the CoNI report itself quotes him as saying “When I entered the military headquarters I was given a very happy scene. Everyone within the military lifted me up and very completely revealed their support for me. God willing, things will happen today as we want”.

If one is familiar with the fate of former Maldivian rulers facing chaotic mobs, then one realizes that guns were not necessary to threaten the President’s life. All that was required was for a solitary soldier to throw open the gates.
The report itself states elsewhere that all command and control was lost.

All of this appears entirely contradictory to the conclusions of the report that asserts that President Nasheed remained in control and had legal options to employ force to deal with the situation, which he refused to do – and therefore could not claim he resigned under duress.

This lends some credence to President Nasheed’s claims that the report was prepared with the political situation in mind, rather than with any serious ambition of uncovering facts.

Options before the MDP: Way forward

It is unrealistic to imagine that ordinary civilians, no matter how numerous or passionate, can topple a regime that is protected by a modern, trained, unsympathetic – and in this case, hostile – police and armed security forces.

The police have superior training, equipment, strategy, organization, intelligence gathering and other resources to counter and defeat any move that civilian protestors could possibly make. The same forces that protected the dictator Gayoom against an overwhelming tide of unpopularity can sufficiently protect his alleged puppet.

Given these realities, it is wise that President Nasheed has chosen to make a major concession and accept the findings of the report, while calling to implement its much welcome recommendations that include the strengthening of various institutions such as the HRCM, Police Integrity Commission, JSC and the Judiciary while also calling for swift action to be taken against rogue cops, who the report acknowledges had engaged in acts of brutality towards civilians.

While there remain serious injustices to be addressed and plenty of reasons for the MDP to be rightfully outraged, the path forward necessarily involves having to break the political gridlock that has paralyzed the nation since late last year.

It is clearly in the best interests of the public that the All Party talks resume and the daily business of running the nation and fixing the economy take centre stage again.

There are important lessons to learn from February 7. President Nasheed and the MDP need to introspect and reflect on their own considerable mistakes and poor judgments. The most important among them, perhaps, is committing to uphold the rule of law without any compromises, no matter how morally justifiable it may be.

With under a year left for the next scheduled elections, the MDP would be well advised to direct its efforts and resources on going back to the people and rallying them behind larger ideals.

Ultimately, one must remember that it was the people who handed a mandate to President Nasheed in 2008, and despite the ugly precedent set by the police and military, it will hopefully be the people once again who will make the decision in 2013.

So long, and thanks for all the democracy

With the publication of the CoNI report, and the apparent willingness of the international community to confer the same legitimacy on Waheed that it once granted the iron-fisted Gayoom – ostensibly with ‘stability’ in mind – the clocks have effectively been turned back a few years.

The Maldives’ unprecedented democratic revolution that began in the early 2000’s has ended prematurely, and many of the gains made since then have now effectively been reversed.

After three years, the Police have once again become an entity to be feared and loathed. The familiar intimidation of the media, and bullying tactics that were so widely prevalent during the Gayoom dictatorship is also back.

Waheed’s regime has been outright hostile to the free media, repeatedly barring the only opposition-aligned TV station from covering President’s office press conferences, and permanently withdrawing police protection for the channel’s reporters – despite explicit constitutional safeguards upholding media freedom. There is plenty of visual evidence of Raajje TV’s reporters being harassed and pepper sprayed at close range by the police; targeted attacks on the station by pro-government goons in August forced the station to interrupt services.

Citizens now face arrest for merely calling Waheed and his police forces ‘traitors’, whereas his regime regularly and unapologetically refers to citizens demanding early elections as ‘terrorists’.

The runaway judiciary remains weak and ineffectual, and there is no longer an elected President in power with any interest in fixing this crucial, but broken third leg of the base on which the country’s democracy was built to stand.

With a spineless media, a lethargic civil society, an incompetent Judiciary, weak institutions and watchdogs, a heavily politicized Police and military, not to mention the overarching influence of money and corruption in the whole process, the gargantuan task of achieving practical democracy in the Maldives appears forbidding, if not downright impossible.

