Tag: judiciary

Judiciary continues futsal tournament in apparent defiance of Supreme Court

The staff of the judiciary appeared to defy a Supreme Court order on Thursday, continuing with an annual inter-court futsal tournament despite the an order requiring the apex court’s permission.

A Supreme Court circular, issued hours before the “Judiciary Cup 2015” began, said the judiciary’s staff could only form associations or clubs in accordance with a policy set by the Supreme Court and that their activities must be overseen by the Supreme Court-controlled Department of Judicial Administration (DJA).

However, participants of the tournament told Minivan News they went ahead after deciding that the circular would only apply to future activities.

A Civil Court staff who wished to remain anonymous said: “I don’t think we should get permission from the Supreme Court to hold a simple futsal tournament. They don’t hold control over our lives. “

The annual three-day tournament was last held in 2013 by the Criminal Court. The DJA was tasked with organising the 2014 tournament, but failed to do so.

The Drug Court voluntarily organised this year’s competition, the staff said.

A DJA Spokesperson declined to comment on the tournament, saying he would have to consult the Supreme Court before making any statements.

The tournament began on Thursday night without the DJA and Supreme Court’s participation. The final match between the Civil Court and the Drug Court will be played tonight.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court released a second circular ordering government and state offices to communicate directly with the Supreme Court on matters concerning the judiciary, instead of contacting the lower courts, separate judges and staff.

The circular also stated that an employee of the judiciary could only be appointed to any working committees with the explicit permission of the Supreme Court.

The apex court on February 12 also reduced the period during which an appeal could be filed at lower courts and tribunals from 90 and 60 days, respectively, to ten days.

The People’s Majlis in December dismissed Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz and Justice Muthasim Adnan after the ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) pushed through an amendment to the Judicature Act reducing the seven-member bench to five judges.

Shortly thereafter, Justice Abdulla Saeed was appointed Chief Justice.

In September 2014, the Supreme Court initiated suo moto proceedings against all five members of the Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) in relation to its Universal Period Review (UPR) report to the UN Human Rights Council, which suggested the apex court’s control over the judiciary was undermining powers of lower courts.

“Supreme Court issued a circular ordering all state institutions not to communicate to individual courts regarding any information relating to the judiciary except through the Supreme Court. HRCM is facing difficulties in gathering information related to judiciary due to lack of cooperation,” the report stated.

In a comprehensive report on the Maldivian judiciary released in May 2013, UN Special Rapporteur for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, wrote that centralising administrative decisions in the hands of the Supreme Court “has undoubtedly contributed to the strong impression that lower courts are excluded from the administration of justice and decision-making processes.”

The Maldives representative to the UNHRC subsequently accused the special rapporteur of undermining the sovereignty of the country.


Related to this story

Abdulla Saeed appointed as new Chief Justice, dismissed Justice Faiz laments “black day”

Supreme Court slams HRCM for basing rights assessment on “rejected” UN rapporteur findings

Criminal cases in PG leadership absence unconstitutional, says Drug Court judge

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Maldives’ human rights worsening, Amnesty tells UN

The human rights situation has deteriorated in the Maldives over the past four years, says Amnesty International in its report to the UN Human Rights Council.

In its submission for the country’s second Universal Periodic Review (UPR) titled ‘Republic of Maldives – Ignoring Human Rights Obligations’, the NGO accuses the government of having failed to implement recommendations made in 2011.

“Furthermore, it has effectively been undermining human rights protection by failing to strengthen the independent institutions of the state including the judiciary, which needs urgent reform.”

The report – made public for the first time last week – notes the “emergence of vigilante religious groups”, “fundamental flaws” within the judicial system, and the “feared abduction” of Minivan News journalist Ahmed Rilwan.

It also accuses the government of not defending the independence of the Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM), which is currently being prosecuted by the Supreme Court as a result of its own submission to the UPR.

The UPR is a state-driven process that reviews the human rights records of all 193 UN member states every four years, based on submissions by the government, the UN, NGOs, and national human rights commissions.

A mid-term assessment of the Maldives’ conformity with the 2011 recommendations found that it had “fully implemented” only three of the 145 recommendations – with 12 recommendations “partially implemented”, and 33 “not implemented”, 96 recommendations receiving “no response”.

