Tag: judiciary

Jumhooree Party submits three witness statements to Sunday’s Supreme Court hearing

The Supreme Court panel of seven judges has heard three witness statements submitted by the Jumhooree Coalition during Sunday’s hearing, in the party’s ongoing bid to annul the first round of polling in which it narrowly missed a place in the run-off.

The court stated that the identities of all three witnesses were to be protected and therefore only their voices – altered to make identification difficult – were heard in the court room.

The first witness – a male voice – stated that upon going to the polling station on September 7, election officials informed him that he had already cast his vote, and that his name had been marked as such on the voters registry.

He then claimed that after discussion with the election officials at the said booth, he had been allowed to cast his vote, despite the list showing he had previously voted.

The second witness – female – said that she had been unable to cast her vote as the elections officials at the polling station she had attended had said her name was not on the voters list.

When the JP’s lawyer and presidential running mate Dr Hassan Saeed asked the witness if she had registered to vote, and why or why not, she responded that she had not and that it was because she had figured “I too will need to go where everyone else at home went”.

Hassan then asked “You are saying it is because you intended to vote from the area of your permanent address?”, prompting a “yes” from the witness.

Hassan then asked if she had taken a valid national identity card which had all the text on it clearly visible, and if the elections officials had checked it.

The witness said that she had taken one, but alleged officials had not looked at it.

Questions were also asked of the second witness by Judge Adam Mohamed.

Adam Mohamed asked if the elections officials had offered her any reassurance that she would later be allowed to vote, to which she replied in the negative.

The judge then asked if the officials had then just asked her to go home, to which the witness replied that she had of her own accord gone home, as her name was not on the voters’ list.

The third and final witness in the hearing was a man who claimed to have worked as a senior election official in charge of a ballot box. The location of the box was not revealed, to protect his identity.

Dr Saeed asked him about the time voting started and if the netbook and Ballot Progress Reporting System (BPRS) queue system provided by the Elections Commission was working.

The witness said that voting started at approximately 7:30am. He said that although the netbook was in perfect working condition, as was the BPRS, the officials at the station had some trouble working it as they did not understand how. He said they then had started the voting process using the hard copy of the voters’ list as instructed during their training.

He stated that they had already released 10 queue numbers for voting before they were able to get the BPRS queue system working.

According to the witness, he had instructed another official to start entering these 10 numbers at about 10:00am when the queues had calmed down, during which process they discovered that five of the 10 people appeared on the system as having already voted.

He however assured that no person whose name was not on the voting list had cast a vote at the station he had been watching over.

The Elections Commission’s lawyer, former Attorney General Husnu Suood, asked the witness if these five persons were people who had come from another island, which the witness confirmed as true.

He then asked if it was possible to say they had cast their votes on another island and then come to the witnesses’ island in an attempt to cast their vote.

The witness stated that this was impossible, as they had been among the first in queue when voting began.

Dr Saeed again questioned the witness, asking if the official knew the island of origin of the five alleged double-voters, and how much time it would have taken them to travel to their permanent residences on a speed boat from the official’s island.

The official said the people came from an island outside his atoll, and that it would take at least an hour and a half to reach there, even by speedboat.

Dr Saeed then asked if there was any other island with ballot boxes and which was the closest.

The witness said the closest one was 10 minutes away by speedboat, and that he believed that “in times as technologically advanced as this, it is possible that these five persons had removed the ink mark indicating having voted and gone to a nearby polling centre and recast a vote.”

Husnu Suood at this point intervened, asking the judges to make the witness’s statements be based on facts, and not inclusive of opinions.

The judge overruled the objection, stating that witness statements were an account of what they believed to have happened.

The last question was posed by Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) lawyer Ahmed Zaneen Adam, who asked if the EC had asked officials to make voters remain in the polling area for 30 seconds after the ink mark was drawn on their fingers.

The witness responded that they had been told so, and had worked under these instructions.

Judges then told Zaneen that he could not question the witness beyond the scope of his statement.

Although the judges panel stated that all parties would be given an opportunity to speak after the witness statements, the court session ended directly after the statements were delivered.

