judiciary – Page 7 – Minivan News

Spy camera footage appears to show Supreme Court Justice discussing politicisation of judiciary, Feb 7

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

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 video appeared 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.

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

Both men speak in the Addu dialect of the local Dhivehi language. Due to noise from a television near the camera, much of the conversation is unclear.

The individual believed to be Justice Hameed appears frustrated over political manipulation of the judiciary.

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

He names politicians including Abdulla Yameen, the current Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) presidential candidate and half-brother of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, as well as the running mate of incumbent President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan, Ahmed Thasmeen Ali – also the leader of the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP).

In the video, one of the men claims that he had heard plans 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 person believed to be Hameed says, “If it comes into my hands, I will kill him off.”

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 adds (01:49, unclear).

However, he also claims that he was a person who “even Yameen cannot play with” and that over time he had “shown Yameen” who he is.

“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,’” he is heard saying earlier.

Referring to an unidentified group of people, he says if “they have a balanced thinking, then we will do things in a balanced way”, and asks the other individual, believed to be Saeed, if this would upset anybody.

Saeed questioned

Following the release of the video, Mohamed Saeed was twice summoned to the police for questioning, but details of the case or the topic of questioning have yet to be revealed.

However, Saeed’s lawyer Noorban Fahmy told media that Saeed opted to remain silent in the later session after he was first questioned without the presence of a lawyer.

Following the release of the camera footage, opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Alhan Fahmy – newly reunited with the party after a stint in the Jumhoree Party (JP) – alleged police had attempted to coerce one of his constituents in Feydhoo to confessing that Fahmy had made the video.

During a party rally in the Maafanu ward of Male’ on Saturday, Fahmy called for action against the judge regardless of the origin of the footage.

“I want to say is that we don’t need to see who made the film and who shot the film. The judge who has behaved indecently must be brought to justice. I want to say that judges who lose all their dignity through adultery and indecent behavior cannot remain as judges at courts,” he alleged.

“The video has come to our attention”: JSC

Judicial Service Commission (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 analyse the video and then decide whether the case was one the commission should investigate.

The leaked footage follows leaked photos of Supreme Justice Ali Hameed in a hotel room with a woman that began circulating on social media in March this year.

According to the Supreme Court website, Hameed graduated in 1991 and was awarded a Bachelor of Shari’ah and Qadhaa (Shari’ah and Law) degree from Ummul-Qura University in Mecca, Saudi Arabia.

In addition, the website claimed that he was awarded a fellowship from the Commonwealth Judicial Education Institute, Canada.

Gross misconduct within judiciary: lawyers

In June, former Attorney General Husnu Al Suood alleged to local media that Yameen and Deputy Speaker of Parliament Ahmed Nazim, along with retired Supreme Court Judge Mujthaz Fahmy, had long been in the business of influencing judges and their verdicts.

“The entire judiciary is under the influence of [retired Supreme Court Judge] Mujthaaz Fahmy ,” Suood alleged.

Suood further alleged that Deputy Speaker Nazim had close ties with members of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), and said several judges had confided to him that Yameen had on several occasions given instructions to the judges over the phone as to how their sentences should be phrased.

Despite claiming to have strong evidence to support his allegations, Suood admitted that it would be extremely difficult for the authorities to take action against the three individuals.

Suood further contended that the JSC had been taken over by “dark powers”, and that it was fully under the control of certain political figures.

All three individuals accused by Suood dismissed the allegations in local media, with Yameen describing them as an “outright lie”, and expressing frustration claiming that it had become common for people to make erroneous and slanderous remarks against political figures.

“This would not have happened if defamation had been kept as a criminal offence. All this is happening because defamation has now been changed to a civil wrong,” the presidential candidate said at the time.

Tip of the iceberg?

Supreme Court misconduct has also previously been alleged by former Human Rights Minister and Attorney General Dhiyana Saeed, who claimed a Supreme Court judge requested she file a case against former President Nasheed in a bid to prevent him from running for presidency in the 2013 presidential elections.

Dhiyana in her claim did not mention the name of the judge. However, she said at the time that a judge on the Supreme Court bench had told her that he had personal scores to settle with Nasheed.

According to Saeed, the said judge had personally instructed her on the cases she should file against the former President. Saeed alleged the instructions were given at a meeting held in the judge’s house at his request following Nasheed’s controversial resignation on February 7, 2012.