Abductions and impunity

The report also observes the lack of prosecutions for the perpetrators of a series of abductions reported last year, as well as a failure to bring the investigation into Rilwan’s disappearance to a conclusion.

“Impunity for human rights violations, especially for torture and other ill-treatment and for unnecessary or excessive use of force by police against demonstrators has been a persistent failure of the government,” reads the report.

Amnesty highlights the non-disclosure of information regarding alleged excessive force during the raid on the Anbaraa music festival in April last year, as well as the lack of prosecutions for acts of police brutality carried out on February 8, 2012.

Attorney General Mohamed Anil told the Majlis last August that the cases of five officers were ongoing. The Commonwealth-led Commission of National Inquiry described an “urgent need” for accountability and sanctions more than two years ago.

The report accuses the government of failing to protect the rights of freedom of expression and conscience with regards to the murder of MP Dr Afrasheem Ali, the brutal attacks on blogger Ismail Hilath Rasheed and journalist Ibrahim ‘Asward’ Waheed.

“These attacks took a new form in June 2014 when a vigilante religious group kidnapped several young men, held them for hours, ill-treated them and warned them not to promote ‘atheism’.”

“None of the kidnappers have been brought to justice, even though the identities of some of them are allegedly known to the victims.”

Victims of the attacks have identified four individuals familiar with police in two abduction incidents last June, and another in November. The victims were accosted in order to obtain log-in details for online groups in which religion and gang activity were being openly discussed.

The report went on to recommend a moratorium on flogging – which Amnesty regards as “inhumane” and discriminatory in practice, and the death penalty, which the current government has pledged to reintroduce.

“Amnesty International is disappointed that the Maldives did not accept recommendations to remove restrictions in law and practice on freedom of thought, conscience and religion,” it continued.

Judiciary

The report reserves significant space to highlight deficiencies within the judicial system, arguing that a lack of judicial independence and impartiality continued to “undermine fair trials”.

“Since the last UPR, the government has taken no visible action to ensure that standards of judicial independence and impartiality are upheld and monitored,” said Amnesty.

Most importantly, states the report, there has been no action to strengthen the Judicial Services Commission (JSC).

“There is a perception in the Maldives, frequently voiced by judicial and government authorities to Amnesty International, that the principle of judicial independence would not be upheld if the government were to scrutinize the conduct of the judiciary.”

After repeated investigations into the alleged appearance of Justice Ali Hameed in a series of sex tapes in 2013 failed to find adequate evidence for disciplinary proceedings, Hameed was himself appointed president of the commission earlier this month.

“While Amnesty International would oppose interference by the executive in the affairs of the judiciary, it considers that statutory state organs entrusted with maintaining judicial accountability, such as the JSC, should monitor and take action against any breaches of impartiality,” read the UPR submission.

The JSC came in for particular criticism for its role in the dismissal of two Supreme Court judges last month. In a decision slammed for its lack of transparency, the commission found Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz and Justice Muthasin Adnan unfit to sit on the bench.

After Majlis members voted through the JSC’s recommendations, local and international groups expressed concern over the decision’s impact on judicial independence.

After the HRCM’s UPR report – criticising the centralisation of judicial power in the Supreme Court – ‘suo moto’ proceedings were initiated against it last September, prompting Amnesty to call for the commission’s independence to be guaranteed.


Related to this story

Maldives “fully implements” three of UN’s 145 human rights recommendations: UPR mid-term assessment

Women’s rights and treatment of migrant workers needs improvement: UN review

Supreme Court initiates suo moto proceedings against Human Rights Commission

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Removal of Supreme Court judges will have “chilling effect” on work of judiciary: UN special rapporteur

United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and lawyers Gabriela Knaul has expressed serious concern about the removal of Supreme Court Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz and Judge Muthasim Adnan.

“This decision seriously undermines the independence of the judiciary in the country and will have a chilling effect on the work of the judiciary at all levels,” said Knaul.

The rapporteur called for a reconsideration of the pair’s removal, noting that it had been characterised by a “lack of transparency and due process”.

Removal of the judges followed amendments to the Judicature Act made in the People’s Majlis, which called for the reduction of the Supreme Court bench from seven to five.