Another hearing in the case began today (Monday September 23) at 11:00am and was ongoing at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Jumhooree Party to call on Supreme Court to annul first round results

The Jumhoree Party (JP) has declared that it intends to ask the Supreme Court to annul the results of last week’s presidential election, in which it narrowly missing placing in the run-off vote scheduled for September 28.

The JP’s presidential candidate Gasim Ibrahim, who placed third 24.07 percent of the vote, last week announced that he believed he “should have placed first“, and disputed the credibility of the results.

The Elections Commission (EC) has dismissed the allegations, pointing to near unanimous agreement among local and international election observers that the elections were free, fair and credible, and that the minor issues noted would not have had an impact on the final results.

However JP Policy Secretary Mohamed Ajmal told Minivan News the party would attempt to prove via the courts that the first round had been “rigged”.

As part of these efforts, he said that the JP would be submitting a “motion” to the Supreme Court on Sunday September 15 seeking to annul the vote, alleging discrepancies and irregularities during polling.

The party has already filed a case at the High Court – on the second attempt, after the first case was rejected – demanding the release of the ballot papers.

“We believe the High Court is delaying this process, and this is something we do not want to see,” Ajmal said, alleging this was in violation of “national regulations”.

Ajmal said the motion would give a “high priority” to its grievances, with the second round of voting just two weeks away.

Gasim and the Supreme Court

Until July 2013 and his official acceptance as a presidential candidate, Gasim was a member of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) – the watchdog body tasked with appointing and disciplining the judiciary, including the Supreme Court.

Earlier that same month he declared that a leaked video depicting Supreme Court Judge Ali Hameed fornicating with an unidentified foreign woman in a Colombo hotel room was “a fake”.

Days later, two more videos of the judge engaging in sexual relations with foreign women were leaked on social media.

According to Maldivian law, the crime of fornication is subject to 100 lashes and banishment or house arrest for a period of eight months, a sentence regularly and overwhelmingly given to women found guilty of extramarital sex.

A fourth video showed the judge in conversation with a local businessman discussing the politicisation of the judiciary.

Gasim however voted against the recommendation of the JSC’s own subcommittee that Hameed be suspended pending further investigation. The judge remains on the bench.

He claims feuds between politicians were being settled through the court even though these did not involve the law or any legal issues.

Reactions

The Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN) has expressed concern at the way the results of the September 7 elections have been received by “some parties”, urging them “to act in the spirit of democracy and fair play by seeking solutions to grievances through due process and recourse to lawful means.”

“The principles of democracy prohibit threats, intimidation and harassment of each other and such behaviour has no place in a civilised society. MDN further expects that the judiciary will attend to elections-related petitions independently, efficiently and without discrimination,” the NGO stated.

President Mohamed Waheed, who received 5.13 percent of the vote in the first round and today announced that he would be supporting PPM candidate Abdulla Yameen in the run-off, declared that some allegations regarding the election were “worryingly serious”.

“I think it is paramount that these allegations be addressed within the designated legal framework, and justice be served,” President Waheed said in a statement reported by local media.

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Spokesperson MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor noted the irony that the country’s prior “culture of corruption, vote rigging, and coup d’etat” had been led by the same individuals who were now contesting the legitimacy of the election results.

“These are the same people who lobbied the Supreme Court to get more direct powers for the police and security forces, and thereby a controlling stake in the elections process,” he said.

“It would be unimaginable for the courts to rule against something that the international observers have endorsed. If they agree to a recount that would be going against the international community,” Ghafoor said.

Elections Commission Fuwad Thowfeek has emphatically dismissed the JP’s allegations of rampant vote-rigging, pointing to the commission’s transparency, ongoing complaints investigations, and praise from a broad spectrum of election observers.

“The allegations by the Jumhoree Party are wasting our time actually. They don’t understand democracy or how to accept defeat, it’s a very unfortunate thing,” EC Chair Fuwad Thowfeek told Minivan News last week.

“People who cannot accept defeat should not face an election,” he continued. “It’s a contest so there’s a chance they will win or lose. In this case there were four contestants and only two could advance to the second round. Gasim Ibrahim doesn’t understand [this] and his followers are making a fool out of him,” he contended.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Mutiny in the Supreme Court

Just three weeks to the Maldives’ presidential elections scheduled for September 7, Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain has announced a mutiny in the Supreme Court!

