“Serious failings in the justice system entrenched impunity”: Amnesty International

Failure to prosecute police officers accused of human rights abuses and “serious failings in the justice system entrenched impunity” in the Maldives during the past year, Amnesty International has said in its annual report.

“These [failings] included the absence of codified laws capable of providing justice equally to all and the appointment of judges who lacked formal training in law without serious scrutiny of their legal qualifications,” the international human rights organisation stated.

“Throughout the year, authorities were accused of political bias for fast-tracking the prosecution of opposition supporters accused of criminal behaviour during rallies while failing to prosecute police and others suspected of committing human rights abuses during the same protests.”

The 2013 Amnesty annual report on the state of the world’s human rights observed that former President Mohamed Nasheed’s resignation on February 7, 2012 was “followed by months of protest and political repression.”

Nasheed resigned in the wake of a violent mutiny by Special Operations (SO) police officers, who assaulted government supporters, ransacked the ruling party’s Haruge (meeting hall), staged a protest at the Republic Square, vandalised the police headquarters, clashed with the military and stormed the state broadcaster.

Since the transfer of presidential power, the security services have used excessive force “to suppress demonstrations that were largely peaceful,” the report noted.

In June 2012, the Maldives Police Service (MPS) however denied “in the harshest terms” allegations of police brutality by Amnesty International.

“Supporters of the former President’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) were targeted for attack in February. Detainees were subjected to torture and other ill-treatment,” the report continued.

“Targeted violence” against MDP members plunged the nation into “a human rights crisis” in February 2012, the Amnesty report contended.

“Throughout the year, security forces frequently attacked peaceful demonstrators, including MPs, journalists and bystanders, in the capital Malé or in Addu, both MDP strongholds. Officers clubbed them, kicked them and pepper-sprayed them directly in the eyes. Around the time of Mohamed Nasheed’s resignation, from 7 to 9 February, police targeted senior MDP members for attack and tracked down and assaulted injured protesters in hospitals,” read the report.

Amnesty also reported torture and ill-treatment in police custody, including “beatings, pepper-spraying the eyes and mouth, denial of drinking water and, in Addu, incarceration in dog cages.”

The report noted that a Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CoNI) established by President Dr Mohamed Waheed – which found that Nasheed resigned voluntarily – had taken note of “allegations of police brutality and acts of intimidation” and called for “investigations to proceed and to be brought to public knowledge with perpetrators held to account.”

Criminal proceedings have however yet to begin against a single police officer accused of human rights abuses in the aftermath of February 7.

Impunity

In August 2012, the Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) concluded that the police crackdown on a MDP march across Male’ on February 8, 2012 that left dozens of demonstrators injured was “brutal” and “without prior warning.”

Based on its findings, the HRCM recommended that the Maldives Police Service (MPS) and Police Integrity Commission (PIC) should investigate the “disproportionate” use of force – in violation of police regulations authorising use of less-lethal weapons – and initiate legal action against the responsible officers.

On February 8, thousands of MDP supporters took to the streets after Nasheed declared that his resignation the previous day was “under duress” in a “coup d’etat” instigated by mutinying SO police officers working with the then-opposition and abetted by rogue elements of the military.

The HRCM noted that 32 people filed complaints with the commission concerning varying degrees of injuries sustained in the crackdown and 20 people submitted medical documents of their treatment for injuries.

Among the injuries caused by the police baton charge, the HRCM report noted that several people were bruised and battered, one person fractured a bone in his leg, one person was left with a broken arm and six people sustained head wounds.

Two fingers on the left hand of one demonstrator were crushed, the report noted, and the victim had to undergo treatment at the operating theatre.

The PIC meanwhile revealed in December 2012 that it “recorded 24 individual cases of police brutality related to 7th and 8th February” and completed investigation into 12 cases.

Six cases were sent to the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) for criminal prosecution.

“In one more case, though police brutality was proven, there was insufficient evidence to identify the responsible policemen. Investigations of the remaining 12 cases is ongoing, but are expected to be completed soon,” the commission said in a status update.