The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) promptly selected Faiz and Adnan for dismissal, though the reasons for their selection were not shared with MPs who subsequently voted to dismiss both on December 14.

“The fact that the grounds for removal were not publicized is particularly unacceptable,” added Knaul in a statement released yesterday (December 22).

Knaul has joined numerous local and international organisations in condemning the move, while the political fallout in the Maldives has seen the expulsion of Majlis Deputy Speaker ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik from the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

Moosa was one of six MDP MPs who failed to attend the December 14 vote, despite a three-line whip being issued by the party.

Censure

The ruling Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) has rounded on critics of the dismissals, with the party accusing Jumhooree Party leader Gasim Ibrahim of attempting to deceive the public when stating that the Maldives had received international censure.

Similarly, PPM Parliamentary Group leader Ahmed Nihan this week accused the US of hypocrisy after the State Department suggested the Maldives still has “issues” regarding judicial independence.

Local opponents to the move have included the opposition MDP and civil society groups, while the Civil Court bench passed a resolution stating that the Majlis had “forced” the JSC to deem Faiz and Adnan unfit for the Supreme Court bench.

Faiz himself has described his dismissal as raising doubts over the separation of powers and the continuation of judicial independence in the Maldives.

“Today will be written down as a black day in the constitutional history of the Maldives. I state this is a black day for the constitution. Taking such a vote against the constitution is, I believe, disrespectful to the constitution,” he told local media immediately after his removal.

Elsewhere, the International Commission of Jurists have called the decision an “astonishingly arbitrary” one which has “effectively decapitated the country’s judiciary”, while Commonwealth groups have expressed fears that the rule of law has been “severely jeopardised”.

Reform

In her own statement, Knaul noted that under both Maldivian and international norms judges could only be removed on grounds of incompetence or misconduct.

Knaul’s 2013 report into the the state of the Maldivian judiciary called for drastic reform, noting that the appointment of the current Supreme Court bench in 2010 had “no legal or constitutional basis” and that the JSC was unanimously regarded as “inadequate and politicised”.

“Since my visit to the Maldives in February 2013 I have been closely following a series of developments in the country that point at a serious deterioration of respect for the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary,” she warned yesterday.

UN special rapporteurs are independent human rights experts with mandates to report and advise on human rights from a thematic or country-specific perspective. Knaul was appointed to the position in 2009 after having worked as a judge in Brazil for over a decade.

Knaul’s 2013 report was welcomed by the Maldivian government – despite some suggestions that the country’s sovereignty was being undermined. The Supreme Court, however, has dismissed the findings.

After the Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) used recommendations from Knaul’s report in its submission to the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review this year, the Supreme Court initiated ‘suo moto’ proceedings against the commission in September.

The (ongoing) case against the HRCM followed similar charges against the Elections Commission (EC) in February, which resulted in the removal of the EC’s chair and deputy chair just weeks before the Majlis elections. The EC case was linked to the presidential election in 2013, in which the court was accused of “subverting the democratic process” by United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay.

Following the HRCM case, former Justice Minister Ahmed ‘Seena’ Zahir suggested the country was facing a “judicial dictatorship”, calling for immediate reform to end misinterpretation of the constitution.

Pro-government MPs have suggested the removal of the two judges is a move towards reform of the courts.

Attempts to obtain comment from officials at the President’s Office and the PPM were unsuccessful at the time of publication.


Related to this story

Majlis removes Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz, Justice Muthasim Adnan from Supreme Court

A justice system in crisis: UN Special Rapporteur’s report

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

PPM parliamentary group leader Nihan criticises US for comments on judiciary

Ruling Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) parliamentary group leader Ahmed Nihan has suggested the United States should look closer to home before passing comment on the Maldives’ judiciary.

While speaking at a ceremony in Gaaf Dhaalu Thinadhoo yesterday, Nihan said the majority of the countries issuing statements on the Maldivian judiciary do so without considering their domestic circumstances.

“They are afraid to talk about their own courthouses and the rights of their citizens. For example America, one of the biggest critics, is at the verge of killing black people on sight,” Haveeru has reported Nihan as saying.

“The countries which remain quiet, even as Israel continues to kill off people in the Middle East, Al-Quddus area – they are pointing their fingers at others,” he continued.

