Tag: judiciary

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

The Maldives is at “a dangerous junction” following the publication of an in-depth report into the state of the country’s judiciary by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), says President’s Member of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) Aishath Velezinee.

The report was released this week following a visit by an ICJ delegation that included former UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Dr Leandro Despouy. It urged the provision of institutional and individual support for judges and magistrates in the Maldives, foreign oversight and assistance, and highlighted judicial accountability as “the key to cultivating public confidence [in the judiciary]”.

The report was especially critical of the JSC, “constitutionally established as an independent and impartial body tasked with vetting non-Supreme Court judges and magistrates.”

The JSC, the report said, “was unable to carry out its functions in a sufficiently transparent, timely, and impartial manner. To date, JSC decision-making has been perceived as being inappropriately influenced by a polarised political environment. Also troubling is that members of the judiciary have been subject to threats and intimidation as well as improper inducements by both governing and opposition party members.”

The JSC has refused to even table the report, Velezinee said on Thursday.

“We have not been given the opportunity to discuss the report in the JSC,” she said.

“The first thing is for those members exposed as not up to the conduct required by JSC to seriously think about resigning. Number two – we need to table the ICJ report and discuss it. But they have shown no interest in doing so.”

The ramifications of not doing this meant that the Maldives  had “a runaway judiciary”, Velezinee said.

“There has been very public resistance from JSC to any sort of democratisation of the JSC. I’m afraid the people are fooled – the constitution promises an independent judiciary and JSC, which would ensure judges are impartial and independent. But the JSC never institutionalised itself as an independent institution.”

The ICJ had managed, Velezinee said, “to put together a clear picture drawing from the little documentation that was available to them.”

“A lot of very political opinions were shared with them by stakeholders, and they would have had to be really vigilant to not be taken in by the politics of it,” Velezinee said.

“I think the challenge for them was that almost all the documentation is in Dhivehi and not available publicly. Considering the difficulties they had getting information and the very political situation we are currently in, I think they have done an excellent job.”

Situation at hand

Under the constitution the next step forward would be for the Majlis (parliament) to act as the independent oversight body and “put the JSC on trial”, Velezinee said.

“But every time controversy in the JSC becomes public the Majlis intervenes – not in a way that holds JSC accountable, but with the sole objective of covering JSC’s misdeeds. Right now the parliament has a three-member subcommittee conducting a secret investigation of JSC – these are meetings that are closed door [and not public knowledge].”

Parliament, Velezinee contended, had failed to hold the JSC to account and had resisted reforming the watchdog body.

“The parliament is together with the judiciary on this – certain influential members of parliament would like to maintain the status quo so they can control the judiciary,” Velezinee said.

“This is not such a far-fetched radical thought coming from me any more because of the things we have seen over the last year to do with politicians and judicial action. The courts are a playground for politicians and are not trusted by the general public.

“Parliament has failed, and there is no other institutional mechanism in this constitution for the JSC to be held to account.”

It was, Velezinee said, in the interests of everyone, including the international community and the state, “to ensure that the constitutional provisions to establish independent judiciary are followed to the letter and in spirit. We have failed to do that.”

The reason for that failure, she suggested, was a fear among leaders of the former administration “who are continuing with criminal activities they have allegedly been carrying out for a long, long time. These are allegations only because they have never come up before a court of law in all this time.

“There is widespread public perception that certain members of parliament are behind all the serious organised crime going on in this country. This includes serious drug issues, gang violence, stabbings. It is a much discussed issue, but it has never come up in the courts. I can see now that perhaps it may be true – otherwise why prevent the formation of an independent judiciary? I don’t think they would have confidence that they would get away free.”

Velezinee observed that former political figures such as attorney generals were now representing these MPs in court as their lawyers, and by and large, “they win every case.”

“I would find it an insult if had to go and argue my case before someone who does not understand the law. Why are these people doing it? On some islands the parents are locking up the primary schools if the teacher is not qualified. Why are we content with people who have not completed primary school sitting on the bench and judging us?”

Deep-rooted cultural issue

Many of the problems now embedded in the Maldives and its institutions can be traced to the fact that the country never had the opportunity to acclimatise to the concept of democracy before it was introduced, Velezinee suggested.

“For the last two years I have done nothing but think about this and try to change the JSC. I have spent hours and hours by myself thinking this through.

“What I think is this: when a student from a developing country goes to a university in a developed country, you go through an orientation process. If you live in the developing world and you go to work in the third world as a volunteer you also go through orientation – it’s to prevent culture shock.

“We just woke up one day to a new culture. We have always had this culture of subservience, of submissiveness where you are taught to respect your elders – certain people who have been shown to you as the leaders. Then suddenly we adopted this constitution that says everyone is equal.

“I think what people have found as my brazenness is that I have dared to publicly criticise the Speaker of Parliament and senior judges. They do not understand that I am equal to them as a member of JSC – the concept is completely lost on them.”

For the past 30 years judges effectively worked as the employees of those “hand-picked” by the former government, Velezinee explained – to the extent that failures to extend a particular ruling as required by the then Ministry of Justice resulted in a black mark on the judge’s file.

“The only qualification it appears was a willingness to submit to the will of the government at the time – to follow orders,” Velezinee said.

“Not everyone has the mindset to follow orders and serve in that kind of capacity. I believe it has excluded people with independent thinking, or the necessary legal knowledge – such people would take it as an insult for someone to order them how to decide a case.

“Now the JSC has decided – I believe with the support of parliament – that the same bench will remain for the next 40 years, retitled as an ‘independent judiciary’.”

Download the ICJ’s report, ‘Maldives: Securing an Independent Judiciary in a Time of Transition’ (English)

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Judiciary has failed to keep up with parliament and the executive, says Attorney General

The Judicial Services Commission (JSC), the body entrusted to vet and regulate the conduct of judges in the Maldives, has failed to match the government and parliament over the last two years in operating within a constitutionally defined role, Attorney General Dr Ahmed Ali Sawad has claimed.

The claims follow the publication this week of a report by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) that was critical of both political interference in the judiciary by government and opposition groups, and critical of the JSC’s ability to “carry out its functions” in ensuring judges were both impartial and capable of performing their duties.