Among the suggestions allegedly made by the judge included a case concerning Nasheed’s decision to remove eight members appointed to parliament by former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, prior to the ratification of the constitution.

Another suggestion included refiling a case filed by Jumhoree Party (JP) Youth Wing Leader Moosa Anwar in 2008 against Nasheed. This case claimed that Nasheed was convicted and sentenced for theft – a ‘Hadd’ offence under Sharia’ law – in similar bid to bar his candidacy ahead of the 2008 presidential elections.

Saeed also alleged that this judge was “involved” in the Supreme Court’s decision to declare the legitimacy of the controversially-formed Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

President appoints Judicial Adminstration Spokesperson as his JSC representative

President Dr Mohamed Waheed has appointed Judicial Administration Spokesperson Latheefa Gasim as his representative on the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).

A statement from the President’s Office said Waheed presented the letter of appointment to Latheefa Gasim this afternoon, after she took an oath of JSC membership administered by Supreme Court Justice Abdulla Areef.

Waheed’s previous representative, Mohamed ‘Reynis’ Saleem was removed from his post last week following a police investigation into his alleged use of gangs for the purposes of extortion.

The lower courts threw out a police request for a warrant to arrest Saleem, a decision which was upheld by the High Court on appeal.

The JSC is the watchdog body charged with overseeing the professional and ethical conduct of the judiciary, and has faced sharp criticism both locally and internationally over its lack of independence and politicisation.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

UN translates Special Rapporteur’s report on judiciary into Dhivehi

The UN has released an unofficial Dhivehi translation of Special Rapporteur Gabriela Knaul’s extensive report on the state of the Maldivian judiciary.

In her report, Knaul expressed “deep concern” over the failure of the judicial system to address “serious violations of human rights” during the Maldives’ 30 year dictatorship, warning of “more instability and unrest” should this continue to be neglected.

The report is a comprehensive overview of the state of the Maldivian judiciary and its watchdog body, the Judicial Services Commission (JSC). Knaul examines the judiciary’s handling of the trial of former President Nasheed, the controversial reappointment of unqualified judges in 2010, and the politicisation of the JSC.

Knaul also examines parliament’s failure to pass critical pieces of legislation needed for the proper functioning of the judiciary and “legal certainty”, as well as raises serious concerns about an impending budget catastrophe facing the judicial system.

Read the translation (Dhivehi)

Read the original report (English)

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Judiciary needs transitional arrangement before elections: former JSC member

The former Presidential Member of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) Aishath Velezinee has called on international organisations to lead a transitional arrangement for the judiciary prior to September’s presidential elections.

UN Special Rapporteur for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul’s final report to the UN Human Rights Council extensively outlined the political, budgetary and societal challenges facing the judiciary and wider legal community, as well as the politicisation of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) and its failure to appoint qualified judges under Article 285 of the constitution.

The Special Rapporteur also expressed “deep concern” over the failure of the judicial system to address “serious violations of human rights” during the Maldives’ 30 year dictatorship, warning of “more instability and unrest” should this continue to be neglected.

“The UN special rapporteur’s report has raised very serious concerns that the public should be thinking about, because it has implications that affects every single individual in this country, the report is not for the state alone,” said Velezinee during a press conference held on June 5.

“The report raises questions regarding the impartiality of the supreme court. It highlights a political bias in the supreme court,” Velezinee said. “If we are going to allow the supreme court to be the decider on elections, there is very little reason for the public to have confidence in the election results.”

Velezinee noted that because only three months remain before the September 7 presidential elections, “It is time for the parliament and for the leaders to sit down together and come to a transitional arrangement.”

“That transitional arrangement should include a bench or some system outside of existing courts, outside of the supreme court, that will have a final say on all election related issues,” she stated.

“It can’t be done only locally. We need the expertise, presence and participation of the International Commission of Jurists as well as the UN in a transitional arrangement,” she continued.

“Considering the status of the state today, we need a partnership. Bilateral participation would not be something to promote, the best thing would be to have broader participation with international partners,” Velezinee added.

Resistance to consolidating democracy

“Our country today is at a serious critical junction and the issues are all coming from resistance to consolidating democracy,” said Velezinee.

“One of the most serious issues noted in the [UN special rapporteur’s] report is the misconstruing of democratic concepts in the constitution, and the use of these for personal gain by state officials within the JSC, Supreme Court, as well as parliament.”