Speaking with Minivan News today, the Villimalé MP has suggested his words had been taken out of context by local media, though he defended them as being based upon facts, defending his right to freedom of expression.

Nihan’s comments appeared to refer to two recent incidents in the US in which individuals died at the hands of police officers, prompting nationwide civil rights protests.

During a visit to the Maldives this week US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Nisha Biswal said that judicial independence is still an issue in the Maldives, despite the young democracy’s accomplishments.

The comments came just days after the removal of two Supreme Court judges by the People’s Majlis, in a move condemned as unconstitutional by both local and international civil society groups, as well as the Maldives’ Civil Court.

Numerous Commonwealth organisations said the move had “severely jeopardised” the independence of the judiciary, while the International Commission of Jurists said the “astonishingly arbitrary” decision had “effectively decapitated the country’s judiciary”.

Nihan told Minivan News today that there was no reason why the Maldives should act upon “planned and political” statements from European countries either.

The government, and President Yameen in particular, has heavily criticised the EU for what it regards as interference in the internal affairs of the country, suggesting it had prompted the Maldives to look increasingly to China as a development partner.

When asked about the impact of his comments on diplomatic relations, Nihan said that he believed that there should be no impact as Maldives has the right to defend itself from its critics in the international arena.

Meanwhile, a PPM press release on Thursday (December 18) had slammed what it termed attempts to bring the Maldives into disrepute by Jumhooree Party (JP) leader Ibrahim Gasim, who suggested that Maldives was facing international censure over the removal of Supreme Court judges.

“We’re giving a bad signal. [We are] talking about comments made about the Maldives looking at statements from America and the commonwealth,” the business tycoon was quoted as saying in local media.

Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz and Justice Muthasim Adnan were removed following the passage of government-sponsored amendments to the Judicature Act, which proposed reducing the number of judges on the apex court from seven to five.

Following ratification of the amendments by President Abdulla Yameen, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) promptly recommended the dismissal of Faiz and Adnan, which was approved by parliament on December 14 with 53 votes in favour and 21 against.


Related to this story

PPM accuses JP of misleading public, bringing government into disrepute

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

Judicial independence still an issue in Maldives, says US assistant secretary of state

Judicial independence, rule of law “severely jeopardised” in the Maldives, says Commonwealth organisations

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Former justice minister slams “judicial dictatorship”

No additional reporting by missing journalist Ahmed Rilwan

The Maldivian judiciary is not functioning as envisioned in the revised constitution adopted in August 2008 and should be reformed, former Justice Minister and former Speaker Ahmed ‘Seena’ Zahir has said in a scathing critique of the justice system.

“If we don’t want an executive dictatorship from a dictatorship, we don’t want a judicial dictatorship either,” the former speaker of parliament reportedly said at a ceremony held on Monday night (September 29) to inaugurate an association of former students of the private Malé English School (MES).

Zahir’s criticism follows the Supreme Court initiating suo moto proceedings against members of the Human Rights Commission of Maldives over its Universal Periodic Review (UPR) submission to the UN Human Rights Council.

The Special Majlis constitutional assembly convened to amend the constitution – of which he was a member – did not envision the judiciary “meddling” in executive affairs, Zahir said.

Judges were offered tenure, job security and high pay, he noted.

He added that the judiciary was misinterpreting constitutional provisions while the mandate of judges was limited to conducting trials.

“That should be brought to an end. It won’t come to a halt by jailing those who talk about this. Someone has to raise their voices on behalf of the people,” he said.

Zahir called on the public to exercise the constitutional right to freedom of expression and raise their voices for judicial reform.

The MES senior student association could take up the call as it should be done in an academic and unbiased manner without politicisation, he advised.

Zahir – who served as justice minister in the cabinet of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and participated in the ruling Progressive Party of Maldives’ (PPM) presidential campaign last year – suggested that political parties were unwilling to speak out for judicial reform.

He also noted that the judiciary would have to arbitrate and settle commercial disputes under foreign investment laws.

Such laws, however, would not serve its purpose of attracting foreign investment if the judiciary remained unreformed, Zahir contended.

Zahir advised a bipartisan effort to amend the constitution, noting that the ruling PPM and coalition partner Maldives Development Alliance had a comfortable majority in the People’s Majlis.

