Tag: Jumhooree party

Elections Commission unable to reach PPM and JP leaders to sign off on electoral register

The Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) and Jumhooree Party (JP) presidential candidates have demanded fingerprint verification of the finalised voter registry, with police refusing to support the election without the candidates’ signatures.

After submitting letters submitted to the Elections Commission (EC) after midnight, the party’s leaders have been unreachable.

The EC is ready to hold the re-run of the presidential election’s first round tomorrow (October 19) as soon as the candidates approve the voter registry.

The Supreme Court’s controversial annulment of the presidential election’s first round held September 7 gave the the EC less than 12 days to prepare for the repeat poll, and mandated the commission adhere to 16 guidelines, which included obtaining every presidential candidates’ signature on the finalised voter registry and having the police play a substantive role in handling the logistics and security of the election and ballot papers.

The EC has been unable to reach JP’s candidate Gasim Ibrahim or the PPM’s candidate Abdulla Yameen or their representatives to sign the lists.

The commission told a press conference this morning (October 18) that it has called, texted,  and sent officials to individual’s houses – as well as to the homes of JP representatives Umar Naseer and Hassan Shah – but has received no answer.

“We are trying our best to have the election as per the verdict of the Supreme Court,” said EC Vice Chairperson Ahmed Fayaz. “But with all the hard work of the last 11 days, now the process has almost been halted.”

“Although we’ve invited all the candidates to sign the voter registry, so far we have not been able to reach PPM and JP. However, MDP sent their representatives and signed the registry,” he noted.

Minivan News understand that certain PPM MPs have expressed their determination to prevent Saturday’s election from taking place.

“Without their signatures, the Maldives Police Service is not willing to support us. They will not give protection to conduct the election and if we hold polls it will be invalidated by the Supreme Court,” explained EC Chairperson Fuwad Thowfeek.

“The police need signatures of all three candidates or their representatives [before they will allow elections officials to depart to their respective polling stations with the printed ballot papers and voter lists],” said Thowfeek.

Thowfeek noted that he had spoken to Supreme Court’s Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain about the difficulty of meeting the deadline immediately following the October 8 ruling.

“I spoke to Faiz again today about the lack of response from two candidates regarding approving the voter lists. He told me to keep trying. Send people to their homes and keep trying. He did not say what else we should do,” said Thowfeek.

Fingerprint verification demands

After midnight last night the EC received letters from the PPM and JP demanding fingerprint verification of the voter registration forms.

“PPM wants fingerprint verification of 10 percent of reregistration forms, which is over 7000 forms,” said Thowfeek.

“It will take at least 20 days,” added EC Member Ali Mohamed Manik. “PPM also asked for rejected forms to be resubmitted. PPM said they will only sign list when these requests are attended to.”

“JP’s letter asked for verification of 5 percent of forms, which is over 3500 forms,” Thowfeek continued. “Each form has four people’s fingerprints, the voter, witnesses and the bearer’s fingerprint.”

“We asked if there are any suspicious forms submitted by specific people, so we can send those forms for verfication, but neither PPM or JP has provided a list like that,” he noted.

“This is not really practical at all, even the police only have fingerprints for some people, not everyone [eligible to vote],” Thowfeek added. “The Department of National Registration (DNR) says they don’t have the technical expertise, it’s not possible [to verify fingerprints].”

“This is going to take many days. We don’t have that many days. This is the last day to finish updating the forms [with candidate’s signatures], after that there is only one day to do everything, like sending personnel and materials.”

“It is an impossible demand they are making again,” lamented Thowfeek. “I don’t know why they don’t understand we don’t have time to do all these things [and adhere to the Supreme Court’s verdict].”

“We have not yet given a deadline. By giving a deadline it may make things more difficult,” he continued. “For example, if deadline of 12:00pm is given, and they don’t sign, then it may cause problems. The EC is willing to wait until last minute for signatures.”

“Up until today, we hoped Gasim and Yameen will cooperate with us. We have very little time. There is doubt if we can proceed without solving these problems,” stated Thowfeek.