“After elections the judiciary must be overhauled,” she declared.

The JSC was required to re-appoint judges under Article 285 of the constitution who possessed “educational qualifications, experience and recognised competence to discharge the duties and responsibilities of a judge, and must be of high moral character.”

“It is only through acknowledgement and acceptance that we have breached the constitution on article 285 that we will have the opportunity and the legitimacy to overhaul the judiciary,” explained Velezinee.

“That is very important, unless we do that we may fall into a cycle of coups… and this will go on unless the judiciary functions correctly.”

Velezinee said that while only the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) “has stood by the constitution”, it had failed so far to directly address the controversial re-appointment of unqualified judges to the judiciary.

“I have heard the MDP talk about problems in the judiciary and with individual judges, but I am disappointed I have not yet heard them speak of the constitutional breach of article 285,” she told Minivan News.

“[Parliamentary Speaker Abdulla] Shahid is an expert on democracy and is ready to intervene to return the Maldives to the constitution,” claimed Velezinee. “Having Shahid join the MDP is good because now they can go ahead and return the country [to constitutional rule].”

“I also welcome [former Attorney General Husnu] Suood breaking his silence and taking initiative. It’s a good sign he’s speaking up,” she added.

Eariler this week Suood claimed that the JSC had been taken over “dark powers”, and that it was fully under the control of certain political figures.

Suood further contended that the presidential candidate for the government-aligned Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom, the Deputy Speaker of Parliament and PPM MP Ahmed Nazim, and retired Supreme Court Judge Mujthaz Fahmy have long been in the business of influencing the judges and the verdicts they had been issuing.

“The entire judiciary is under the influence of [retired Supreme Court Judge] Mujthaaz Fahmy,” he alleged.

Suood further alleged that Deputy Speaker Nazim had close ties with members of the JSC, and said several judges had told him that Yameen Abdul Gayoom – half brother of former President of 30 years, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom – had on several occasions given instructions to the judges over the phone as to how their sentences should be phrased.

Yameen and Nazim have denied the allegations.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

MDP MP Imthiyaz to face charges of “disobeying orders” for criticising judiciary

Opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Imthiyaz ‘Inthi’ Fahmy – who is also one of the party’s spokespersons – is set to face another criminal charge of “disobeying orders” over allegedly contemptuous remarks he made against the judiciary during a television show.

Earlier in April, Fahmy told Minivan News that Police had begun investigation of a case filed by the Department of Judicial Administration against him, over his allegedly “contemptuous remarks” against the Supreme Court and its judges.

Police Media Official Chief Inspector Hassan Haneef told Minivan News at the time he was “unsure” whether police were currently investigating the matter, but said cases concerning contempt of court had previously been investigated and sent for prosecution.

In June 2012, police sent a case concerning Imthiyaz Fahmy for prosecution, requesting he be charged with disobeying orders, obstructing police duty and physically assaulting a female police officer during an MDP demonstration on May 29, which had followed the dismantling of the party’s protest camp at Usfasgandu.

In a subsequent statement condemning “excessive use of force” against demonstrators, Amnesty International stated that according to Fahmy, “police in Dhoonidhoo told him he was arrested for ‘disrupting peace’.”

“The next day in court, police stated that he had been detained for ‘physically attacking a woman police officer.’”

Fahmy denied the charges pressed against him by the prosecution.

In the latest case, Fahmy will be prosecuted under section 88 of the Penal Code for disobeying legal orders.

Section 88(a) states – “It is an offence to disobey an order issued lawfully within the Shari’ah or Law, person guilty of this offence shall be subjected to a punishment of exile or imprisonment or house detention not exceeding 6 months or fine not exceeding MVR 150.00 (US$9.73)”

Speaking to Minivan News earlier regarding the charges, Fahmy claimed the judiciary was attempting to silence elected members of the public, and that allegations of contempt of court were a facade.

“People elected me to find faults in institutions such as the courts and find ways to reform them, to correct those faults. I have been elected as a member of parliament by the people to talk about such issues and that is my responsibility. It is a duty vested in me by the people and I will remain firm in executing that duty,” Fahmy said at the time.

He further claimed that discrepancies and flaws within the courts were already being widely discussed by the general public.

“The courts themselves do not comprehend the real meaning of the concept of judicial independence,” he claimed.

“They should also understand that dignity and honour is not a one-way train. It goes both ways. Their actions should be of a standard and performed in a transparent fashion so as to have dignity,” he said.