To sow the seeds for a new revolution, the MDP needs to go back to the grassroots and educate the public.

February 7: the legacy

February 7 has left in its wake some very unwelcome precedents and niggling questions.

First among them is the newly acquired role of the police and military in determining the transfer of power, which the constitution had originally envisaged as being the sole prerogative of the voting public.

Will all future governments of the Maldives be required to buy the loyalty of the uniformed services with a range of perks, pay hikes, unprecedented promotions and turning a blind eye to their excesses and brutality in order to remain in power, as demonstrated by the Waheed regime?

Shall the Maldives follow in the footsteps of Pakistan that, over 65 years since independence, has failed to see a single democratically elected government complete a full term?

Finally, will the Maldivian judiciary ever become a house of justice for the public? Or will it remain perpetually overrun by incompetent fools, resistant to any external attempt bring them in line with the ideals enshrined in the constitution?

Does the Maldivian public really stand a chance to complete the democratic transition process we embarked on nearly a decade ago? Or will the next guy to attempt this Herculean task also pay the same price that Mohamed Nasheed did?

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“The quality of services delivered by the judiciary remains disappointingly gloomy”: Home Minister

“Our judiciary has some bright minds, but that does not exempt it from scrutiny; judiciary in the Maldives, with the exception of few courts and judges, the judiciary as a whole has earned a deservedly bad reputation for its inconsistent judgments, lack of leadership, lack of competency and being out of touch with modern laws and views of the society.”

So says Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed, the current Minister of Home Affairs, writing in Haveeru today.

“Holders of the judiciary were given security of tenure through the appointment of Magistrates and judges by an independent commission. Supreme Court justices recommended by Judicial Service Commission and nominated by the President were appointed by the Parliament.

Holders of the office of the judiciary were further secured with the provision that they could only be removed by a two third vote of the Parliament. The legislatures pinned their hopes of establishing an independent judiciary.

It was the desire of the nation to see not only an independent judiciary but also competent professionals leading it, and who are able to fulfill the expectation of a nation on the verge of embracing new found democracy, and whose inhabitants have over the years acquired knowledge and skills in various professions.”

Read more

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Challenges to an infant democracy

The following speech was delivered to India-based think tank, the Observer Research Foundation (ORF) on August 3, 2012.  The original transcript can be read here.

It’s an honour and a great pleasure for me to speak to you at the Observer Research Foundation (ORF), this morning.

As many of you would know the Maldives has recently experienced significant political change. In 2008, we ratified a new constitution, based on the principles of a modern democracy and had the first multi-party election.

This election resulted in a historic change of a 30-year regime. However, despite the change, the aspirations of the people for a more democratic future did not materialize. On top of that just after 3 years into his presidency the new President Mr Nasheed resigned. And now he is challenging the circumstances that led to his resignation and this has created further political disharmony and tensions.

Today, I would like to briefly share with you some of the challenges that the Maldives faces as an infant democracy. None of the challenges will be of great surprise to you. Indeed you have faced very grave challenges yourself.

Today, you have emerged as a mature democracy, making rapid strides in your developmental efforts. This is a source of great inspiration not only to the Maldives, but to all emerging democracies around the world.

Ladies and gentlemen, in a few days the Maldives will celebrate the 4th Anniversary of our new constitution. The process of constitutional enactment in the Maldives included a referendum on the system of government. The people favored a presidential system to a parliamentary system. We all had high hopes for our new constitution, and for a smooth transition from a largely autocratic system to a multi-party democracy.

The new constitution stipulates the separation of powers and for the first time it guaranteed fundamental rights and freedoms. It mandates the formation of independent commissions and other institutions that are vital for a democracy to function well.

The new constitution also introduced the concept of decentralised governance of atolls and islands by elected local councils instead of the traditional presidential appointees. The initial major test for the new constitution was the first multi-party presidential election.

After a strong contest with 6 candidates representing a wide range of Maldivian opinion, that election ended President Gayoom’s 30 years of rule and Mr Mohamed Nasheed, the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) candidate, supported by a coalition of other parties was sworn in, on November 11 2008, as the 4th President of the Maldives. However, after just over 3 years into his 5-year term, President Nasheed resigned on 7th February.