Along with outlining recommendations for the executive, the Majlis and legal bodies like the JSC to follow in order to better ensure a judiciary independent from government and opposition influence, the ICJ’s Director of Asia Pacific Operations, Roger Normand, suggested a lot of work lay ahead.

Accepting that positive developments had been made within its courts since the Maldives became a democracy, concerns remained over a number of issues, Normand said. Having spoken to stakeholders across the country’s legal system, “ordinary” Maldivians did not look to their courts for justice or to solve problems, he suggested.

The report criticised the conduct of the government during a period of crisis last year; where the government locked shut the Supreme Court questioning its legitimacy on conclusion of the interim period. The report was also critical of the JSC’s decision-making, which was perceived as being inappropriately politically influenced.

Sawad said that he welcomed the observations by the ICJ in regards to recommendations for improving efficiency in the JSC and judicial administration, but added that ultimately, all stakeholders working within the Maldivian court system were under pressure to step up accountability.

“I think there is a lot to be done by the JSC in terms of enhancing the standard of the judiciary,” the attorney general told Minivan News.  “I think there is a need to inwardly look into the judiciary and all agencies related to it. That is the judicial administration, the judicial council, the JSC, the Attorney General’s Office, the Supreme Court and the High Court – it’s time they work together in bringing about perceived standards required of the judiciary in the constitution.”

Sawad said that he believed that as a judicial watchdog, the JSC had at times tended to act defensively instead of self-critically, particularly when reviewing the constitutional role it was assigned within the constitution to appoint judges and protect independence in the judiciary.

In order to try and ensure it was able to meet these roles efficiently, the attorney general suggested that it may be appropriate to have the Majlis consider reviewing the role of the JSC during the last year and a half to determine if it was functional.

However, Sawad claimed that no single entity alone should shoulder the blame in terms of perceived issues with independence in the judiciary.  He added that during a seven year period allotted for education and improvement under the Judges Act, education was a key to ensuring effective changes and developments in ensuring confidence within the legal system.

“When I look at the crucial actors in this, I feel the JSC has a crucial role to play.  I feel the judicial administration have a crucial role to play and I feel there is a missing link in the form of a judicial training academy,” he said.  “We cannot burden the Supreme Court or the High Court of with continuously setting the standards of measure for the rest of the judiciary day-on-day.”

Ultimately, Sawad said that as one of three distinct branches of the state along with the government and the Majlis, the judiciary was required to meet the same levels of accountability as part of its independence – making the role of the JSC essential.

“What we have [under the constitution] is an accountable government and an independent judiciary,” he said. “But independence is a perception made by the people who are the beneficiaries – in this case the public.  If the people do not perceive that level of independence then there is a problem.”

Sawad stressed that the perception of independent courts within the country were especially important in defining the difference between the judiciary before and after 2008, when the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) came to power on the promise of trying to bring more political accountability.

“Pre-2008, people knew that the judiciary was part of the executive,” he said.  “Post-2008, the people need to know the judiciary is independent.”

Government criticism

Along with concerns over the impartiality of the judicial system in the Maldives, the ICJ was also critical of the handling by the government of what it called a “constitutional crisis” last year over the legitimacy of the courts and the arrest of some prominent opposition figures.

In addressing these concerns and whether the actions of the government were a setback to the democratic mandate it promised, Dr Sawad said it was unacceptable under the constitution for any branch of the state to have jurisdiction over another, whether in the case of the executive over the judiciary, or the Majlis over the executive.

The attorney general claimed that ultimately, a “culture of respect” needed to be created by different branches of the state and government that would allow these different groups to work under the mandates they were assigned.

“That is a constitutional convention that needs to be dealt with. We haven’t had that in the past,” he said.  “It’s just over two years since 2008.  Now a convention takes a little more than two years, but it must nevertheless be started.  The commencement of that respect agenda, that’s what needs to happen.”

Sawad said that he was generally encouraged by findings in the report, which he suggested were “timely” in light of political tensions across the nation, though may have been better served if it had been released a year earlier to grant more room for maneuver (prior to the end of the interim period).

However, the attorney general claimed to be cautiously optimistic that the report would provide guidance to “tweak” the problems that had been experienced in trying to establish courts independent of political and commercial manipulation.

“When you look back at what has happened, it has been a tumultuous two years where the three branches of the state have been morphing into their own jurisdiction perimeters – there have been teething issues, but I think two years is long enough to learn respect,” he said.  “I am more optimistic about the future, I think we have a permanent judiciary now and the role of the judiciary is very clear.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC forged documents for Supreme Court case, alleges Velezinee

President’s member of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) and whistle-blower Aishath Velezinee has presented documents to the Supreme Court she claims provide evidence that the JSC has forged documents for the hearing over High Court appointments.

The JSC is currently in the Supreme Court defending its appointment of five high court judges – current Juvenile Court Chief Judge Shuaib Hussein Zakariya, former Law Commission member Dr Azmiralda Zahir, Civil Court registrar Abdu Rauf Ibrahim, lawyer of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, Abbas Shareef and Civil Court Chief Judge Ali Sameer.

The Supreme Court took over the case from the Civil Court in January, after several judges who were not appointed raised concern that there were policy and legal issues related to the Judicial Service Commission’s (JSC) appointment procedures, such as giving higher priority to appointees on the basis of gender.

The documents concern JSC resolution B1/11/24, passed at the 22nd sitting of JSC on the evening February 6, 2011, informing the Supreme Court that Vice Chair Dr Afrasheem Ali would represent the JSC in the High Court appointments matter.

The resolution carries the signatures of six JSC members, three of whom Velezinee contends were not even present at the meeting of February 6, 2011 when the resolution was supposedly passed.

“The JSC sent a text message calling a meeting on Sunday evening at 7:00pm, and then changed the time to 7:30pm. I was there at 7:00pm, and only four members turned up including myself, Dr Afrasheem Ali, Chief Judge of the High Court Abdul Ghani Mohamed, and Ahmed Rasheed from the law community,” Velezinee says. “I stayed until 8:00pm, to make sure.”

With only four members present, the meeting failed to reach the JSC’s six member quorum.

“The JSC’s regulations state that after a meeting is called, if we do not reach quorum within 15 minutes from the scheduled time, then the meeting is cancelled. On Sunday evening we had no meeting because we didn’t meet quorum with only four members present.”