“And their supporters also support amending the constitution,” he said, adding that the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) would also back such an effort as it has been advocating for judicial reform.

However, Zahir said he did not see efforts to reform the judiciary through parliament.

The purpose of amending the constitution should not be “removing A from the post and appointing B,” he added.

Suo moto

Less than two weeks before the parliamentary polls in March, the Supreme Court charged Elections Commission Chair Fuwad Thowfeek and Deputy Chair Ahmed Fayaz with contempt of court and dismissed the pair under unprecedented suo moto proceedings.

Subsequent changes to contempt of court regulations made in June authorised courts to penalise individuals for any expression, action, gesture, or piece of writing “inside or outside a courtroom” that could be considered contempt of court.

At yesterday’s trial against the HRCM members, Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain slammed the commission for basing its observation – that the Supreme Court controlled and influenced the judiciary to the detriment of lower courts – on a 2013 report by the UN Special Rapporteur for Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul.

Faiz said the judiciary had rejected Knaul’s report as invalid. In June 2013, the government accused Knaul of undermining the Maldives’ sovereignty and jurisdiction.

Meanwhile, in 2012, the United Nations Human Rights Council, of which the Maldives is a member, 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.  The Committee has said the judiciary is desperately in need of more serious training, and higher standards of qualification,” a statement read.

The Supreme Court in particular needed “radical readjustment,” the committee said. “As 6 of 7 Supreme Court judges are experts in Sharia law and nothing more, this court in particular is in need of radical readjustment.  This must be done to guarantee just trials, and fair judgments for the people of Maldives.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Mohamed Saleem appointed as deputy prosecutor general

Mohamed Saleem has been appointed as deputy prosecutor general at a meeting held at the Prosecutor General’s Office today.

He was appointed to the position by the current prosecutor general (PG) , Muhthaaz Muhzin.

Mohamed Saleem, who has been a staff of the PG’s Office for six years used to be the head of the prosecution department of the office. After completing his Master’s Degree in Law in New Zealand, Saleem has been working in related fields for eight years.

The former deputy PG, Hussein Shameem, resigned in May after accusing the Criminal Court of obstructing justice. Shameem had been holding the position of acting PG since the resignation of former PG Ahmed Muiz in November 2013.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Over 35 sentences not enforced, reveals Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed

Some 37 sentences remain unenforced due to lack of cooperation from the relevant authorities, Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed said at a ceremony held last night to mark the anniversary of the Criminal Court.

Judge Abdulla reportedly criticised police for incomplete investigations and lack of attention to the Constitution and the law.

The Criminal Court also lacks a suitable environment for state prosecutors and witnesses to present testimony, he said.

According to local media, Juvenile Court Chief Judge Mohamed Naeem, also president of the Judges Association, said the Maldivian judiciary is now fully independent and free of undue influences.

Prior to the adoption of the new constitution in 2008 – which separated the judiciary from the executive – Naeem said judges and state attorneys would sometimes sit together to write verdicts.

Judges also delivered verdicts and judgments based on instructions from a committee of the now-defunct justice ministry, he said.

Speaking as chief guest at the event, Naeem said judges at the Criminal Court should be provided adequate security and criticised the Supreme Court for not formulating rules on issuing risk allowances for employees in the judiciary.

Responding to criticism over delays in concluding cases, Naeem said the judiciary’s speed was not slow when the number of judges, staff and resources at its disposal was taken into consideration.

The court’s annual report was released at last night’s event and certificates were awarded to staff at the Criminal Court in recognition of their work.

In March 2011, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) demoted Naeem from the Civil Court to the Juvenile Court as a disciplinary measure. A week later, the JSC appointed Naeem chief judge at the Juvenile Court.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nine persons apply for vacant High Court judge post

Nine persons – six males and three females – have applied for the vacant post of Judge on the High Court bench.

The applicants are UNDP Resident Representative Aishath Rizna, Family Court Head Judge Hassan Saeed, Hulhumalé Court Marriage Registrar Hassan Ali, Criminal Court Judges Abdulla Didi, Muhuthaz Fahmy, and Civil Court Judges Aishath Sujoon, Mariyam Nihaayath, Hussain Mazeed, Abdulla Jameel Moosa.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court enacts new contempt of court regulations

The Supreme Court has enacted new regulations authorising courts to initiate legal proceedings and punish individuals for any expression, action, gesture, or piece of writing “inside or outside a courtroom” that could be considered contempt of court.