“The first thing is that the judges were wrongfully reappointed. The constitutional provisions indicate that the judges were appointed by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) wrongly without proper consideration being given to Article 285 of the constitution. That is unconstitutional.”

Fahmy – who is a lawyer himself – claimed that other powers of the state including the legislature and the executive had been set up in accordance with the 2008 constitution and that it was only the courts and the judiciary that had failed to be established in accordance with the new constitution.

“Am I being punished for coming out and speaking the truth? What is so wrong about reiterating the same facts that are being highlighted by several respected international authorities on the same issue?” he questioned.

Apart from Fahmy, cases against several other MDP MPs are either being currently investigated or being heard in the courts including that of MP Ali Waheed (the party’s Deputy Parliamentary Group Leader), MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor (the party’s spokesperson for international affairs), MP Abdulla Jabir, MP Mohamed ‘Matrix’ Rasheed and MP Ibrahim ‘Bondey’ Rasheed.

Charges faced by the MPs include contempt of court, obstruction of police duty as well as the offence of consumption of alcohol. According to the constitution, a member of parliament loses his seat should he be convicted of a criminal offense that requires serving a sentence longer than a period of 12 months.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

“International actors should not undermine governments”: Maldives responds to UN Special Rapporteur

The Maldives government has issued a statement inferring that UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, undermined the country’s sovereignty and legal jurisdiction in her recent report on the state of the country’s judiciary.

Knaul’s final report to the UN Human Rights Council extensively outlined the political, budgetary and societal challenges facing the judiciary and wider legal community, as well as the politicisation of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) and its failure to appoint qualified judges under Article 285 of the constitution.

“It is indeed difficult to understand why one former President is being tried for an act he took outside of his prerogative, while another has not had to answer for any of the alleged human rights violations documented over the years,” Knaul wrote.

The government, which made no response to Knaul’s initial statement in February, on May 28 issued a statement via its Permanent Representative at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Iruthisham Adam.

“Engagement between national governments and international actors should not undermine national jurisdiction and the court system of any country, especially relating to ongoing cases,” reads the statement.

In light of this the Maldivian delegation, said Adam, “wishes to discuss specific matters contained in the report with the rapporteur.”

At the same time the statement “welcomed” the UN Rapporteur’s report and “fully acknowledge[s] that the various challenges she has identified and raised in her report are in fact the residue challenges present in a system in the midst of democratic consolidation.The Maldives judicial system continues to be hampered by structural deficiencies and resource constraints in addressing the difficult challenges facing the country in general.”

Read the UN Special Rapporteur’s full report

Read the government’s response

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Comment: The private eye?

This is the second of a series of articles as I attempt to unpack the Naaz Report, Access to Justice in the Maldives: Through the Eyes of a Colourless Lens published in May 2013.

Part one of Velezinee’s critique of the Access to Justice report is available here.

1. Naaz was a warden of Vice President Waheed Deen who taught and groomed her. He sponsored her study in Australia where she read Law, and lived and worked in Australia before returning home in late 2009.

2. I was first introduced to Naaz in 2009 by a mutual friend, a judge, who was a school friend of Naaz, and my closest friend at the time. As I understood, Naaz had been away for a long period, returned to the Maldives for a “break year,” and was excited by the changes she was seeing in the Maldives. She wanted to contribute to the nation with her knowledge and experience, and at the same time build her CV. Maldives lacks people of the knowledge, experience, exposure and grooming Naaz has, and she could help fill the gap. Naaz was living in Bandos Island Resort, courtesy of VP Deen, and was exploring opportunities. It was an exciting time.

3. She met with the then Vice President Dr Mohamed Waheed by appointment to introduce herself, and express her interest, and met others whom she knew from earlier, looking for a way to contribute. I was aware of the issues in child protection and the lack of expertise in law or human rights in the then Department of Gender and Family Protection (DGFPS) and thought Naaz could contribute much to strengthening the child protection system, and encouraged her to take up the challenge.

4. In the end, Naaz joined the UNDP office in Male as a Project Director to lead the Access to Justice project, an ongoing UN program with the government. With the UNDP, Naaz had privileged access to all institutions that few others had.

5. The author’s introduction in the publication, Access to Justice in the Maldives: Through the Eyes of a Colourless Lens (May, 2013) reads somewhat different.