As stipulated in the new constitution, the Vice President, Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik, was then sworn in as the 5th President of the Maldives.

President Nasheed resigned in front of the media accompanied by his cabinet, saying he resigned for the national good. However, the next day he argued that he resigned under duress.

This has created substantial controversy and has led to the establishment of a Commission of National Inquiry to look in to the circumstances of the transfer of power. This has been the subject of a lot of speculation and featured in the media and discussions in India and elsewhere.

As I said earlier the people had high hopes for our new political system. The people expected vast improvements over the previous system of governance; they did not want law and order to be influenced by politics; they wanted the judiciary to be free from political and other influences; they wanted job security in the public sector to be independent from politics; they wanted to see greater transparency in awarding public sector contracts; they wanted a system of local governance where things that are directly related to their welfare to be, by and large, determined by their representatives at the local level; the people wanted a free and fair media; and most of all they wanted their life to be better under the new democratic system.

These aspirations were not met. This was because, the new government on the one hand, did not have the sincerity to see through the democratic process that we adopted. On the other hand there was a tendency to carry out reforms regardless of the means by which those reforms were implemented.

This increased the room for corrupt practices and other inefficiencies resulting from moral hazard. I believe, in lending support to the democratic process, the means of achieving national development objectives is as important as the ends of development themselves.

From the outset, the new government was not sufficiently sensitive to the values of sincerity and patience. It is important to underline the fundamental importance of these values in making the system work. The people need to be reassured that democracy can meet their needs in their day to day lives and serve to fulfill their aspirations for a better future.

If we are to be a successful modern multi-party democracy we need to give the people confidence that the vision and ideals that inspired the 2008 constitution are still relevant.

Let me explain in some detail some of the instances where these important fundamentals were breached by the Nasheed government.

Historians, legal and constitutional experts, and indeed citizens more generally, I’m sure would agree that the establishment and maintenance of the rule of law is a fundamental pillar of democracy.

One of the major challenges that the Maldives faces, even today is maintaining the rule of law. The people were fed up with the earlier system where the executive had a direct influence on the police service and the criminal justice system. The new constitution introduced a very different criminal justice system with a number of safeguards. For instance the establishment of an independent judiciary, and an independent prosecutor general among other measures, were impartial mechanisms to dispense justice.

The parliament had also established an independent Police Integrity Commission, which was important in setting the parameters for these institutions to function within a democratic framework. Where there is no rule of law there cannot be a meaningful or successful democracy. However, Mr Nasheed – when it suited him, totally disregarded this key principle.

A landmark transition towards democracy was the formation of a police service in 2008, accountable to the Home Ministry, ending the decades old system of military having to attend to the policing function as well. Before this positive change, the outgoing government of President Gayoom was blamed for alleged police brutality. This was a key theme of the MDP presidential campaign in 2008.

With Nasheed’s government in place, Maldivians anticipated that the military and police would be freed from any attempt by the government to use them to promote any political agenda or ends. Sadly that assumption proved to be wrong. The police and in some cases even the military were mobilized on many unlawful political tasks, some of which even defied Maldivian Supreme Court rulings.

In any consideration of the events of earlier this year, it should always be remembered that the nationwide protests and demonstrations that lasted 22 days in Male’, leading up to President Nasheed’s resignation was sparked by the unlawful detention and arrest of a Senior Judge of the Criminal Court by the military while President Nasheed was the head of the armed forces.

Therefore, despite important institutional changes, the Nasheed government influenced the police to act in ways that were favourable to MDP. As such, when MDP conducted demonstrations they received preferential treatment, while opposition rallies were summarily dispersed.

Ladies and gentlemen, Let me now turn to a brief consideration of the influence of politics on the civil service. In the Maldives, where the civil service is the single largest employer, any policy that impacts the civil service has an immediate and lasting effect on the welfare of a significant proportion of the workforce.

Prior to the Civil Service Act of 2007, the appointment, dismissal and the setting of remunerations and all other benefits related to them were directly controlled by the President’s Office.