When Velezinee later requested to see the attendance record for the February she discovered a fifth signature – that of Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Didi – had allegedly been added to the official records.

That still was not enough enough to reach the JSC’s quorum, so Velezinee says she was surprised to see six signatures in the submission to the Supreme Court passing the resolution – including those of Member of the Public Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman and Civil Service Commission member Mohamed Fahmy Hassan, neither of whom attended the meeting on February 6.

Velezinee further claimed to have audio recordings of conversations between the JSC and the two absent members who signed the resolution, arranging for the resolution to be sent out to their homes for them to sign.

“The submission to the Supreme Court very clearly states: ‘this resolution was adopted February 6, on the 22nd sitting of the JSC by majority vote of those members who attended’,” Velezinee said.

Fahmy told Minivan News he had no comment on the matter, while Dr Afrasheem Ali referred Minivan News to the JSC’s media spokesperson, Hassan Zaheen. Zaheen referred Minivan News to the JSC interim Secretary General, Abdul Faththah, also the JSC’s legal representative.

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

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

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

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

Supreme Court case

“Today was the last hearing before the Supreme Court’s verdict [in the case],” Velezinee said. “I sent two letters, a copy of the attendance sheet and the resolution to all five Supreme Court judges and informed them that it was a forged document.”

“The JSC seems to think there is no procedure to gain a majority. That was exactly what they did with Article 285. But when we are talking about a democracy with laws of transparency and accountability, there are procedures to follow to get a majority – otherwise it becomes mob rule.

“Anyone can run around and intimidate people to get signatures, but that is not how an independent constitutional body such as the Judicial Services commission should be working. if the integrity of the Judicial Services Commission is under question, there is no reason why people should trust the judiciary.”

Velezinee has previously alleged that practices such as “manipulating the agenda, manipulating meeting times, withholding information and trying to manipulate decisions by providing misleading information.”

“This is classic, but this time they have been caught in the act,” she claimed.

The outspoken whistle-blower, who was hospitalised on January 3 after she was stabbed three times in the back in broad daylight on the main tourist street of Male’, expressed frustration with the slow acknowledgement that “the JSC by its actions causing the public to mistrust judges and the judiciary – the JSC is permitting impunity among judges.”

“Nobody from any civilised country would believe you if you said that judges and MPs were lying. Chief judges, high court judges – you expect office bearers to be working in the interest of citizens and the state. But here we have a judiciary that seems to think the whole country is out to attack them. That has happened because we have not established a judiciary according to the constitution.”

All the current sitting judges were, Velezinee said, “hand-picked without due process, often for their personal and political connections. We have all the documents to prove it, but JSC is hiding from it. They say: ‘the constitution says we are an independent commission’. But it’s not what the constitution says, it’s how you act. Why not simply eliminate crime by rewriting the constitution so it says there is no crime in this country?”

The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) is currently investigating the JSC for embezzling state funds by awarding itself over Rf 500,000 in ‘committee allowances’, contrary to Article 164 of the Constitution.

Velezinee has also requested police investigate JSC President and Supreme Court Justice Adam Mohamed Abdulla, JSC Vice Chair and MP (DRP-PA) DrAfraasheem Ali, Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Didi, Speaker of Parliament (DRP-PA) Abdulla Shahid, former JSC President and interim Supreme Court judge (now removed) Mujuthaaz Fahmy, and Former Civil Service Commission President and current member of Civil Service Commission Dr Mohamed Latheef.

The charges filed included accusations that some MPs were influencing courts and judges “for personal gain and profit”, subverting the rule of law and obstructing the JSC from conducting its constitutional duties, “committing and attempting to commit crimes against the State using JSC and the courts as tools”, and defamation against her “with criminal intent”.

Download the documents presented by Velezinee to the Supreme Court (Dhivehi)

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

PA condemns influencing and threatening of judiciary

The People’s Alliance Party (PA) led by Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom has today issued a statement condemning attempts to ”influence and threaten the judiciary”, following protests in Male’ and Addu Atoll over the Civil Court’s decision to stop Addu from becoming a city.

The party said there were “reasonable grounds” to believe that there were political links in the attempts to block entrance to court, based on reports in the media of Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Alhan Fahmy’s comment Alhan stating that Adduans ”would not let courts in Addu open.”

The PA, which is in coalition with the opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), accused the MDP of “trying to influence the judiciary and judges.”

The party added that it had sent a letter to the police and Prosecutor General’s Office ”requesting they investigate the attempts to influence the judiciary the attempts to threaten judges.”

”In the recent days, senior officials of the ruling party along with their supporters have committed similar crimes, but it a concern that it never comes to the attention of the concerned authorities,” said the party. ”We believe that it is definitely an attempt to influence the judiciary and threaten the judges.”

Protesters temporarily barred entry to the Justice Building of the Maldives last night, in response to the Civil Court’s ruling that the Addu city criteria were invalid, forcing the Elections Commission (EC) to cancel the local council election in Addu this Saturday.

Today the Department of Judicial Administration said that the court of Hulhudhoo in Addu Atoll was also locked this morning, and had to be opened with the assistance of police.

Local radio station SunFM reported Alhan Fahmy, a Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP in Addu Atoll, as saying that he ”would not let courts in Addu to be opened.”

Fahmy was present at protests in Addu, SunFM reported, as Adduans expressed fury over the Civil Court ruling.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: How a democracy was derailed

Republished with permission from the report by Aishath Velezinee titled ‘Democracy Derailed: The unconstitutional annulment of Article 285; and its’ consequences for democratic government in the Maldives.’ Full version, with footnotes, can be downloaded here (English).