In a statement issued on Thursday, the Chief Justice declared an injunction order issued by the “Supreme Court majority” of four judges on Thursday to be unlawful, issued without due process by the secret collusion of four members of the seven member bench, without the knowledge of himself and two other justices.

The injunction order is to stop the appointment of a Civil Service Commission (CSC) member to replace the disgraced CSC Chair Mohamed Fahmy Hassan, who was removed from office and CSC membership by the Majlis earlier this year for sexual assault of a staff member. He continued to sit in the office despite the removal, while politicians haggled and MPs pointed the finger at each other and outside to explain his impunity and the absence of rule of law.

No one appeared to understand that it is the Majlis that has the power to appoint and remove CSC members, with the CSC Act having been amended in 2010 for Majlis to take full powers of appointment, oversight and removal of CSC members, or that squatting in public office after removal is a crime.

Also unnoticed, or deliberately ignored in public discussion, are the wider connections of the Fahmy case to the silent coup and the hijack of the judiciary in 2010 with the CSC Chair being an ex-officio member of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), and the serious and dangerous implications of the Supreme Court mutiny on the upcoming elections.

Discussed in the Maldives on political platforms, media, social media and other public fora is “bad man Fahmy” – the removed CSC Chair at the centre of the controversy; “bad man Ali Hameed” – the Supreme Court justice who has continued to sit on the bench protected by both the JSC and Majlis despite his public expose in the sex tapes scandal where he is seen having sex with multiple foreign women in a Colombo hotel room; and “bad man Abdulla Saeed” – the interim, self declared “Chief Justice” who is said to “lead the majority in the Supreme Court”.

Democracy, in the Maldives, is simplified to a struggle between The Majority and The Minority, with majority by any means deciding all, be it in the Majlis, the High Court, the Supreme Court or elsewhere. Democratic principles and standards, due process and rule of law, transparency and accountability, are all dismissed, the focus of all being on majority building by any means to have their way.

The report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers issued in May 2013 Ms Gabriella Knaul, highlights the critical issues in Maldives engagement with democracy, and provides insight into the coup of February 7, 2012 like no other report, but remains ignored by government, opposition, civil society and other actors.

Precedent: Mutiny in the High Court

On January 21, 2010 a similar mutiny took place in the High Court, in my opinion the first of the many mutinies that had eventually led to the coup of Feb 7, 2012 and the fall of legitimate government with the forced resignation of President Mohamed Nasheed, the first President elected through democratic process.

The High Court mutiny attacked the JSC, removed the JSC Chair who was the then Chief Judge of the High Court, Abdul Ghani Mohamed, and delivered the Commission to the then Vice Chair of the JSC, now removed Justice of the interim Supreme Court, Mujthaaz Fahmy, who had cleverly manipulated the Commission, committed high treason using public office and the powers of JSC, hoodwinked the public, and delivered the full judiciary intact to former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and his allies.

The High Court mutiny was never investigated by the JSC despite a unanimous decision in the Commission in January 2010; the modus operandi of Mujthaaz Fahmy being to give in when challenged in a public display of concession and going behind the back to corrupt any decision he did not agree with.

The first Inquiry Committee appointed by the JSC to investigate the High Court Mutiny never sat, and I, a JSC member at the time, was informed by the Commission that it was due to the non appearance of Inquiry Committee member, then interim Supreme Court Justice, Ahmed Faiz Hussain – now the same Chief Justice who has declared that “the majority” has gone behind his back and there is a mutiny in the Supreme Court.

The Inquiry Committee never sat, and there was no investigation or action against the judges in the High Court mutiny, and eventually they were rewarded with lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court under the careful management of the Majlis majority. The removed interim Justice Mujthaz Fahmy was rewarded for life by the Majlis.

Ironically, but to no surprise, those in the Supreme Court mutiny today are the same “judges” in the High Court mutiny of January 21, 2010, who were appointed to the Supreme Court on August 10, 2010 in a political deal reached by the political leaders and the sitting interim Supreme Court who had by then declared themselves permanent.