However, with the enactment of the Civil Service Act, an independent Civil Service Commission answerable to the parliament was established with total responsibility to oversee the functioning of the civil service.

Yet, President Nasheed’s government undermined the role of the civil service. Firstly, this was by drastically increasing the number of political appointees, both by making new appointments at executive levels and by registering existing civil service employees as political appointees. This increased the number of public service employees that were directly under the purview of the executive.

Secondly, the president formed public corporations which did not come under the purview of the civil service. This enabled the executive to control large numbers of public sector employees. One example of this was the National Health Service, which was brought under a system of health services corporations and made responsible for providing health services to the community.

This meant that large numbers of civil service employees in the health sector were shifted to the health corporations. This, in turn, meant that a large number of public sector employees were suddenly dependent on the executive for their livelihood. These tactics enabled the executive to exercise undue political influence on a large number of public employees and, in effect, compromised the effectiveness of the Civil Service Act.

Ladies and gentlemen.  One of the positive changes people anticipated as a result of the new constitution was the system of decentralised local governance. However, when the first local council election delivered an overwhelming victory for the opposition the decentralisation process was slowed down by the Nasheed government.

Elected local councils are, by law, empowered to carry out many aspects of governance at the local level, yet with many of the councils having at the time a non MDP majority, the government refused to decentralise power.

Instead former President Nasheed created national administrative centers, accountable just to him. This added an overbearing administrative layer to the existing structure of decentralisation. Such actions were undemocratic, partisan and led to a waste of resources at a financially difficult time.

Another key aspect of a modern democracy was the establishment of an independent media. A free and an independent media, which is often referred to as the fourth pillar of the state, received considerable attention during the process of democratic change in the Maldives.

A free and an independent media provide the necessary checks and balances within the democratic system of governance. This led to the creation of the institutional framework that governed the operation of free media, and created the space for the development of private media, particularly the development of private radio and television for the first time in the Maldives. This also led to the establishment of the concept of an impartial public broadcaster that was essentially free from political influence.

During the 30 year rule of President Gayoom, state media was used largely as a propaganda tool for the regime. This was seen as a very visible example of the absence of democracy in the Maldives at the time. One of the strongest demands when people were calling for democratic reform from 2003 onwards was for a free and independent media.

It should be noted that one of the key points in the MDP’s 2008 manifesto was a pledge to establish a public broadcaster by the parliament. However, when the MDP government came in to power they refused to transfer the assets of the state broadcasting corporation to the new statutory body, the MBC (or, the Maldives Broadcasting Corporation), that was formed as the public broadcaster. The MDP government essentially refused to comply with the legislation simply because the members of the MBC board of directors appointed by parliament was not to their liking.

These, ladies and gentlemen, are some of the key challenges confronting the Maldives as the country faces a new dawn of democracy.

Let me conclude by making a few remarks about the way forward.

The year 2008 saw the beginning of a democratic transition in the Maldives. The enactment of the new constitution was the crucial first step of this transition from an autocratic system to a modern democracy. Enacting the constitution itself however, is not sufficient to establish a functioning modern democracy.

Democratic transition is a process that needs a number of further steps in order for it to be successful. Some of these steps are outlined in the constitution. They include holding the first multi-party presidential election, the establishment of the Supreme Court, holding of the first multi-party parliamentary elections, setting up various independent bodies, holding of the first local council elections and the enactment of various pieces of legislations. Further, it is also important to strengthen the democratic institutions through capacity building.

Some of this work has already been completed. The remaining tasks need to be undertaken and completed over the coming months and years.

As the Maldives heads towards its second presidential elections under our new constitution, much needs to be done to rebuild people’s confidence at this stage of our infant democracy.

To develop such confidence amongst the people the leadership must show commitment and conviction in adhering to the principles of democracy. The leadership must have the courage to see through the process of democratic change.

Unfortunately, the first government under the new democratic constitution did not display the courage and patience to follow the path of democratic governance. As a result it has held up the transition process.