6. In it she informs the reader she was the “Protecting Human Rights and Access to Justice Project” Program Specialist as well as the Project Manager with UNDP Maldives”, and that she is “a practicing lawyer in Australia” who has been “in the legal field for over 12 years”. All facts.

The “framing”, however, is misleading. It gives the reader the impression that the author is an Australian lawyer practicing in Australia, who happened to be in the Maldives working with the UN between 2010-12. A Maldivian would have “interests”, but what interests, as such, would an Australian have in rewriting a narrative? The framing, thus, gives a false impression of author as standing outside.

7. Second, the tag “Lead Researcher and Author: Naaz Aminath (LLB, GDLP, LLM)” implies the report is the work of a team. This too is misleading. There is no research team mentioned elsewhere in the report or credits, nor is there a reference list or bibliography included in the report.

8. Copy editing is credited to Maaeesha Saeed and Aishath Rizna, who was the Registrar at the Interim Supreme Court during the transition period, and is currently working for the Department of Judicial Administration.

10. Could the author be deliberately misleading the reader? Are these all innocent omissions and/or typos? Maybe. Or maybe not. What is the purpose of the Naaz Report? What influence could it have on the political processes in the Maldives today? Everything, depending on the winners in the presidential elections scheduled for September 7, 2013.

11. Naaz’s long standing patron, Waheed Deen, a businessman, resort owner, and society-man of wide social contacts known for his philanthropy and gift-giving, is the current Vice President, handpicked by Dr Waheed following the February 7, 2012 coup d’état. And the fact is, with all the plotting and re-plotting, it was “on a judges’ back” that Dr Waheed rose to office.

What went on in the JSC during 2009 and 2010 is clearly linked to events of January and February 2012, as I tried explaining to the Commission of National Inquiry (CoNI) in my testimony.

So, what does Naaz say?

1. On “access to justice”, Naaz argues that the urban-rural disparity, the “deficiency in development and lack of access to justice creates inequality and injustice while giving an advantage to politicians to ‘buy’ their ideas rather than sell it.” Access to Justice as a fundamental right, and the broader definitions of it, and the constitutional guarantees and requirements are not recognised.

2. There is no mention of the crucial role of an independent judiciary in democratic government, or necessity of independent judges and public trust in the justice system to protect human rights and provide access to justice.

3. The fact that a UNDP Study (2000) of governance found the judiciary to be “the weakest link” in transitional constitutional democracies; and that Article 285 of the Maldives’ Constitution provided exactly for this challenge, is not recognized by Naaz.

This, despite her position as the Project Director of the Access to Justice project with the UNDP in Male’ during the Maldives’ transition from a constitutional autocracy to a constitutional democracy.

4. The Maldives, I maintain, lost an independent judiciary and the independence of judges through the high treason of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), on which I sat a member under oath.

The JSC nullified Article 285 unconstitutionally in an elaborate game of lies, deception and drama. The state refused to officially acknowledge the dispute in the JSC, or the alleged treason and constitution breach, with the Majlis majority unashamedly covering up the hijack of the judiciary in what I have since called the Silent Coup.

5. Post coup, the JSC has become exposed as it never was in 2010. The frequent public appearances of the JSC, especially the Chair, Supreme Court justice Adam Mohamed Abdulla, has revealed more about the Commission than any other intervention could.

Concurrently, renewed interest in transitional matters, and inquiries into the JSC and its functioning by independent experts have exposed the secrets of JSC: the JSC does not act to uphold the Constitution, is highly politicised, and misconstrues constitutional concepts and law for its own ends and the benefit of judges. In short, the JSC acts against the Constitution and the State.

6. The latest report on the Maldives’ judiciary and access to justice by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Lawyers and Judges, Gabriella Knaul, provides a substantive summary of the challenges Maldives faces, and highlights where a UN-led Access to Justice program must focus.

7. On the ground in 2010, Naaz was a sympathetic ear to my complaints against the JSC, and my grievances against the Parliament for their failure to hold the JSC accountable, and to ensure Article 285 was fulfilled meaningfully. I was advocating for substantive and meaningful action on Article 285 aimed at judicial reform as envisaged by the Constitution, and Naaz agreed with my interpretation and opinion.

8. Naaz always left with me a standing offer of assistance, which was much appreciated, as I do not have a background in law. In retrospect, that assistance never materialised, as Naaz was occupied when and where I did request help. My requests mainly were for assistance in reading through some of my drafts, and in translating to English and/or preparing briefs in English to share some information of the ongoing dispute, and the dozens of pages I was putting out in Dhivehi at the time.