The Maldives is a long-time constitutional autocracy used to a President with all the powers of the State.
The President – signified in persona by former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom who held the title the past 30 years – was a President who could, and often would, allot land for service, provide medical assistance and scholarship to the worthy, and could hand out jobs with titles and benefits to fit the social status of those hand-picked.
The President also policed the streets, undertook investigations, administered justice, interpreted law, set standards of “jurisprudence”, and held the final word and verdict as the last resort of appeal, the Supreme Justice, where the Courts failed.
Those who fell afoul of the regime were restrained for public order, and those who gained favour were blessed by the good government of the day. The stress was on homogeneity, a people of one language, one religion, one ideology, one voice and one mind.
The peaceful transition to separation of powers and constitutional democracy on August 07, 2008, then, is already situated in this socio-cultural and political context.
On the dawn of August 08, 2008, little of the political realities of a 30-year regime changed. With no interim caretaker arrangement, President Gayoom continued in office until elections; even then choosing to contest, running for his 7th five-year term, with the interim Supreme Court decision that the two-term limit on presidents did not apply to President Gayoom for he is a first time contender under the “new” Constitution.
The manifest change then, to the lay observer, as well as media and the public, is the change of a President in three decades, when President Mohamed Nasheed won the 2008 elections and took office on 11 November 2008.
Today, neither the media and general public, nor the politicians, appear to quite understand that all powers are not vested in the President once a State adopts separation of powers.
The role of the Parliament in government, the role of the Judiciary to promote democracy and ensure good government, the role of the Civil Service to be loyal to the government of the day and implement policy, the differential roles of independent bodies and their positions as powerful and trusted accountability agencies to hold together the constitutional democracy is overshadowed by politics.
The Judicial Services Commission

Ignored by the media and citizen as outside the main political arena, is the Judicial Service Commission (JSC); with the constitutional mandate to establish an independent judiciary in the first two-years of the Constitution, to protect independence of judges, and to promote public confidence in the judicial system.
An offspring of the former Ministry of Justice, the JSC was set up by MP Ahmed Zahir, a former Minister of Justice, and the first Chairperson of the JSC.
Staff of the abolished Ministry of Justice took the lead positions, bringing in their personal connections to judges developed over years of daily dealings when the Ministers of Justice provided administrative support, legal advice, as well as guidance on verdicts in some cases before the Courts.
Thus, self-interpreted as the Guardian of the Judiciary with a duty to protect the judges, the JSC rejects Rule of Law, Accountability and Transparency as “threats to judicial independence”.
JSC’s approach is to defend judges, deny complaints, interrogate complainants, ensure financial security and other benefits to judges, and to provide bodyguards and protection of the police to judges when public discontent against a judge becomes serious; leading to impunity amongst judges, not all, but the few whose names come up serially.
Few amongst the general public, or media, understand the critical position of the Judicial Service Commission in institutionalising democratic government, or its constitutional powers, duties and obligations; or its unique role in its first term of office.
Those who do understand either confuse the public more with their “polititalk” or remain silent, for they have far more to lose than gain of an Independent Judiciary.
The Parliament majority being those who administered the judges, and the justice system of yesterday, have shown no interest in checking JSC.
Worse still, is that the judges themselves are miseducated into the notion that independence of judges equals non-interference by the President. With this, the “leaders” of the judiciary adopted for themselves the role of the former Minister of Justice; and the Judges Association became a tool, used strategically, to confuse the public, and judges themselves.
The Interim Supreme Court took on “parental responsibilities”, miseducating of judges, putting out self-interested rulings, amending laws to reorganize the judiciary, and strengthening their hold on the judiciary as a whole, by usurping powers and taking control, of the JSC, denying an independent check on the judiciary.
Insulated behind closed doors, inadmissible to anyone but those ten members privileged under Article 158 of the Constitution, the JSC does what it wills, without check or penalty.
JSC’s resistance to change, denial of democracy, and breach of trust – the irresponsibility, irrationality, and self-interest of its members, and their refusal to uphold Constitutional duties and obligations – and, downright treachery in dismissing Article 285 as ‘symbolic’ is the greatest challenge to the Constitution (2008), Rule of Law and democratic government in the Maldives.
Why Article 285?

Article 285, is, in my informed opinion based on privileged access to restricted records on the judges database as well as records on their official files, and discussions with those few judges I have had the honour to meet, the backbone of
democratic government in the Maldives.
The drafters of the Constitution, many of whom now sit in Parliament (Majlis) including Speaker Abdulla Shahid and MP
Dr Afraasheem Ali – who are also ex-officio members of the JSC – shared the same vision, at least at the time of Constitution drafting.
It is a pragmatic clause, a necessity when one considers the Judiciary is often the weakest link in “new democracies” (UN, 2000); and an obligation when one considers the realities of the Maldives’ Administration of Justice under the
previous Constitution (1998); and the vast difference it had to the Independent Judiciary the Constitution (2008) envision to achieve in fifteen years, by 2023.
The judges appointed prior to 7 August 2008, were appointed by the Minister of Justice, some hand-picked on to the bench as pay-off for their various political contributions or some other service.
They all have a Certificate in Justice Studies (or similar title, of a duration of six months to two years), awarded on completion of a tailor-made crash course offered upon the adoption of the Constitution (1998).
Not all sitting judges have a formal education of any substance, nor are they fluent in a second language, and little opportunity for knowledge improvement or professional development was provided.
It was not necessary as all decisions could be guided by the legal teams at the Ministry of Justice. Only about 40 among about 200 sitting judges are graduates.
Of the 40 graduates not all hold an LLB – some have degrees in Sharia’ or in another subject, acquired from an Arab university.
The “ruling” of current Chair Adam Mohamed Abdulla being that all Arab Universities include Sharia’ as a mandatory subject in all programmes qualifying all graduates from Egypt, Yemen and Saudi Arabia to the bench.
Competency of a judge was decided based simply upon a judges’ physical health, ie. his ability to come into Court.
As for impunity and misconduct, records show judges have rarely received more than an administrative caution by the Minister of Justice for such serious crimes as breach of trust and abuse of power and negligence, as well as serious sexual offences, possession of pornography etc.
Most of the complaints lodged with the Ministry of Justice by members of the Public remain unattendedxiii in the judges’ personal files and include not only misconduct, but serious allegations of a criminal nature such as repeated sexual offences against minors.
The public has tales of islands where few women dare go to claim child support for fear of Magistrates who expect sexual favours in return, of islands where Magistrates dictate personal edict in place of law etc.
Whilst none of these public complaints were addressed, what was taken seriously, records show, was disobedience in refusals to follow orders of the Ministry of Justice. As long as the directives of the Minister of Justice were followed the judges had absolute powers to act with impunity if they so deemed. Some often did so.
A few had returned to the bench after serving criminal sentences, and some had continued on the bench with no penalty despite having been found guilty of dishonesty.
Article 285 placed upon JSC the duty and obligation to assess every sitting judge appointed prior the Constitution (2008) coming into force, to confirm whether or not they possess all the qualifications of a judge as required under Article 285.
The purpose, from a rights-based approach, is two-fold: first, to assure the public that all judges are qualified and worthy of their high office on the bench, and are thus capable of building and maintaining public confidence and trust in the judiciary; and second, to provide judges with the necessary knowledge, capacity and most important of all, confidence to work in independence.
The sitting judges recruited for the Administration of Justice, having had no orientation on the newly introduced doctrine of governance, Article 285 was a personal affront as evident from three statements issued by the Judges Association.
That Article 285 is an obligation to the people, and not an offence to judges, who after all were quite qualified to preside over trials where the Ministry of Justice [or later the Courts in Male’ could guide and direct cases, and provide support to judges, was never explained.
Instead, it became a tool for the self-acclaimed leaders of the judiciary to be used in fear-mongering and controlling the
judiciary.
Power Play and Politics