In February 2013, PIC Chair Dr Abdulla Waheed told parliament’s Government Oversight Committee that it was investigating 29 police officers accused of using excessive force against MDP demonstrators.

The PIC chairperson could not confirm whether the commission’s recommendation to dismiss six officers of the 29 under investigation was acted upon.

He added that five cases were pending despite video evidence of police brutality as the officers could not be identified and 11 additional cases remained stalled over lack of sufficient evidence.

Former PIC Chair Shahinda Ismail had revealed that officers the commission had recommended for suspension had instead been given promotions. Shahinda resigned in October 2012 citing “major difference of opinion” with other members.

“What I’ve seen in the actions of institutions is that they have been giving a lot of space for the police to act with impunity,” she said at the time.

February 8 crackdown
An injured protester

While police baton charged the front of the protest march on February 8, Minivan News observed SO officers charging the crowd from a narrow alley leading to the Maldives Monetary Authority (MMA) building.

The SO officers used obscene language, pointed to and chased after individual MDP activists and severely beat unarmed civilians.

Parts of the attack from the rear were filmed by Al Jazeera, which reported on February 8 that “police and military charged, beating demonstrators as they ran – women, the elderly, dozens left nursing their wounds.”

Former President Nasheed was reported among the injured, and received head injuries during the clashes. He was briefly taken under police custody before being released back into the crowd.

Minivan News also observed several youth with head injuries queuing up for x-rays in the waiting area outside the reception area at the Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital (IGMH).

One young woman who had gone to IGMH with her sister was being treated for a head wound. A gauze wrapped around her head was spotted with blood, and she claimed the wound was still bleeding as she went in for an X-ray.

“The police were just standing there and suddenly we were being beaten with batons and pepper spray was thrown in our face. They threw us to the ground and kept beating us,” she said.

The BBC meanwhile reported “a baton charge by police on crowds gathered outside one of the main hospitals.”

“People scattered as officers sprinted towards them silhouetted against the lights of passing traffic,” the BBC’s Andrew North reported from Male’.

“Inside the hospital, dozens of Mr Nasheed’s supporters are still being treated for injuries, following earlier scuffles in the main square. Among them is Reeko Moosa Maniku, chairman of Mr Nasheed’s Maldives Democratic Party – who was with the former president when the clashes broke out. With a large head bandage and his shirt bloodied, he regained consciousness as we arrived. The police said they would kill me, he told us, as they beat me. Another MP was still unconscious in another ward.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Letter: JSC claims to have been endorsed by US Ambassador

Dear Madam Ambassador Michele J Sison,

I write to you as a member of the Maldives Judicial Service Commission 2009 to 2011, and as an advocate for rule of law and constitutional democratic government in the Maldives, to express my concern following the recent remarks attributed by the Maldives’ Judicial Service Commission to yourself, Madam Ambassador, in a statement published on the said Commission’s website on May 8, 2013.

The original statement in Dhivehi is to be found on http://jsc.gov.mv/2013/05/1561.

The Dhivehi statement claims that “Ambassador Michele J Sison approves of the functioning of the Maldives’ Judicial Service Commission”, and agrees the actions of the Commission are up to the “best possible standards”.

The statement further suggests that, thus, the Commission is cleared of all the long standing, very serious allegations against it.

The statement appears to be another attempt by the Maldives Judicial Service Commission to cover up its breaches, political activism, abuse of powers, and continued actions against Constitution and State through political activism, misconstruing dialogue, and misleading the public.

Hence, I would like to recall to your kind attention the very serious allegations against the Maldives’ Judicial Service Commission that remain pending without proper Inquiry by the State. These include:

  1. Breach of trust, refusal to uphold its constitutional duties, and cover up of judicial activism and corruption;
  2. Unconstitutional nullification of Constitution Article 285, and the deliberate and willful corruption of the Judiciary, the silent coup;
  3. Corruption of the High Court by cherry picking judges;
  4. Corruption of the Supreme Court by the Judicial Service Commission failing to follow due process, and fulfill its constitutional duties and responsibilities.