9. With all attempts to get an inquiry into Article 285 and the JSCs’ constitution breach blocked, the judges took their infamous “symbolic” oath, en masse, on August 4, 2010. No one, neither the state institutions nor the media, questioned the oath or its legitimacy despite what was witnessed live and the questions it raised. It was the public left with unanswered questions.

10. The UN was satisfied. Naaz was on the ground, and was active in the efforts that followed to legitimise the judiciary, appointed unconstitutionally and without due process, by the will of the majority. No one mentioned rule of law. Not until 2012.

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)

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

UN Special Rapporteur for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, has expressed “deep concern” over the failure of the judicial system to address “serious violations of human rights” during the Maldives’ 30 year dictatorship, warning of “more instability and unrest” should this continue to be neglected.

“The immediate implications of the budget cuts on the judiciary are appalling. For instance, the Department of Judicial Administration only has funds to pay staff salaries until November 2013 and it had to cancel training this year,” Knaul notes.

“The Civil Court reported that it would not have sufficient funds to pay its staff salaries after October 2013; furthermore, existing budgetary resources would not be sufficient to pay for utilities and facilities after June 2013,” she adds.

The Nasheed trial

Former President Mohamed Nasheed is currently facing criminal charges in the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court for his detention of the Criminal Court’s Chief Judge, Abdulla Mohamed, days prior to the controversial transfer of power in February 2012.

“Judge Abdulla had allegedly shielded a number of powerful politicians in corruption cases by refusing to issue orders to investigate, and many complaints had been made regarding his conduct and supposed lack of ethics,” Knaul outlined.

“The Judicial Service Commission had completed an investigation on him in November 2011, holding him guilty of misconduct. This decision was appealed to the Civil Court, which ordered that the Judicial Service Commission’s complaint procedure be suspended.

“Although the Commission appealed the Civil Court’s ruling, Judge Abdulla was allowed to continue in his functions,” she added.

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) maintain the case against Nasheed is a politically-motivated attempt to convict and bar him from the September 7 presidential elections, while the new government has emphasised the judiciary’s independence and insisted on its policy of non-interference.

Following Knaul’s visit and her departure statement, several members of the JSC have also challenged the commission’s creation of the Hulhumale’ Court, and its appointment of the bench. The commission includes several of Nasheed’s direct political rivals, including a rival presidential candidate, resort tycoon, Jumhoree Party (JP) Leader and MP Gasim Ibrahim.

“The trial of the former President raises serious concerns regarding the fairness of proceedings,” Knaul notes, questioning the constitutionality of the Hulhumale’ Court and the appointment of the three-member panel of judges, “which seems to have been set up in an arbitrary manner, without following procedures set by law.”

“According to the law, the Prosecutor General’s office should have filed the case of Mr Nasheed with the Criminal Court. While the concerns of the Prosecutor General’s office regarding the evident conflict of interests in this case are understandable, since Judge Abdulla sits in this court, it is not for the Prosecutor to decide if a judge is impartial or not,” stated Knaul.

“The Prosecutor should act according to the law when filing a case, as it is the duty of judges to recuse themselves if they cannot be impartial in a particular case,” she explained.

“All allegations of unfair trial and lack of due process in Mr Nasheed’s case need to be promptly investigated, including the claims that the trial is being sped up to prevent Mr Nasheed’s participation in the 2013 elections,” she added.

Knaul noted a decision by the Supreme Court to declare the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court as legitimate after the Commission filed a case with it in 2012.

“The Special Rapporteur was informed that the judge of the Supreme Court who cast the deciding vote in this case also sits as a member of the Judicial Services Commission, whose decision to establish the Hulhumalé court as a magistrates court was under review,” the report noted.

Politicisation of the JSC

Knaul observed that the JSC had a “complicated” relationship with the judiciary, given that the commission “considers that it has exclusive jurisdiction over all complaints against judges, including over criminal allegations, while the Prosecutor General understands that the criminal investigation agencies have the competence to investigate criminal conducts by anyone.”

Knaul underlined that “judges and magistrates, as well as other actors of the justice system, are criminally accountable for their actions. Criminal actions entail consequences and penalties that are different from those resulting from disciplinary or administrative investigations.”