The international community itself played by the politicians without a single independent observer to comment, had itself played a role pushing for “calm” and haste over due process and trust, ignoring the politics of it all, and the serious and lasting negative impact on democracy in the Maldives.

The Maldives is today more an active crime scene than a State, and whilst free and fair elections are a necessary first step to come out of the current situation, return to Constitutional rule, and rebuilding the democratic State we failed to build in the first attempt, there is little reason to expect a smooth electoral process.

The final word on the results of the September 7, 2013 elections will surely come from Court and not votes; and it is imperative that the political leaders and the international community come to an agreement on an alternative dispute resolution mechanism leaving the corrupted judiciary out of the process.

Ignoring the serious issues, hoping for the best, and relying on the possible goodwill of the judges given the power of numbers voting, is, unfortunately, no guarantee.

Aishath Velezinee (@Velezinee on twitter) is an independent democracy activist and writer. She was the Editor of Adduvas Weekly 2005-07 and served on the Maldives’ Judicial Service Commission (2009-11). She claims the Commission she sat on breached constitution in transition; and advocates for redress of Article 285, and a full overhaul of the judiciary as a necessary step for democracy consolidation.

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)

Supreme Court challenges Maldives Bar Association for using the word ‘bar’ in its name

The Supreme Court has allegedly requested the Ministry of Home Affairs to look into the procedures of how the Maldives Bar Association was formed claiming that the use of the word ‘Bar’ in the association’s name was leading to “confusion” among international legal and judicial groups.

The Maldives Bar Association was formed in April to empower, lobby and advocate on behalf of legal practitioners. It was also charged with addressing problems faced by lawyers within the judiciary. The association is currently headed by veteran lawyer and former Attorney General, Husnu Al Suood.

In a letter obtained by Minivan News, allegedly sent by the Supreme Court to the Ministry on May 5, the apex court claimed that in other developed countries, the phrase “Bar” referred to a formal statutory body that represents the entire legal community, unlike the current Maldives Bar Association which is an NGO.

“The newly registered ‘Bar Association’ is an NGO belonging only to its founding members, and considering the confusion that may arise due to a group of individuals using such a name, the judges panel of Supreme Court have on April 30 decided to request the Home Ministry to look into the matter,” read the letter.

Meanwhile, in a second letter, the Ministry of Home Affairs responded to the Supreme Court’s letter stating that prior to the registration of the association, the ministry had consulted with the Attorney General’s office regarding the name.

In response, the ministry stated that the Attorney General did not object to the name, but had requested it reserve the name ‘Maldives Bar Council’ – an institution that is yet to be established under the proposed Legal Practitioners Bill, which the Attorney General’s office is currently in the process of drafting.

Speaking to Minivan News, Maldives Bar Association Secretary General Anas Abdul Sattar disputed the Supreme Court’s view that the term ‘Bar’ was limited to formal statutory bodies.

“Even in India, there is the Bombay Bar Association. The Bombay Bar Council which was formed by a statute came to existence much later, but the bar association still continues to function,” Sattar contended.

Sattar said that Supreme Court was not making the right decision if it were to contend that the term ‘bar’ must only be limited to formal and statutory institutions.

Meanwhile, an attorney working closely with the association told Minivan News on condition of anonymity that the Supreme Court was upset about international organisations recognising the association.

“The Supreme Court was informing those organisations that the Maldives did not have a bar council. They then claimed that they would like to affiliate with the bar association, and that the association satisfied their criterion,” the attorney said.

“If you look into the details, Supreme Court is currently not affiliated with any such organisations and they seemed pretty upset when the international legal community started to recognise the association,” he added.

Minivan News contacted the Supreme Court for a response, but the official demanded formal enquiries in writing and said the court would “respond if appropriate”.

The Supreme Court’s letter challenging the bar association follows its vocal calls for the suspension of Supreme Court Justice Ali Hameed, following the release of multiple sex tapes featuring the judge.

Hameed is under investigation by both the police and JSC over the circulation of at least three sex videos apparently depicting him fornicating with unidentified foreign women.

In a previous statement, the association challenged the independence and transparency of any Judicial Service Commission (JSC) investigation into the matter that proceeded without first suspending the judge.