Further, I would also like to bring to your attention the reports of some major independent fact finding missions and international bodies which consistently conclude that the Judicial Service Commission acted outside its mandate, failed to respect Constitution or the democratic principles therein, misconstrued law and legal concepts, is highly politicised and partial, and is not fulfilling its constitutional mandate of building trust in the judiciary by holding judges to account.

  1. Report of the International Commission of Jurists (February, 2011)
  2. Dialogue and Concluding Observations of the UN Human Rights Committee, Geneva (June, 2012)
  3. Report of Professor Tom Ginsburg supported and funded by the United States Embassy and UNDP, and prepared for Raajje Foundation (December, 2012)
  4. Observations by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers at the conclusion of visit to the Maldives (February, 2013)
  5. Press Release and Report of the South Asians for Human Rights (SAHR) mission led by Justice Leila Seth (India) to the Maldives in August 2012 (April, 2013)

Having been a part of the Judicial Service Commission, and being very familiar with the modus operandi of the Commission and its current Chair, Supreme Court Justice Adam Mohamed Abdulla, it is plausible to me that the statement of the Judicial Service Commission is its own politics and does not necessarily reflect the United States’ endorsement of the Maldives’ Judicial Service Commissions’ constitutional breaches or the sitting bench permitted to continue without check or due process as required by section 285 of the Maldives’ Constitution (2008).

Further, the Judicial Service Commission’s role leading up to the February 7, 2012 transfer of power, and in its close personal engagement with prosecuting President Mohamed Nasheed has only confirmed to the Maldives’ public that the Commission is not deserving of public trust, and that the Judiciary is hijacked as I have consistently maintained.

It is also very telling that I have continued to strongly and continuously criticize the Judicial Service Commission and Courts without any legal action whatsoever against myself for “contempt of court” or “tainting the image of the Courts and judges” in a situation where others have been investigated and prosecuted for the said “crimes” for saying far less than I have and continue to do.

It stands to reason the Maldives cannot consolidate democracy with a flawed judiciary; or the questions that hang upon it, and haunt us in the Maldives today.

Yours sincerely,

Aishath Velezinee

Velezinee is a former member of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) and an outspoken whistleblower on judicial corruption. She was stabbed three times in the street in broad daylight in early 2011.

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)

Maldives at “critical juncture” of democratic transition: UN Assistant Secretary General for Political Affairs

The Maldives is at a critical juncture in its democratic transition ahead of the elections in September, UN Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs Oscar Fernandez-Taranco has said at the conclusion of his three day visit to the country.

Calling for widespread political backing for “free, fair and non-violent elections”, Fernandez-Taranco “stressed that while respecting the Constitution, the credibility of the electoral process and acceptability of the results depends on whether all candidates wishing to participate in the the presidential elections are able to do so.”

He also recommended immediate investigation of allegations of police brutality and acts of intimidation holding the perpetrators to account, and called for the immediate strengthening of the Maldives Police Service, Police Integrity Commission, Judiciary, Judicial Services Commission, People’s Majlis, and Human Rights Commission.

In his statement, Fernandez-Taranco specifically referred to the initial findings of UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, who in February this year criticised the appointment of judges presiding over the case against former President Mohamed Nasheed, for his controversial arrest of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in 2011.

“Being totally technical, it seems to me that the set-up, the appointment of judges to the case, has been set up in an arbitrary manner outside the parameters laid out in the laws,” Knaul said at the time.

Fernandez-Taranco called on the Maldives’ national and international partners “to contribute to the reform of the justice sector and the independence of the judiciary”, and emphasised “the importance of avoiding the instrumentalisation of judicial proceedings.”

Meanwhile, according to a statement from the President’s Office, Fernandez-Taranco “applauded President Waheed for his leadership techniques in restoring peace and stability following the change of power in February 2012.”

“Mr Taranco noted the tremendous strides made by the country towards embracing and institutionalisation of multi-party democratic governance,” the President’s Office stated.

“President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik assured the United Nations of the government’s commitment, to create a stable and transparent environment conducive to dialogue and free and fair elections and to strengthen democratic reform and institutions in the Maldives,” the statement added.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Afghan ambassador and UN resident coordinator present credentials to President Waheed

Shaida Mohammaad Abdali, the new Ambassador of Afghanistan accredited to the Maldives, presented his credentials to President Dr Mohamed Waheed yesterday (April 29).