Interim Supreme Court Justice Abdulla Saeed who, as head of the Interim Supreme Court, declared himself the Chief Justice and the interim bench as the Supreme Court in the days running up to the end of the two-year interim term, did not see it as his duty to correct the judges’ misconception, but rather was actively engaged in miseducating judges, creating strife, and causing discord between the administration of President Nasheed and the Judiciary.
In the name of developing judges for the new Constitution and upgrading them to meet the educational standards required, Justice Abdulla Saeed brought to Male’ batches of Magistrates from the islands, using them as tools, and breaching the innocent trust they placed in Justice Abdulla Saeed as the Godfather of the Judiciary.
Dr Afraasheem Ali (MP) who chaired the JSC Committee to develop an on-the-job training plan for those judges who meet all other requirements, decided to have the Magistrates trained by his old school, the College of Islamic Studies, even going so far as to train the Magistrates himself, personally, as a part-time lecturer.
Once JSC set to work on deciding indicators for assessment, it became clear this was one for discord. On one side was Justice Abdul Ghani Mohamed of the High Court with a graduate degree in Sharia’ and Law, who wished to uphold the vision of the Constitution to have a high quality judiciary established in 15 years as provided by Article 285.
In opposition were Justice Mujuthaaz Fahmy of the Interim Supreme Court and Judge Abdulla Didi of the Criminal Court.
Justice Mujuthaaz Fahmy intently argued that lack of education could be not be considered an impediment, and nor should misconduct before 2000 be taken into account.
Quite a logical reading when one considers Justice Mujuthaaz held a six-month tailor-made Certificate of Sentencing, and had on record a conviction by the Anti-Corruption Board for embezzling State funds – a minor matter of pocketing Rf900 for overtime in 1998.
Judge Abdulla Didi rarely joins in discussion, unless it is the matter of Criminal Court “Chief Judge” Abdulla Mohamed’s
misconduct, a matter that has been under investigation for a whole year now, costing the State over Rf100,000 to date in fees for Committee sittings.
Justice Mujuthaaz Fahmy sulked, willfully dragging the matter until the balance was in his favour, with the High Court “mutiny” of 21 January 2010 where three Justices colluded to publicly accuse High Court Chief Justice Abdul Ghani Mohamed of misconduct and remove him from the JSC by a Resolution.
Justice Mujuthaaz Fahmy as Vice Chair took the helm replacing the outgoing Justice Abdul Ghani Mohamed, and all turned into mayhem at JSC as, what I have reason to believe is a high-level conspiracy, was carried out aggressively by the majority; six of the ten members whose personal and political interest it was to retain the former Administration of Justice.
The matter of Article 285 remained pending till the arrival of Justice Adam Mohamed Abdulla on 18 February 2010, when a new task-force of four judges (two from the Commission, and two hand-picked from outside by Justice Mujuthaaz Fahmy) set to work under the efficient direction of the Interim Civil Service Commission Chair, Dr Mohamed Latheef.
In perhaps the most methodical effort in JSC so far, Dr Latheef had the indicators/standards decided in
three days, working an hour and a half each day. The only consideration, it appeared, was to make sure no sitting judge fell outside the standards.
Once “decided”, there was no room for debate at the Commission. MP Dr Afraasheem Ali, with falsely assumed “authority” declared, speaking in his capacity as MP, that Article 285 was ‘symbolic’.
Speaker Abdulla Shahid remained silent, choosing to evade the question even when asked pointedly to explain to JSC
members the purpose and object of Article 285.
When Justice Mujuthaaz Fahmy took over, all the work done during Justice Abdul Ghani’s time disappeared off the record, including submissions I myself had made in writing.
None of it was tabled or shared amongst the members. The “majority”, all of whom stood to gain from a wholesome transfer rather than a transformation of the Judiciary in line with the Constitutional Democracy decided, by mob rule, that all judges would be reconfirmed – for reasons that certainly are not in the best interest of the people, nation, or constitution.
Unfettered by concerns raised by President Mohamed Nasheed, Chair of the Constitution Drafting Committee former MP Ibrahim Ismail, or the public; and with the tacit blessings of the Parliament majority, JSC held the judges under lock and key to ensure, the all judges were re-appointed for life.
That is an estimated 30 to 40 years when one considers the average age of judges and the retirement age of
70. No judge may be removed unless JSC recommends, and the Parliament votes a judge out.
JSC being a Members Only club, electronically locked within the Department of Judicial Administration premises, and under the parental guidance of the Supreme Court, no one, not a single journalist, judge or member of the public, is privy to the details of what went on at JSC.
The records of meetings are not available for public scrutiny, nor are they shared with the media or members of the judiciary. Even members are prevented from accessing audio records of sittings, the written minutes being edited by the Chair where he sees fit.
The fact is that the majority was achieved through pay-offs and “mob rule” rather than rule of law; and upheld self interest rather than national or public interest.
To benefit are:
(i) members of the previous regime holding majority in parliament, some of whom stand accused of serious crimes;
(ii) former Ministers of Justice and former Attorney Generals who appear before the Court as legal counsel for the MPs and other politicians accused of serious crimes;
(iii) the serious criminals who allegedly operate under the protection of certain members of the previous regime, by the assurance that the same cover-ups and abuse of justice would continue; and
(iv) “Chief Judge” Abdulla Mohamed of the Criminal Court who is set to sit comfortably in the Criminal Court for life, ie. approximately 30 years until retirement at age 70.
The fact is that fully aware of the public discontent, and the fact that at least two of the 10 members of the JSC had expressed concern and publicly criticised JSC’s actions on Article 285 as unconstitutional and downright treacherous; 59 judges, including 11 judges who do not fall under the jurisdiction of Article 285, sat docilely at the orders of the JSC Chair, and took oath under lock and key.
Supervising the lifetime appointments was interim Supreme Court Justice who had earlier initiated a Ruling declaring himself the Chief Justice.
What went on in the minds of those taking oath, they would know? What fear led them to submit to such degradation, they would know?
To my mind, and to many others who witnessed the scene, it was ample proof there is neither independent judge nor independent judiciary.
Independence begins with an independent mind, and the freedom and power to think for oneself.
In my mind, more questions remain:
Where goes the common individual right to a free and fair trial?
Where goes building public confidence and trust in the judiciary?
Where goes the judges’ right to independence and non-interference?
Where goes the independent judiciary, the backbone of democracy?