The Maldives Bar Association claimed that it was “against principles adopted in modern democratic societies” to allow Supreme Court Justice Ali Hameed to remain on the bench while he faced allegations of adultery and other concerning conduct.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court upholds seven year prison sentence for throwing rocks at VTV

The High Court has upheld a Criminal Court ruling sentencing a man found guilty of throwing stones at private broadcaster VTV to seven years imprisonment.

Eight men including Mohamed Hameed were given seven year sentences for throwing stones outside the station during anti-government protests on March 19, 2012.

The demonstrators were protesting the new President Dr Mohamed Waheed from giving the opening address to the first session of parliament, following his controversial arrival to power the previous month.

In addition to Hameed, the Criminal Court also sentenced Ismail Hammaadh of Maduvvari in Raa Atoll, Ahmed Hameeed and Hussein Hameed of Alifushi in Raa Atoll, Ahmed Naeem of Henveiru Ladhumaageaage, Hussein Shifau Jameel of Maafannu Nooruzeyru, Aanim Hassan of Ferishoo in North Ali Atoll, Ahmed Muheen of Galolhu Haalam and Mohamed Hameed for vandalising the channel.

The building, as well as the soldiers guarding its entrance on Sosun Magu, came under attack as police tear gas forced the protesters south, past the building from the police barricades near to the parliament building.

Appealing the sentence, Hameed argued that it was extraordinary practice for the court to impose the maximum possible sentence on a first time offender with no criminal record.

However the High Court, noting that the sentence was three to seven years, deferred to the discretion of the Criminal Court judge.

VTV is owned by MP Gasim Ibrahim, a resort tycoon, presidential candidate and member of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) tasked with disciplining the judiciary.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

No conflict of interest as JSC member, presidential candidate: Gasim

Jumhoree Party (JP) Presidential Candidate Gasim Ibrahim has told reporters he will not step down from his position on the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), stating that he saw no conflict of interest between his bid for power and role on the judicial watchdog.

The JP held a press conference yesterday with its two recently-unveiled coalition partners, the religious conservative Adhaalath Party and the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP), following their defection from President Mohamed Waheed’s ‘Forward with the nation’ coalition last week.

According to local news outlet Haveeru, journalists repeatedly asked Gasim how he could possibly remain an impartial member of the JSC while running for president.

In response, Gasim said he saw no conflict of interest, and insisted that he would “not neglect his legal obligations” as a JSC member.

Following the investigation of Supreme Court Judge Ali Hameed sex tape scandal by a JSC subcommittee, Gasim voted against suspending the judge, in contradiction of the subcommittee’s recommendation.

Attorney General Aishath Azima Shukoor, President Waheed’s representative Latheefa Gasim, and Chair of the Civil Service Commission, Mohamed Fahmy Hassan, also voted against the judge’s suspension, citing “lack of evidence”.

Gasim meanwhile publicly declared that Hameed’s sex tape was “a fake” orchestrated by “external forces” seeking to take over state assets, introduce other religions to the country, and create infighting in Maldivian society.

His comments were followed this week with the leak of two more sex videos of the judge, including one depicting the judge fraternising with a topless woman with an eastern European accent. At one point, the judge leans right into the camera, and his face is visible.

JSC controversy

The public’s representative on the JSC, Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman, has been sharply critical of the commission’s conduct and motivations, particularly its “open discussion” of its intent to eliminate Gasim’s rival presidential candidate, former President Mohamed Nasheed, from contesting the upcoming elections.

“It is common now to hear a lot of MDP and Nasheed bashing in commission meetings. This was not how things usually were before. I believe politically biased comments like this have increased since Gasim joined the JSC as a representative of the parliament,” Sheikh Rahman stated in March.

“Gasim even went to the point of asking the UN Special Rapporteur Gabriela Knaul when she held a meeting with us to state in her report that it was Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) who torched the courts. I heard him say exactly that,” Sheikh Rahman said.

Knaul’s final report to the UN Human Rights Council following her mission to the Maldives in February, was a damning indictment of the country’s judicial crisis.

The special rapporteur stated that there was near unanimous consensus during her visit that the composition of the JSC was “inadequate and politicised”. This complaint echoed that of the International Committee of Jurists (ICJ) in 2010.