During a ceremony held at the President’s Office, Ambassador Abdali also discussed strengthening bilateral ties between the two countries, while Dr Waheed noted both nations’ efforts to consolidate democracy in recent years.

The ceremony was held a day after United Nations Resident Coordinator Tony E. Lisle also presented his credentials to President Waheed.

During the ceremony on April 28, the president spoke of challenges needing to be addressed in the Maldives regarding the judiciary, as well as the country’s health and education sectors.

President Waheed also underlined challenges in overcoming what he called the “difficult fiscal situation” presently facing the country.

Lisle began his tour of duty on April 21. The resident coodinator role requires him to oversee national development programs by collaborating with the various UN agencies operating in the country.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC asks High Court to expedite case concerning legitimacy of bench in Nasheed trial

The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has requested the court expedite the case filed by the defense counsel of former President Mohamed Nasheed, challenging the legitimacy of the three-member bench appointed to his case.

The JSC made the request in a letter sent to the court last week. Lawyers representing the JSC previously requested the High Court dismiss the case, contending that the High Court did not have the jurisdiction to preside on the matter.

The JSC appointed the three member panel consisting of Judges Shujau Usman, Abdul Nasir Abdul Raheem and Hussain Mazeed to hear the former president Nasheed’s criminal trial – concerning criminal charges levied against him over the controversial detention Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

However, following the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Hulhumale-based court was legitimate and could operate as a court of law – dismissing Nasheed’s contention that court was formed extra-legally – the former president’s legal team subsequently filed a case at High Court contesting the legitimacy of the bench appointed to hear the case.

Upon accepting the case, the High Court issued a stay order on Hulhumale Magistrate Court to suspend all criminal trials concerning the arrest of the judge, pending a ruling on the legitimacy of the court bench.

Speaking to local media on Monday, JSC Media Official Hassan Zaheen said the commission sent the letter last week.

“We are the respondents of the case and in that capacity, we requested the High Court to speed up the case,” Zaheen told local newspaper Haveeru.

Zaheen claimed the request made to the High Court was “not a new practice” and that the commission had previously made similar requests.

Meanwhile Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has alleged that the JSC sent the letter to High Court in a bid to influence the outcome of the trial.

In a press statement released by the party, the MDP claimed the JSC had instructed the court to immediately make a ruling on the matter.

“If the JSC, as the respondent in the case, felt the case was being delayed, there is nothing wrong in asking the court to expedite the case. However, the MDP believes this is an attempt to influence the outcome of the case, as the JSC is sending its legal arguments in writing rather than speaking about them in the court room,” read the statement.

The MDP condemned the decision and alleged that the state’s judicial watch-dog was acting beyond its constitutional mandate.

The JSC has come under heavy scrutiny over its appointment of the panel of the judges – which several lawyers and members of JSC itself have claimed exceeded the JSC’s mandate.

Among the JSC’s critics include JSC member Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman – the member appointed from among the public.  Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman previously claimed the JSC had arbitrarily appointed three magistrates from courts across the Maldives to Nasheed’s case after dismissing the three names first submitted to the commission by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

“Moosa Naseem (from the Hulhumale’ Court) initially submitted names of three magistrates, including himself. This means that he had taken responsibility for overseeing this case. Now once a judge assumes responsibility for a case, the JSC does not have the power to remove him from the case,” Sheikh Rahman explained. “However, the JSC did remove him from the case, and appointed three other magistrates of their choice.”

Sheikh Rahman stated that the commission had referred to Articles 48 to 51 of the Judge’s Act as justification.

“But then I note here that the JSC breached Article 48 itself. They did not gather any information as per this article. They stated that it was due to the large amount of paperwork that needs to be researched that they are appointing a panel. However, this is not reason enough to appoint a bench,” he said.

Meanwhile, Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid – who is also a member of the JSC – stated that he believed that the judicial watchdog had acted unconstitutionally in assigning magistrates to a particular case.