The special rapporteur stated that there was near unanimous consensus during her visit that the composition of the JSC – which draws members from sources outside the judiciary, such as parliament, the civil service commission and others – was “inadequate and politicised”. This complaint was first highlighted in a report by 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.

State of the courts

Conflicts of interest and the resulting impact on judges’ impartiality was also a concern, noted Knaul.

“It seems that judges, and other actors of the State, do not want to fully acknowledge and understand this concept, leading to the dangerous perception from the public that the justice system is politicised and even corrupted,” she said.

Knaul also expressed “shock to hear that many members of the judiciary, including in the Supreme Court, hold memberships in political parties.”

The Supreme Court, she noted, has meanwhile been “deciding on the constitutionality of laws ex-officio, without following appropriate examination procedures, under the understanding that they are the supreme authority for the interpretation of the Constitution.”

The relationship between prosecutors and the judiciary was also difficult, Knaul noted, expressing “serious concern” that some courts “use the threat of contempt of court and disbarment to impose their decisions and superiority over prosecutors.”

“The lack of a centralised case-management system does not facilitate their tasks either. In some places, such as Addu City, one prosecutor covers four courts and is often called to different hearings at the same time,” she observed.

“Symbolic” reappointment of judges

Two months prior to the end of the constitution’s transitional period and the deadline for the appointment of new judges according to moral and professional criteria – article 285 – the interim Supreme Court informed President Nasheed “that all its members would permanently remain on the bench.”

This action, Knaul noted, had “no legal or constitutional basis.”

“The five judges who had been sitting on the transitional bench were appointed to the seven-member permanent bench, leaving many with the perception that the Supreme Court was appointed in a politicised manner,” she noted.

The rest of the courts followed suit several months later at the conclusion of the interim period, with the Commission “opting for interpreting article 285 of the Constitution in a rather symbolic way and [not scrutinising] judges’ qualifications thoroughly.”

“For instance,” Knaul noted, “not all criminal allegations pending against judges were investigated. This resulted in a seemingly rushed reappointment of all sitting judges but six, which in the opinion of many interlocutors corrupted the spirit of the constitutional transitional provision.”

While the 2008 Constitution had “completely overturned the structure of the judiciary”, at the conclusion of the JSC’s work on article 285, “the same people who were in place and in charge, conditioned under a system of patronage, remained in their positions.”

As a result, “many believe that some judges who are currently sitting lack the proper education and training […] A simple judicial certificate, obtained through part-time studies, is the only educational requirement to become a judge.”

Way forward

Knaul’s report contains four pages of recommendations for judicial reform, starting with a “constitutional review” of the composition of the Judicial Services Commission – the same conclusion reached by the ICJ in 2010.

“The Maldives finds itself at a difficult crossroad, where the democratic transition is being tested, while remnants of its authoritarian past are still hovering,” Knaul observed, stating that the power struggle she witnessed during her visit had “serious implications on the effective realisation of the rule of law in the Maldives.”

Among many other recommendations, Knaul called on the government to show “strong and nonpartisan leadership”, by pushing for “constructive dialogue aimed at establishing clear priorities for the country, the adoption of necessary core legislation, and policy measures to consolidate the democracy. Such leadership should be guided by the Maldives’ obligations under international human rights law, which provide for a sound and sustainable foundation for democracy.”

She also noted that “the delicate issue of accountability for past human rights violations also needs to be addressed.”

Read the full report

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

MDP alleges 117 cases filed against February 8 2012 protesters “politically motivated”

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has called for “politically motivated” court cases against 117 protesters charged with terrorism and obstructing police duty on February 8 2012 be immediately discontinued.

Nine MDP members from Milandhoo Island in Shaviyani Atoll, 28 members from Kulhudhuffushi Island in Haa Dhaal Atoll and 80 members from Addu City are currently facing prosecution. The accused include mid-Hithadhoo Constituency MP Mohamed ‘Matrix Mode’ Rasheed as well as a number of councilors and branch heads from these islands.

“A lot of the accused [currently standing trial] were charged with terrorism offences and obstructing police duty,” said MDP Spokesperson and MP Imthiyaz ‘Inthi’ Fahmy.

The MDP “condemned, in strong terms, these cases of unlawful and blatant granting of selective impunity from justice and calls on all concerned authorities to immediately cease this selective litigation,” during a press conference held May 20, led by Imthiyaz and MDP pro-bono lawyers Abdullah Haseen and Mohamed Fareed.