The contempt of court regulations (Dhivehi) promulgated on July 24 states that its purpose is “establishing justice, removing obstacles to trials, and upholding the honour and dignity of courts.”

“Contempt of court is a crime. And holding courts and its judges in contempt, and committing any act that could diminish the honour and dignity of courts is against Article 141(c) and (d) of the Constitution,” states section three of the regulations.

Spoken or written words as well as deeds and gestures that constitute contempt of court include portraying the judiciary in a negative light, an utterance or action that demeans a court, a judge, or court officer, “criticising or berating a court or a judge, or committing any act that causes loss of respect and dignity of a court or a judge, or attempting to bring the court into disrepute.”

Other actions include obstruction of ongoing trials, non-compliance with court orders or verdicts, refusal to provide testimony at a trial, refusal to answer summons to appear at court or flying overseas without permission, and use of obscene language inside a courtroom.

Additionally, causing physical harm to a judge or a court officer, damaging court property, bringing cameras or recording devices into courtrooms without permission, leaving a courtroom during ongoing proceedings, causing disorder at a trial, and using a public forum or the media to unduly influence an ongoing trial would also be considered contempt of court.

Initiating proceedings

While judges could immediately take punitive measures for contempt of court either during trials or within court premises, the regulations stipulate that the state must press charges and initiate criminal prosecution for words or deeds constituting contempt of court outside a courtroom.

However, the Supreme Court, High Court, and lower courts could initiate proceedings if either is the target of the contemptuous remark or action.

The apex court meanwhile has the discretion to initiate proceedings in cases involving contempt towards any court or judge.

If an institution exhibits contempt of court, the regulation states that its most senior official must bear responsibility and face charges.

The accused party in contempt of court trials would have the right to seek legal representation and defend themselves verbally or in writing. An odd number of judges must preside over such trials.

The accused could avail themselves of legal defence arguments used in criminal trials while evidence presented at such trials “with good will or intention to assist in the dispensation of justice” would not be considered contempt of court.

While providing information to the public regarding ongoing trials “truthfully and impartially” is permissible, the regulation states that courts could prohibit dissemination of information at its choosing.

Punishment

Persons found guilty of contempt of court during proceedings at a hearing or trial could be sentenced to up to 15 days in jail, placed under house arrest for up to one month, or fined up to MVR10,000 (US$649).

For other cases of contempt of court during proceedings or inside court premises, the regulations state that persons could be sentenced pursuant to Articles 85 through 88 of the penal code.

However, section 13 – which deals with punishment – does not specify the punishment for instances of contempt of court outside the courtroom

Moreover, sentences passed during proceedings or following a contempt of court trial cannot be appealed at a higher court. However, the Supreme Court has the authority to take measures or issue orders while a contempt of court trial is ongoing at a lower court.

‘Sumoto’

On March 9, less than two weeks before the parliamentary elections, the Supreme Court stripped former Elections Commission (EC) Chair Fuwad Thowfeek and Deputy Chair Ahmed Fayaz of their membership in the independent commission over contempt of court charges.

The Supreme Court had summoned EC members on February 27 and began a surprise trial on charges of contempt of court under new ‘sumoto’ regulations – promulgated in February – that allow the apex court to initiate proceedings and act as both prosecution and judge.

Meanwhile, in January, the Supreme Court suspended former Attorney General Husnu Suood and ordered police to investigate the lawyer for alleged contempt of court. The Prosecutor General’s Office, however, dropped the charges in March.

The former AG had represented the EC in an election annulment case before being ejected and barred from proceedings.

Moreover, the court also sought criminal charges against opposition-aligned private broadcaster Raajje TV over a report criticising the judiciary while Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain threatened legal action against media organisations or journalists who disseminate false or inauthentic information concerning the judiciary.

Opposition Maldivian Democratic Party MPs Alhan Fahmy and Imthiyaz Fahmy were meanwhile charged with contempt of court for criticising the apex court on Raajje TV.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)