“Because of this politicisation, the commission has allegedly been subjected to all sorts of external influence and has consequently been unable to function properly,” said Knaul.

The JSC was responsible for both creating the court in which Nasheed was to be tried for his detention of Chief Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed in early 2011, and appointing the panel of judges overhearing the trial.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Two more sex videos of Supreme Court judge leaked

Two more videos apparently showing Supreme Court Judge Ali Hameed engaging in sexual relations with foreign women have been leaked on social media.

Three other videos already in circulation, including a third sex tape and two videos of the judge meeting prominent Maldivian business and political figures, recently prompted the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) to form a five-member subcommittee to investigate the matter.

The two new leaks follow the JSC’s decision last week to disregard the subcommittee’s recommendation and not suspend the judge, citing “lack of evidence”.

According to Maldivian law, the crime of fornication is subject to 100 lashes and banishment or house arrest for a period of eight months.

The courts regularly issue this sentence, overwhelmingly to women found guilty of extramarital sex. Sentences are carried out in front of the justice building next door to the Supreme Court, and occasionally attract high profile international media coverage, such as the sentencing in February this year of a 15 year-old rape victim.

Minivan News understands that one of the newly leaked videos, time-stamped January 24 2013, shows the judge fraternising with a topless woman with an eastern European accent. At one point the judge leans right into the camera, and his face is visible.

Afterwards, the woman repeatedly encourages the judge to drink wine from a minibar.

“If I drink that I will be caught. I don’t want to be caught,” the judge insists, refusing.

The room and date stamp appears to be the same as that in previously leaked footage of Hameed meeting a local businessman Mohamed Saeed, the director of ‘Golden Lane’.

In that video, Hameed asserts that he was one of Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) Presidential Candidate’s Abdulla Yameen’s “back-ups”, and that his stand was “to do things the way Yameen wants”.

“Even [Speaker of Parliament] Abdulla Shahid will know very well that my stand is to do things the way Yameen wants. That the fall of this government was brought with our participation,” he appears to add, although the audio quality is poor (01:49).

One of the men claims to have heard plans to “kill off” leader of the Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP) leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali and refers to a “second person to be killed,” however, due to the unclear audio it is not clear what the parties are referring to, or the context of the “killing”. The person believed to be Hameed then promises, “If it comes into my hands, I will kill him off.”

That video appeared shortly after police arrested Ahmed Faiz – a council member of President Dr Mohamed Waheed’s Gaumee Ihthihaad Party (GIP) and then-Project Advisor at the Housing Ministry – while he was allegedly trying to sell another sex tape of the Supreme Court Justice.

Don’t make negative statements on the judiciary: Chief Justice

Chief Judge of the Supreme Court Ahmed Faiz has meanwhile urged the public and media to refrain from making statements that would give a negative image of the judiciary.

The judiciary could only be strengthened by the amending the constitution, Faiz claimed, according to local media.

“Based on our experience up until now, we know that in order to further strengthen the judiciary, the constitution needs to be amended, relevant laws need to be amended, and relevant laws required by the judiciary need to be introduced as soon as possible,” he said.

PPM Vice Presidential candidate Dr Mohamed Jameel meanwhile declared at a party rally over the weekend that the judiciary was the “worst the country has seen in its entire history”, according to local media.

“Today’s reality is that, even if we reflect upon the magistrates in the island courts to the judges who sit in the courts of Male’, they receive higher salaries and better privileges than all of the common people. But the question is, while the system and their salaries are being upheld by taxes, do the people get their justice?” said Dr Jameel, who served as Justice Minister under former President Gayoom’s administration.

“In what country, in what way can a country’s people be made to suffer, batter the people and intimidate them, kidnap them and use the people’s money through corruption, abuse the people’s property through millions and then sell them, but have no investigation, no trial for these people, these events require you to give considerable thought to the state of the country,” he said.

Dr Jameel then blamed the judiciary for allowing former President Mohamed Nasheed’s name to appear on the ballot for the September 2013 elections.

“Some of the people who are standing for presidency should not have their names on the ballot paper if the country’s laws are being followed, if the State’s policies are properly implemented. Somebody has to be responsible for this. I believe that the blame goes on the judiciary,” Jameel said.