“In deciding upon the bench, the JSC did follow its rules of procedures. As in, it was voted upon in an official meeting and six of the seven members in attendance voted on the matter. The seventh member being the chair, does not vote in matters,” Shahid explained. “However, whether it is within the commission’s mandate to appoint a panel of judges in this manner is an issue which raised doubt in the minds of more than one of my fellow members,”

Other critics of the JSC include United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, who also argued that the appointment of the judges bench was carried out arbitrarily.

“Being totally technical, it seems to me that the set-up, the appointment of judges to the case, has been set up in an arbitrary manner outside the parameters laid out in the laws,” Knaul said, responding to questions from media after delivering her statement in February.

Speaking to Minivan News previously, Kirsty Brimelow QC, one of three UK-based experts on former President Nasheed’s legal team, contended that the prosecution of his case before the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court fell “below international standards for fair trial procedure”.

JSC Media Official Hassan Zaheen was not responding to calls at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police probing MDP MP Imthiyaz Fahmy’s “contemptuous remarks” against judiciary

Police have begun investigating opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Imthiyaz ‘Inthi’ Fahmy for allegedly making “contemptuous remarks” against the  judiciary, during a TV program broadcast by opposition-aligned television station Raajje TV.

Fahmy told Minivan News that police called him on Wednesday and informed him that the case was being investigated on the judiciary’s request.

However police media official Sub-inspector Hassan Haneef said he was “unsure” whether  police were currently investigating the matter, but said cases concerning contempt of court previously been investigated and sent for prosecution.

Police sent a case concerning Imthiyaz Fahmy for prosecution in June 2012, requesting he be charged with disobeying orders, obstructing police duty and physically assaulting a female police officer during an MDP demonstration on May 29, that 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 staed 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.

Regarding the new police investigation, 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 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 told Minivan News.

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.”

In a statement issued during her visit to the Maldives in February 2013, United Nations Special Rapporteur (UNSR) on Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul  stated that she had found that the concept of independence of the judiciary has been “misconstrued and misinterpreted” by all actors, including the judiciary itself, in the Maldives.

“The requirement of independence and impartiality does not aim at benefiting the judges themselves, but rather the court users, as part of their inalienable right to a fair trial,” Knaul stated in her concluding statement.

Beyond Knaul, Fahmy noted that several other international experts on judicial independence, including International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), judicial expert Professor Paul H Robinson, United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) as well as the report by the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) – which was set up to look into the legality of the controversial ascension of President Mohamed Waheed Hassan to presidency on February 2012 – had highlighted “serious flaws” within the judiciary.

“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,” he added.

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 in me 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 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)

Maldives Bar Association established

The Maldives Bar Association is being established to build legal capacity, lobby, and address problems faced by lawyers in the judiciary, reports local media.

The association will also aim to improve the educational standard of lawyers as well as hold problem solving discussions.

The association was founded by Attorney General Husnu Al Suood, Lawyer Ismail Wisham, Company Registrar of Economic Ministry Ali Shujau, Fayaz Ismail and Aishath Sheeza, according to local media.

It was registered with the Ministry of Home affairs April 11.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court judges file case against Chief Judge over suspension of Nasheed trial

Eight judges of the High Court’s nine-member bench have filed a case with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) against Chief Judge of the High Court Ahmed Shareef , for suspending the Hulhumale Magistrate Court’s trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed without allegedly registering the case in court.

The High Court on Monday ordered the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court to suspend former President Mohamed Nasheed’s trial until it determined the legitimacy of the panel of judges appointed to examine his case. The stay order, signed by Chief Judge Ahmed Shareef, stated that the court was of the view that Nasheed’s ongoing trial must come to a halt until the legitimacy of the bench was established.

Following the decision, the Hulhumale-based magistrate court suspended all trials concerning the detention of Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed in 2012.

According to local media reports, the High Court judges who filed the case against Chief Judge Shareef claimed he had issued the stay order without registering the case, did not assign a case number to the case, and had not discussed the matter with the other judges.

They claimed that usual practice at the court was to discuss the matter with other judges, although stay orders were ultimately issued by a single judge.