Aishath Velezinee is a member of the Judicial Service Commission of the Maldives (JSC). She holds a Diploma in Journalism (IIMC, India; 1988), BA in Government; and in Women’s Studies (University of Queensland, Australia; 2000) and a Masters’ in Development Studies (Institute for Social Studies, Netherlands; 2004).

http://www.velezinee.aishath.com/content/why

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)

JSC reverses tack, says it will investigate all allegations of misconduct

The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) is reviewing its earlier decision not to investigate allegations of misconduct against three judges made by Treasure Island Private Limited.

The Treasure Island case against the JSC, which began in early October this year, implicates three judges in miscarriages of justice against the company.

Treasure Island alleges that the JSC neglected its Constitutional responsibilities in failing to investigate the company’s subsequent complaints against the judges.

Now Supreme Court Justice Ali Hameed, Interim Supreme Court Justice Mujthaz Fahmy, High Court Justice Ahmed Shareef Ali and Senior Magistrate Ali Naseer, alleges Treasure Island Chief Ali Hussein Manik, abused the justice system to wrongfully take, and pass the ownership on to someone else, a resort island belonging to him.

He names influential figures in the tourism sector during the previous government as having been involved in the case.

The three judges he named, Manik alleged, abused the law to rule against Treasure Island in its civil case against the parties he alleges wrongfully took the island from him.

Responding to the allegations of professional negligence, the JSC initially told the court in October that two of the complaints were not within its Constitutional mandate for ensuring the ethical standards and principles of the judiciary.

The third complaint, it said, was pending a decision at the time the case was filed.

Faththah said today, however, that the JSC had decided to use existing legal mechanisms to review its earlier decisions not to investigate the complaints and to re-assess whether or not the complaints should be investigated.

“What the company asked the court for is a legal mechanism under which to review the JSC decision not to investigate its complaints. We have now provided that mechanism by beginning the process to review our earlier decision”, Faththah said.

Deciding to re-open complaints against members of the judiciary represents a shift in the JSC’s earlier stance which suggested that allegations of misconduct by some members of the judiciary could be outside of its Constitutional mandate.

The JSC said today that it does not need a court ruling to make it perform its Constitutional duties, and stated that it will examine every complaint of misconduct made against every member of the judiciary without a court having to make such an order.

“Since the Commission is reviewing every complaint received by the appellant, the Commission does not feel that a court ruling is necessary any more,” Faththah said.

What Treasure Island wants from the JSC, it was already providing, he said. A court ruling was both obsolete and irrelevant, he said asking for dismissal.

Treasure Island Limited, however, insisted on court intervention.

It’s chief Manik, who had earlier told the court he did not have any trust in the JSC, said he wanted the court to make an order allowing him to see the agenda of the meeting in which JSC members decided not to investigate allegations against the three judges.

Treasure Island had asked the court for the same ruling on 17 October 2010, when the court last sat on the issue.

What the JSC told the court today is that since Treasure Island is asking specifically for the court to order JSC to provide the documents as evidence, in the absence of such an order by the court, the JSC was not obliged to provide the documents.

The Constitution requires any decision taken by the JSC to be one reached by a majority vote at a meeting in which more than six of its ten members are present.

If Judge Nihayath orders that Treasure Island should be allowed to see minutes of the meeting, it would be able to verify whether or not the JSC followed proper procedure in making the decision, twice, not to further investigate the complaints made by Treasure Island.

The JSC is yet to adopt a Standards of Procedure according to which all its duties would be performed, leading to dissent and tension among its members, and between members and the Secretariat.

In the last few weeks, a rift has appeared in the JSC between members who want the JSC to adopt its Standards of Procedure as a matter of urgency and allege that the Chair of the Commission is systematically evading the issue.

Two weeks ago JSC Chair Supreme Court Justice Adam Mohamed walked out of a meeting when four members demanded that he table adopting the Standards of Procedure at the Commission’s next meeting.

The four member group pushing for adoption of the Standards include the Attorney General, the President’s Member, Member of the Public, member of the law community and member of the High Court.

A day-long meeting to adopt the Standards of Procedure scheduled to be held outside of Male’ on Saturday, the next time when the matter was put on the agenda, was cancelled as various members excused themselves citing other commitments.

Three meetings of the JSC have since been held but none included discussion of the Standards.

Although it is a group of the same members who happen to be unavailable for any discussions on the Standards of Procedure, none of the members have publicly declared whether or why there is a reluctance on their part to adopting the Standards.

The Secretariat of the JSC, meanwhile, is also in a state of chaos after Chair Justice Mohamed reportedly intimidated the Interim Secretary General Moomina Umar and other members of staff over their decision to speak to the media without prior approval from the Chair.

The claim by Justice Mohamed is inaccurate as the JSC unanimously adopted a declaration on 2 September, authorising three members of the Secretariat, including Moomina to speak to the media.

Taking over from his lawyer to represent himself, Manik appealed to Judge Nihayath for the court’s intervention as he did not trust the JSC to do its duties.

“Without an honest JSC, we, the people of this country cannot have our right to justice,” Manik said.