Supreme Court Judge Hameed with businessman Mohamed Saeed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEKk8lgMH8o

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC votes not to suspend Supreme Court Judge in sex video, due to “lack of evidence”

Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has decided not to suspend Supreme Court Justice Ali Hameed, who is currently under both police and JSC investigation following the circulation of a sex video apparently depicting the judge fornicating with an unidentified foreign woman.

Four members of the JSC voted in support of a motion on Wednesday to not suspend the Supreme Court Justice, over due to “lack of evidence”.

The decision disregarded the recommendation of the JSC’s own five member committee investigating the judge’s conduct in multiple leaked videos.

The four members who supported the motion to not suspend the judge included parliament representative, resort tycoon and presidential candidate MP Gasim Ibrahim, Attorney General Aishath Azima Shukoor, President Waheed’s representative Latheefa Gasim, and Chair of the Civil Service Commission, Mohamed Fahmy Hassan, who was recently dismissed by parliament in no-confidence motion over allegations of sexual harassment, but later reinstated by the Supreme Court.

JSC members Shuaib Abdul Rahmaan, Ahmed Rasheed and Abdulla Hameed did not support the motion.

Following the decision, JSC Deputy Chairman Abdulla Mohamed Didi and Latheefa Gasim resigned from the five-member committee investigating the matter.

The video of the Supreme Court Justice allegedly indulging in adultery came into media limelight following the arrest of Ahmed Faiz – a senior Council Member of President Mohamed Waheed Hassan’s Gaumee Ihthihaad Party (GIP) and former Project Advisor at the Housing Ministry.

Snapshots taken from the video began circulating on social media networks Twitter and Facebook, prompting a police investigation. The police formally notified all relevant authorities including the JSC, the Prosecutor General and President Waheed regarding their investigation into the case.

The JSC is also investigating a further two videos involving the Supreme Court Judge, including spy cam videos of Hameed discussing political corruption of the judiciary with a local businessman, and a meeting with former Immigration Controller Ilyas Hussain Ibrahim.

A question of “details”

Gasim Ibrahim had previously defended Justice Hameed during a campaign rally, claiming that the alleged sex-tape was a “fake”. He was criticised by former Attorney General Husnu Suood for breaching the JSC’s code of conduct.

Attorney General Shukoor defended the commission’s decision claiming that the five member sub-committee needed more details on the case in order to suspend the judge, claiming the decision not to suspend Hameed was to give the committee time to come up with these details.

“The motion was passed when called for a vote. Therefore it must be noted that there was no motion calling to take action against the Supreme Court Justice during the meeting,” read the statement by Shukoor, defending the decision.

Discrimination between judges

JSC member Shuaib Abdul Rahmaan told Minivan News the commission’s enforcement of disciplinary action towards higher and lower court judges lacked consistency, despite all judges sharing the same code of conduct.

“Criminal Court Judge Abdul Baari Yoosuf was previously suspended and asked not to report for work [during a JSC investigation into his alleged sexual assault of a female lawyer].

“However, in the case of Supreme Court Justice Ali Hameed, despite there being much stronger evidence, the commission members are reluctant to take action. Last time, even Azima Shukoor and Gasim Ibrahim voted in favour of suspending Baari,” Shuaib said.

He dismissed Shukoor’s statement stating that a motion to suspend the judge would be re-tabled.

“No, there was no decision reached at the meeting to re-agenda the matter,” he said.

Asked about the specific details the commission was seeking from the sub-committee, Shuaib said that these carried no weight and would not change the course of the investigation.

According to local media reports, the decision led to a falling out between members of the JSC including its Vice Chair Abdulla Didi – who chaired the meeting due to the absence of the commission’s chair Supreme Court Justice Adam Mohamed.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police investigating blackmail case involving Supreme Court Judge’s sex tape

Police have said they are currently investigating a case involving sex tapes of a judge alleged used in a blackmail attempt.

A police spokesperson said investigations are in progress and individuals believed to be involved in the case had been either summoned to the police for questioning or had been arrested with a court warrant.