A spokesperson from the JSC confirmed to Minivan News that the commission had received a “letter” from eight judges of High Court regarding Judge Shareef. However, he declined to provide any details of the case.

This is the second such case filed against Judge Shareef by the other members of the bench.

However, speaking to local media, a High Court media official denied the allegations made by the judges, stating that the case concerning the stay order was registered at the court on Sunday and the former President’s legal team had paid the charges the next day. The media official added that the order was issued after the court had received the payment.

He also said that the usual practice was that a person was asked to pay the charges only after the court decided to accept a case, and that therefore the order was issued after the court had registered the case.

Last year in June, seven High Court Judges lodged a case against Judge Shareef regarding similar conduct in which the seven judges accused him of tampering with decisions made by the majority of the High Court bench.

Other claims by the seven judges included assigning cases to judges arbitrarily, discriminating between judges in assigning cases and of not correcting these issues despite repeated requests.

The case is still pending in the JSC and Minivan News understands that no action has been taken against Judge Shareef so far.

In July 2012, the High Court ordered police to investigate claims made to the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC), that Chief Judge Shareef had met officials from Malaysian mobile security solutions provider Nexbis – who was given contract to develop a border control system for the department of Immigration – in Bangkok.

Judge Shareef had returned home from a conference in Singapore after spending a week in Bangkok, where he was alleged to have met Nexbis representatives.

However, Nexbis denied that any such meeting took place, and filed a case in a bid to stop the ACC from publicly sharing information on the investigation while the matter was in court, and seeking an apology for the damage to its reputation.

Asking police to investigate the allegations made to the ACC, the High Court meanwhile stressed in a statement that “no individual Judge can simply influence a decision of the Court, as all cases in the High Court are presided by a minimum of three judges  and a ruling is only made by the majority of a particular bench.”

The accusations sent to the ACC were an “extremely irresponsible act with intentions to deceive and manipulate the truth,” the Court’s statement read.

Meanwhile, local media outlet Sun Online claimed that Judge Ahmed Shareef’s name was also included in the Judicial Reform Commission – a commission formed by presidential decree, which opponents of former President Mohamed Nasheed alleged that was to be formed to remove the existing lower courts and reappoint the judges.

However, the commission was never formed after President Nasheed suddenly and controversially resigned on February 7, 2012 which he maintains was forced.

Despite the new case filed against Judge Ahmed Shareef, no decision has been made to revoke the stay order issued by the High Court.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: It’s the judiciary, stupid

This article was first published on Dhivehi Sitee. Republished with permission.

We had information that on 8 February Mohamed Nasheed would close other courts in the Maldives, send all judges home, and acting on his own, would establish a Judicial Reform Commission. From then onwards, it would be this Commission that would appoint all magistrates. ~2013 Presidential Candidate, Umar Naseer (PPM).

I learned about President Nasheed’s intention to establish a Judicial Reform Commission—or in whatever name it maybe—only after the government changed.

– 2013 Presidential Candidate, Abdulla Yameen (PPM)

We don’t know for sure whether Mohamed Nasheed was planning to form a Judicial Reform Commission on 8 February 2012 or not. But, leaders of the National Alliance, especially PPM, have made it clear what motivated them most to be out on the streets protesting until Nasheed’s government ended was the prospect of Nasheed making changes to the judiciary.

Many ‘intelligence-based’ reasons were offered  for the National Alliance’s opposition to the expected changes: Nasheed’s Judicial Reform Commission was going to be totally under his control; it was a way for Nasheed to usurp judicial power; it was Nasheed’s means of destroying the judiciary.

Truth of the matter is all parties in the National Alliance would have been opposed to judicial reform in whatever form it came.

To regard all attempts at reforming the judiciary as undue interference is to believe that the existing judiciary is as should be—independent, just, equal. This is far from the truth. To begin with, an overwhelming majority of current judges were sworn in extra-constitutionally, in violation of Article 285 which demands new, higher, ethical and professional standards from judges. As former Judicial Service Commission (JSC) member Aishath Velezinee exposed, the Commission colluded with authoritarian loyalists to dismiss Article 285 as ‘symbolic’.