Judge Nihayath adjourned the case to 5 December 2010.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil Court defers JSC negligence case indefinitely in the absence of official seal

The Civil Court ruling on whether or not the Judicial Service Commission is guilty of neglecting its Constitutional responsibilities has been delayed indefinitely because the court lacks an official seal with which to stamp the decision.

The Civil Court has been shut for business since President Mohamed Nasheed ratified the Judicature Act on Thursday due to a change in the Court’s name from Arabic to English. A Dhivehi word is not in use to refer to it.

Until President Nasheed signed the Judicature Act into law, the official name of the court had been Madhanee Court – ‘madhanee’ being the Arabic word for ‘civil’.

The Judicature Act, passed by the Majlis on 4 October, uses the English word ‘civil’ instead of the Arabic word ‘madhanee’ to refer to the court.

The Civil Court stopped its work once the Judicature Act came into force as it does not have an official seal bearing its new name with which to stamp its hearings and other official documents.

The Family Court and the Criminal Court, too, are suffering the same plight of being unable to rubber stamp their decisions after the name change.

A period of seventeen days was available between the Majlis passing the Judicature Act and President Nasheed ratifying it in which the seals could have been made.

Treasure Island Ltd is suing the JSC for professional negligence, alleging that it failed to investigate complaints of misconduct against two judges, one of whom is the former head of JSC and former Surpreme Court Justice Mujthaz Fahmy.

The JSC is an independent body Constitutionally mandated to oversee the judiciary and maintain its ethical and disciplinary standards.

Judge Mariyam Nihayath of the Civil Court, who on October 19 refused to admit additional infromation offered by potential JSC whistleblower, President’s member Aishath Velezinee, was set to hold a further hearing on the case today.

It is not known when the courts will have the necessary tools with which to resume justice.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: What do you call a lawless State?

On Tuesday the Maldives appointed a Supreme Court bench in one of the few displays of cross-party cooperation seen in parliament since the ratification of the 2008 Constitution.

But Raadhafathi, a Maldivian national currently working on a project to strengthen the justice sector of the Maldives, and with experience training judges and inspecting courts all over the country, claims the road to an experienced, impartial and capable judiciary will be long and arduous.

The Maldives is in a state of transition. A new Constitution, a new Supreme Court, a new President, multi-party systems and many other factors creating a crucial period for the judiciary as well as for the country as a whole.

I am writing this to highlight the justice sector of Maldives.

Since independence the Maldives has acceded or ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), Convention Against Torture (CAT), Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The Maldives was officially awarded a seat in the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva in May 2010.

The Constitution adopted in 2008 provides for independence of the judiciary, creates new individual liberties, establishes judicial review and gives certain responsibilities relating to the judiciary to the Judicial Services Commission (JSC). These developments present challenges as well as opportunities for the judiciary.

The dynamic reforms of the past two years require that the judiciary transforms itself to ensure that it has the capacity to address the issues brought before it in the coming years. The Maldives is geographically unique in that it is comprised of 20 Atolls containing nearly 1200 islands, out of which 200 are inhabited. This presents numerous governmental challenges which judiciaries in other countries do not face.

During the past five months I have:

  • Been involved in the training of 18 Judges from the Malé courts and 23 Magistrates from the Island Courts on Human Rights and the Constitution;
  • Interviewed NGO’s, Human Rights Commission of the Maldives, Migrant Workers, Bangladesh Embassy, Indian High Commission, Department of Immigration and private lawyers.
  • Visited all the police stations, prisons and detention facilities in the Malé surrounds;
  • Interviewed prisoners and prison staff
  • Visited and interviewed drug rehabilitation facilities
  • Visited all the courts in Malé and interviewed judges and court staff including the [interim] Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
  • Visited Southern and Northern Atolls Courts and interviewed Magistrates, Atoll police commanders, Investigation officers, court staff, prosecutors and court users in the community.

It is evident there is an urgent need to increase the capacity of judges and the court staff to handle the number and complexity of the cases brought to the judiciary, in particular protecting rights enshrined in the Constitution. In addition, Human Rights is a new concept in Maldives and very few people poses the necessary skills and knowledge.

Major features and problems of the legal and judicial system operating in the Maldives

There are total of 208 judges/magistrates in Maldives. Although rights are defined and independent institutions exist to ensure rights are protected, the weakness of the current legal framework lies with the lack of trained professionals in the justice sector, in particular judges, magistrates, prosecutors and police.

98 percent of the legal profession in Maldives (including prosecutors, lawyers, judges, magistrates) are less than qualified to be in the legal profession. Most judges and magistrates have only completed secondary education, and they are not required to be lawyers.

Very few have completed undergraduate or post graduate degree from a western country. Most degrees are from Egypt or Saudi Arabia, and they are usually from unrelated fields. Some have received a Diploma in Sha’riah Law from Institutions established in Malé.

There is no common denominator in judicial training and experience. Some have learned in Arabic, some in Dhivehi, a few in English (the majority of the Judges I have met do not speak English to a serious degree).

The average age of judges at present is 28-32 years.

This situation gives rise to many problems such as reconciling Shari’ah law and the codified common law, as well as the attitudes of judges trained in the Shari’ah law and lawyers trained in common law traditions of the Commonwealth. In addition, the lack of laws governing legal procedure exacerbates the situation further, ensuring there is no consistency in their judgments or conduct of cases.

The judicial system is in considerable chaos. There are no Rules of Court, instead certain rules and regulations are found in more informal publications called ‘Court Circulars’.

In criminal cases, there is no formal onus of proof, and Judges can and do conduct cases any way they want. Every Judge does his or her cases differently and unpredictably.

State attorneys can appear in private legal cases and can be and are members of the Majlis. These arrangements are a direct breach of the separation of powers doctrine. This again demonstrates a failure to appreciate how a democracy and the separation of powers are intended to operate.