The way forward has been further complicated because of the current political tensions resulting from President Nasheed’s contention that he was forced to resign. This has resulted in further widening the political polarization within Maldives society.

Further, there is a very real fear that the people are getting increasingly frustrated that their aspirations are not being met. And when there is political instability it can undermine economic prosperity which can have a direct impact on the quality of life.

Therefore, it is important to have dialogue among the main stakeholders in order to create stability and reduce political tension. If the parties are unable to reach an amicable solution, meaningful progress in the democratic transition can only happen after the presidential elections due next year.

On a positive note, despite the frustrations, I believe, the peoples aspirations for democratisation has not changed.

We appreciate the continuous engagement by the government of India to facilitate an early resolution to the political stalemate in Maldives, particularly the timely engagement through repeated visits by the Foreign Secretary, His Excellency Mr Ranjan Mathai.

I also commend the important role of the Indian High Commissioner in the Maldives, His Excellency, Mr Mullay, for his dedication and hard work during these trying times. Also I greatly appreciate his efforts to enhance relations between our two countries, sometimes under very difficult circumstances.

The road to democracy is no doubt, long and hard, with many challenges along the way. But through persistence and good will, I’m sure the fruits of democracy will be as sweet as the future is bright.

Ahmed Thasmeen Ali is an MP and leader of the government-aligned Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP).

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil Court dismisses ruling of own watchdog body against Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed

The Civil Court today dismissed a decision by its own watchdog body, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), to take action against Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdullah Mohamed for violating the Judge’s Code of Conduct.

An investigation into a complaint of ethical misconduct against Judge Abdulla was completed by a JSC special committee which recommended in the final report to the commission that action be taken against the Judge for violating the Judge’s Code of Conduct – specifically, by making a politically biased statement in an interview with DhiTV.

However, during the period given to Judge Abdulla to respond to the report, he instead obtained a Civil Court injunction against his further investigation by the judicial watchdog.

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

But the appeal was rejected, concluding that the commission had not provided the court “any substantial reason to terminate the injunction and that the High court cannot make a decision on the case while the case is pending at a lower court.

As the final verdict on the case came out today, the Civil Court overruled the the decision stating that Judge Abdulla was not given an opportunity to respond to the allegations during the investigation.

According to the decision, providing a chance to submit any complaints after the investigation is completed cannot be deemed as an opportunity for the Judge to present his defence.

Like all other state institutions the JSC must also be held accountable in front of the law, the court noted, addding that party who believes to have suffered damages due to a decision by the commission have the right to litigate  matter to protect his rights.

Furthermore the Civil Court concluded that action cannot be taken against the Abdullah under the Judge’s Code of Conduct, because the said violation predates the regulation.

Charges against the Judge

Apart from the ethical misconduct complaint, the JSC revealed that a total of 11 complaints have been submitted to the commission against Judge Abdulla Mohamed, among which are serious allegations of corruption and abuse of authority.

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

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.

In 2009, those documents were sent to the JSC, which was requested to launch an investigation into the outstanding complaints as well as alleged obstruction of “high-profile corruption investigations”.

The JSC decided not to proceed with the investigation on July 30, 2009.

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

Central figure in Nasheed’s downfall

Abdulla Mohamed was also a central figure in the downfall of former President Mohamed Nasheed, following the military’s detention of the judge after the government accused him of political bias, obstructing police, stalling cases, links with organised crime and “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist” to protect key figures of the former dictatorship from human rights violations and corruption cases.

Judge Abdulla’s arrest sparked three weeks of anti-government protests starting in January, while the government appealed for assistance from the Commonwealth and UN to reform the judiciary.

As protests escalated, elements of the police and military mutinied on February 7, alleging Nasheed’s orders to arrest the judge were unlawful. A Commonwealth legal delegation had landed in the capital only days earlier.

Nasheed publicly resigned the same day, but later said he was forced to do so “under duress” in a coup d’état. Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has taken to the streets in recent months calling for an early election.

Judge Abdulla was released on the evening of February 7, and the Criminal Court swiftly issued a warrant for Nasheed’s arrest. Police did not act on the warrant, after international concern quickly mounted.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)