Ignoring the constitutional requirement for a complete overhaul of the judiciary has allowed unqualified, unethical and downright criminal individuals to remain on the benches long past the constitutional deadline. Neither the Executive nor the Majlis took appropriate action to stop the oath-taking then; nor have they taken any steps to remedy the situation since. Many of these judges — spread out across low, higher and highest courts — were appointed by, and continue to be under the influence of, pre-democracy leaders. Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed (Ablow Ghaazee) is the icing on the authoritarians’ unhealthily large share of the judicial cake.

His removal and any other change in the carefully engineered set-up would mean less protection for those facing serious torture and fraud charges dating back to the dictatorship. The PPM-led National Alliance protests, seen this way, can be described as intended to ‘protect the judiciary’ from reform rather than keeping interference at bay.

It is now over a year since the National Alliance’s protests saw out the end of the country’s first democratically elected government. If judicial independence is what the protests were about, tackling the problems head-on would have been the new government’s first priority. On the contrary, every effort has been made to sustain the status-quo which preceded Nasheed’s drastic decision to have Abdulla Mohamed arrested.

“I thought he [Abdulla Mohamed] should be released, but I don’t think he should be allowed on the bench until all investigations pending against him have been satisfactorily investigated,” Dr Waheed, the current president said in his CoNI testimony.

Yet, Abdulla Mohamed is not just on the bench, he is back as Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, the main man sitting over the trial of Nasheed for his arrest. Indeed, reinstating Ablow Ghaazee was the first order of business for the new regime. Presidential Candidate Gasim Ibrahim (JP) [who, ‘incidentally’, is also a member of the JSC], meanwhile, dismissed UNSR Gabriella Knaul’s recommendations for judicial reform as lies and levity.

The government’s reaction to all such recommendations has been to either ramp up nationalistic rhetoric and play the sovereignty card, willfully ignore the expert advice, or both.

As noted in the UNSR report, ‘all branches of the State and all institutions have a role to play and responsibilities regarding the consolidation of democracy.’ But, sadly for the Maldives, it is not just the executive failing in its responsibilities towards judicial independence, but the Majlis, too, seems unable (or unwilling) to appreciate the absolute indispensability of judicial independence for regaining democracy.

MPs like Mahloof and Nihan of PPM who so ‘valiantly’ fought on the streets of Male’ to ‘protect the judiciary’, for instance, have yet to raise any judicial reform issues in parliament. Apart from a few individual MPs advocating for reform on other platforms, the Majlis as a collective body has been actively negligent of its duties towards the judiciary.

Otherwise, by now, it would have held the entire JSC accountable for dismissing Article 285 of the Constitution as symbolic. MDP MPs, and others, should have pushed not just for the removal of Gasim Ibrahim from the Commission, but every member of the JSC that colluded in the decision to violate the Constitution.

Long before Majlis summoned Speaker Abdulla Shahid to ask about the Hulhumale’ magistrate court, it should have asked him to explain what he saw, witnessed and participated in while in the JSC that allowed Article 285 to be deemed irrelevant. Even when the Parliamentary Oversight Committee had Shahid in front of them last Tuesday, not only did it fail to ask him about his role in the dismissal of Artical 285, it also failed to interrogate him on how the Hulhumale’ Court bench was illegitimately appointed by the JSC on his watch. “I was not present at the meeting,” is not a reason for absolving any JSC member, Speaker of Parliament or not, from responsibility.

The constant failure by the Majlis to hold JSC accountable for its crimes against judicial independence suggests: a) it is incompetent; and/or b) it colluded with the JSC in violating Article 285 of the Constitution.

All MPs, no matter what party affiliation, must collectively exercise the right and responsibility of the Majlis to hold the JSC accountable, and to work towards redressing Article 285, and all that needs done to ensure we have the kind of judiciary envisaged by the 2008 Constitution on which the Maldivian democracy is based.

Without judicial reform, it is hard to see how the upcoming elections could be free and fair nor how life after elections could be democratic.

Dr Azra Naseem has a PhD in international relations

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)