“We are currently investigating two cases concerning the video. One is the case of those who had been using the video to blackmail the people in it, and the other concerns the content of the video,” said the spokesperson.

Asked if there had been any intervention in the case by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) – who have previously claimed they are the sole authority able to investigate matters involving judges – the official said no such communications were made as of yet, and emphasised that “police will not hesitate to take any action as required by law.”

“In these types of cases, police investigators will look into those behind the blackmailing network, such as who is profiting from it, and will take all necessary actions against those involved,” the official stressed.

The spokesperson added that due to  current laws not being up-to-date with new media and social networks, there remained “slight difficulties” in investigating cases but said that such cases had previously been successfully investigated.

“Our cyber crime department and intelligence department will jointly work in apprehending those involved in blackmailing,” the spokesperson said.

Police urged the public and those who may have been victims of such blackmailing to make use of the police not to give in to the demands made by blackmailers.

Leaked spy camera footage

Last Sunday, a spy camera video apparently depicting a Supreme Court Justice and a local businessman discussing political influence in the judiciary surfaced on social media networks.

The local media identified the two individuals seen in the video as Justice Ali Hameed and Mohamed Saeed, the director of local business firm ‘Golden Lane’.

The spy camera footage, which carries the date January 24, 2013, shows the pair discussing how politicians have been influencing the judiciary.

The discussion between the two individual revealed how feuds between politicians were settled through the court even when it did not involve any legal disputes.

“Politicians can resolve their failures if they work on it, what the judiciary has to do, what we have to do is when these baaghees (traitors) file cases, we should say, ‘That it is a political matter. That it’s not a judicial issue. It’s not a legal issue. So don’t drag us into this. There is no legal dispute,’” the judge is heard saying.

The discussion also revealed a plot of “killing off” DRP leader Thasmeen Ali and refers to a “second person to be killed,”

However, due to the unclear audio it is not clear what the parties are referring to, or the context of the “killing”.

The alleged Supreme Court Justice further went onto reveal his political ‘hook-up’ with Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom – the current Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) presidential candidate and half-brother of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom – claiming that he was one of Yameen’s “back-ups” and that his stand was “to do things the way Yameen wants”.

The Justice, despite being in Yameen fraternity, boasts in the video that he was a person who “even Yameen cannot play with” and that over time he had “shown Yameen” who he is.

President Waheed’s party implicated

The video came to light shortly after the arrest of Ahmed Faiz – a council member of President Dr Mohamed Waheed’s Gaumee Ihthihaad Party (GIP) and then-Project Advisor at the Housing Ministry – while he was allegedly trying to sell a sex tape of a Supreme Court Justice, believed to be the same tape now subject to police investigation.

Faiz was subsequently dismissed from his position as a party council member. GIP also in a media release claimed that the party would consider expelling him from the party depending on how the police investigation proceeded.

Faiz, who has been placed under remand detention for 15 days, was also the GIP representative at press conferences of the unofficial “December 23 coalition” of eight political parties that organised a mass gathering in 2011 against the allegedly anti-Islamic policies of former President Mohamed Nasheed.

He was present at a press event of the December 23 alliance on January 8, 2012 where the group announced plans for a “mass symposium” for February 24, 2012. He was also present when opposition leaders met then-Vice President Dr Waheed in his official residence at 1:00am on January 31 – seven days before the controversial transfer of presidential power – and pledged their allegiance to the vice-president.

The ex-council member of GIP also participated in the press conference later that night when opposition party leaders called on the police and army to pledge allegiance to Dr Waheed and “not carry out any orders given by President Nasheed.”

Known to be a close aide of President Waheed, Faiz boasted about his influence within the government as a “close confidante” of President Waheed and that he was in a position to embezzle large amounts of money from MBC and the State Trading Organisation (STO) in a leaked audio clip aired on opposition-aligned private broadcaster Raajje TV.

President’s Office Media Secretary Masood Imad told Minivan News earlier that in light of the developments, Faiz had been sacked from his position in government.

Following the media reporting on the case, JSC Spokesperson Hassan Zaheen told local media that the commission had learned about the video through media reports.

He explained that the legal department would first analyze the video and then decide whether the case was one the commission should investigate.

Likes(1)Dislikes(0)