The right to a fair trial is a cornerstone of democratic societies. How a person is treated when accused of a crime provides a concrete demonstration of how far a state respects human rights. Unfortunately in the Maldives:

  • Courts assume guilt based on the prosecution case before the ‘trial’
  • A Russian national who only speaks Russian is provided an English Interpreter
  • Prosecution did not provide the documents filed to the accused. Prosecution stated “providing a copy to the accused is not included in the budget.”
  • If a woman submits an application for a divorce, the courts treat the woman with disrespect and 99 percent of the time, they are not granted a divorce regardless of evidence produced – even in domestic violence cases.
  • Prosecution takes too long to file a case, particularly in the islands.
  • Legal profession lacks basic advocacy skills
  • Majority of the legal profession are not competent. They are independent by law but not in practice. As for impartiality – the island courts in particular – this is not exercised due to the small community they live in. Island prosecutors often discuss matters with the magistrates. The prosecution is also allowed to go and spend time with the court staff, while the accused is waits outside in the waiting room.
  • Most judges do not know that public can attend hearings. Hence often those who attend are sent away. The other issue is lack of space in the tiny court rooms.
  • Accused not given an opportunity to cross-examine

Despite all this, the JSC, the independent body responsible for the judiciary, approved all judges to be appointed without term (tenure to retire at 70). If the JSC were to continue the way they have been conducting themselves, there is no hope to strengthen the judiciary of Maldives nor to protect rights enshrined in the Constitution.

The transitional period (Chapter 14 of the Constitution) ended on 7 August 2010.  While the Supreme Court has been appointed, unfortunately the judiciary remains in a state of disarray.

No one (including the executive, parliament and judiciary) knows the meaning of the term ‘separation of powers’, ‘what the law is’ nor even what ‘Human Rights’ means.

No one obeys or respects the legal system, and the Maldives legal system is oppressive and unjust. The entire situation contravenes basic tenets of the rule of law and requires urgent change. The concepts of enforceable natural justice, procedural regularity and due process are not known in Maldivian courts.

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)

Criminal Court fines former Lale principal Rf 200 (US$14) for assaulting children

The Criminal Court has found former principal of Lale Youth International School, Turkish national Serkan Akar, guilty of assaulting children and sentenced him to pay a Rf200 (US$14) fine.

Serkan had denied the charges against him, which included strangling and whipping a child with a belt during an incident last Ramazan.

A report from the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) released in June found that students at the school had been “physically and psychologically abused, discriminated against and bullied,” recommending “that police should investigate the physical and psychological abuse going on at the school as an urgent concern,” and “separate those suspected of physical abuse from the school’s students until the police investigation is concluded.”

A source at HRCM told Minivan News today that “as far as we’re concerned, [Serkan’s Rf200 fine] is ridiculous.”

“This sentence gives people a reason to take justice into their own hands. Why even bother to go to the courts?” the source said.

“This case was supposed to create a precedent for the future protection of children in this country. This is not the precedent we were looking for. We not sure of how to follow through – perhaps request deportation, or at least notify the Turkish government.”

The source added that there was little further that HRCM could do, because with the constitutional turmoil and doubt about the institution’s validity after parliament failed to legilsate for its continuity after the interim period, “we don’t even know if we are supposed to be going to work.”

“There are all these important issues we’re supposed to be working on, such as cases of people who don’t have access to water because their landlords have blocked the water meter even though they are paying rent. There’s nothing the water company can do so people have to come to us. But it’s questionable whether anything we do now has legal [legitimacy].”

Deputy Prosectutor General Hussain Shameem said that the Rf200 sentence ruled by the judge was legitimate under the current penal code, which was originally drafted in 1968 and apparently not reflective of inflation.

“Under the penal code the judge had four sentencing options: up to six months banishment, imprisonment or house arrest, or the fine of Rf 200,” Shameem stated.

“We cannot say that the sentence is unjust, because this is a punishment prescribed in law. But I want to say that the judge had three other options, but chose to fine. Rhe defendant probably had mitigating factors, such as no prior criminal record [in the Maldives].”

Minivan News understands that a revision of the penal code is currently before parliament, but has remained so for four years. Parliament has scheduled 29 sessions to examine the bill, and but all except three have been cancelled or failed to make quorum.

Trying to ascertain which judge issued the sentence, Minivan News phoned the mobile number of the spokesperson for the Criminal Court, Ahmed Riffath, but the person who answered the phone claimed to be someone else.

The Criminal Court’s front desk confirmed the number belonged to Riffath, and that he was the court’s only authorised spokesperson.

Shameen said he did not know which judge actually heard the case, “but [Chief Judge of the Criminal Court] Abdulla Mohamed was on the schedule.”

Abdulla Mohamed did not answer when Minivan News attempted to contact him.

“Our concern was that we wanted to get some incarceration because the victims were children,” Shameem said.

As for deportation, such matters were not part of the court sentencing, Shameem noted, but were rather the prerogative of the administration.

“The immigration chief has the power to deport any person alleged of an offence,” he said.

Serkan has already attempted to flee the country twice after HRCM’s preliminary investigation revealed a past systemic use of corporal punishment, questionable standards of education and suspect teaching qualifications among Turkish staff at the school, but his passport was confiscated at immigration.

Minivan News originally reported incidents of children being violently abused by senior staff in the the school in January, after a parent spoke about the abuse her 13 year old son was suffering.

“He would come home and tell me about the beatings. He told me it depended how angry the principal was – sometimes a leather belt was used,” she said.

“[The violence] has only been towards the boys, but they have done it in front of the girls as well. Just recently a pupil was held by the neck and put up against the wall. Many pupils went home and told their parents they were so scared they nearly wet themselves,” a parent told Minivan News.

Following the allegations the deputy principal at the time, Guvanchmyrat Hezretov, fled the Maldives to be replaced by another Turkish national, Suleiman Atayev.

Atayev and a Turkish teacher fled the country in July, after the pair were also implicated as suspects in the assault case facing Akar.

In May, Minivan News reported concerns raised by parents and members of staff that the school was being operated as a front for a Turkish tax racket whereby businesses in Turkey would evade taxes through charitable giving to institutions in tax-friendly locations such as Male’, and then retrieve these these funds through escalated salaries paid to selected Turkish staff. Minivan News also reported concerns regarding inflated visa quotas for teaching staff, and phantom teachers on the payroll.

In June, HRCM released its report, recommending that the Education Ministry terminate its contract with Maldives-registered company Biz Atoll Pvt Ltd to manage Lale Youth International School, “and hand over management as soon as possible to a qualified party.”

The matter was being reviewed by the Attorney General, prior to his resignation yesterday.

Download the HRCM investigation report (Dhivehi)

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)