The party said it regarded the “discriminatory” prosecutions as being politically motivated, biased judicial actions against hundreds of MDP members, and “outside the requisite edicts of the Constitution for judicial fairness and equability.”

The political party also voiced their “great concern” that despite the Commission of National Inquiry (CoNI) findings that “unlawful brutal acts” were committed by security services in February 2012, the report’s recommendations that actions be taken against the offenders have been “disregarded with impunity”.

“Why doesn’t the government take action against those police officers when there is clear evidence of police brutality? None of the police officers have been investigated or prosecuted in line with the CoNI,” said Imthiyaz.

The MDP alleged that “despite public irrefutable and credibly substantiated video and audio evidence showing security services personnel committing brutal assaults and inflicting inhuman bashings”, no credible investigations or judicial actions have been taken.

Current court cases against MDP members had meanwhile been “unduly hastened”.

“The police were seen to participate in a mutiny and they have openly and publicly viewed their opposition and hatred towards the MDP,” MDP Spokesperson Mohamed Zuhair told Minivan News at the press conference.

“As police investigation reports make up a substantive part of the legal cases being brought against MDP activists, how can these investigations be fair when police have been publicly on the record as biased and downright malicious [toward MDP supporters],” he continued.

“The MDP came out in a peaceful protest on the 8th, on the roads of Male’, and they were bashed up,” Zuhair said. “Our activists on the islands heard this and that escalated tensions on many islands where there are police stations. And then it became a kind of public uprising.”

“Within that public uprising, our activists’ primary objective was to rally and to somehow show strength, but among those came in other elements, [who] set fire to places, and then escalated the whole thing,” he added.

Zuhair said given the state of the judiciary justice for the accused was not possible, “but we’ll have better recourse to due process through the high court and supreme court and through international redress.”

No grounds to prosecute

The trials were being conducted to “intimidate the people” because elections are “very near” and the entire process was politicised, MDP lawyer Haseen told Minivan News.

“They demanded the suspects be kept in remand claiming they had forensic evidence. And then when they’re produced in court, there is no forensic evidence or video footage submitted, only witness statements,” Haseen explained.

“They are telling the press they have the evidence and highlighting a lot of photographs with fire, but they are not submitting these – just witness statements given by rival political parties,” he said.

Haseen claimed senior Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) officials pointed out to the police who to arrest and were now providing the witness statements against the MDP protesters in court.

“The problem is that even the island judges are not competent judges. They don’t even know criminal procedure. That’s a larger fight that we are building our campaign with that on top – journey for justice,” Haseen added.

MDP lawyer Fareed concurred with Haseen that it is a “politically motivated conflict of interest” to have police and former-opposition political parties provide the only evidence – witness statements – against the MDP members on trial.

“There are not any grounds for prosecution,” Fareed told Minivan News.

He attended three hearings in Kulhudhuffushi, which took place May 19, against 11 MDP members, including two island councilors, and was also dismayed by how witness statements were taken.

“The court they did not have a recording system, so the judge he himself was writing the witness statements in favor of the state. It was very terrible,” Fareed recounted.

“When the first witness was presented, I asked him directly ‘were you there when these things happened?’ and he replied ‘this is after one year so I don’t remember these things’.”

“That’s all that’s enough – whatever the witness says after that is not applicable, not acceptable,” he declared.

“When the prosecutor asked him [the same question], the witness said ‘That man may be there but I don’t know,’ however the judge himself had already written the witness statement in favor of the prosecution,” he added.

“If they continue this hearing, they should have a recording system otherwise we’ll have to stop it,” Fareed concluded.

“All courts have recorders”

Kulhudhuffushi Court Magistrate Ali Adam explained to Minivan News today (May 23) that “all courts have recorders”.

“When dealing with criminal cases we try to write witness statements, it is the best way,” said Adam. “Recordings can be changed or edited. There might be court staff who hold certain political ideologies who might tamper with the statements.”

“When listening to a witness statement a judge will only write relevant remarks and things related to the accused’s rights. The witness then signs the hand-written statement,” explained Adam.

“We do not consider anyone standing trial as a criminal. How can we face a person thinking he’s an enemy? We do not consider the individual’s personality or which political party he is in,” he added.

The Prosecutor General, PG spokesperson, and PPM MPs Ahmed Nihan and Ahmed Mahlouf were not responding at time of press.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)