“We urge [Qasim and Yameen] to sign the lists. The election is now in their hands.”

“We want to work until the last minute. We do not want to create a hopeless situation,” he declared.

Overseas vote and party responses

“Fortunately, Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz gave his approval for us to send election officials and materials to Delhi, India this morning on the condition that the EC sign a letter stating we will not allow polling to take place without signatures of all the candidates,” explained Thowfeek. “Instead the EC will send a PDF copy of the approved registry.”

This afternoon the elections officials need to depart for evening flights to London and Singapore, Thowfeek continued. The EC may need to seek approval from Riyaz to send officials and materials to these locations under the same conditions.

“We have not yet come to a situation where we cannot hold an election. We hope now and we continue to hope that the election proceeds. We are just trying to reach the candidates and their representatives,” added Commissioner Manik.

The opposition MDP announced yesterday (October 17) that it had accepted the modified voter registry despite finding some minor irregularities contained within, to ensure the re-run of the annulled 2013 presidential election goes ahead as scheduled on Saturday (October 19).

Ghafoor accused both the PPM and JP of deliberately trying to avoid a vote without giving sufficient reasons for their reservations.

“The situation is ridiculous, they have run away from the vote,” he said.

After attempts to contact senior JP leadership, Minivan News was advised to call party Spokesman Ibrahim Khaleel whose phone was switched off at the time off press.

Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Presidential candidate Abdulla Yameen told Minivan News this morning that the party still had not seen the amended voter registry, while questioning why the MDP had signed the list ahead of Saturday’s scheduled vote.

“I fail to understand the MDP’s readiness to sign the list before seeing the list,” he said today.

In a correspondence obtained by Minivan News that was sent by Yameen to Elections Commissioner Fuwad Thowfeek this morning, the PPM expressed concern that it not even seen or had the chance to verify the registry.

“Please allow us 72 hours to verify [the list] and please comply with our request to authenticate the sample specimens of thumb prints,” stated the message. Today, a PPM team will visit you and request to physically see the 71,000 re-registered forms.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Translation: Supreme Court verdict on Jumhooree Party vs Elections Commission

Following is an unofficial translation of the judgment (Dhivehi) delivered by the Supreme Court on October 7, 2013 annulling the first round of the presidential polls in the case filed by the Jumhooree Party against the Elections Commission alleging electoral fraud. The 4-3 majority decision of Justice Ahmed Abdulla Didi, Abdulla Saeed, Adam Mohamed Abdulla and Ali Hameed Mohamed annulled the election result.

Read story on election annullment

Read summary of Dissenting Opinions

Read Minivan News’ courtroom observations

Majority verdict:

Thus, upon consideration in a legal and judicial view of the arguments made by the complainant as well as the Attorney General of the Maldives and the Progressive Party of Maldives who had intervened in the case filed at the Supreme Court of the Maldives by the Jumhooree Party; the guidelines given to the Elections Commission in the Supreme Court case 39/SC-C/2013 regarding improvements in the arrangements for the presidential election held in the Maldives on September 7, 2013 as well as the principle of legality; the constitution of the Republic of the Maldives; the law number 11/2008 (Elections Act); the evidence submitted in the case as well as the expert report compiled by an expert forensic team assigned by the Supreme Court to compile a report needed for the trial concerning the evidence; and the standards in article 170 of the constitution to be followed for public referendums and various elections:-

And since the case submitted by the Jumhooree Party requested annulment of the presidential election held on September 7, 2013 contending that a large number of citizens were deprived of the fundamental right of every citizen of the Maldives older than 18 years to vote in elections and to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives, due to the actions of the Elections Commission, which is given the responsibility by the constitution of making the arrangements fairly, without bias or partiality, to elect a president; [and contending] that the Elections Commission made arrangements for the election without accepting the cooperation and consultation offered by the National Centre for Information Technology and the Maldives Police Service based on information they had concerning the reforms the Elections Commission needed to enact to ensure that all elections and public referendums are conducted freely and fairly, without intimidation, undue influence or corruption as stipulated in article 170(a) of the constitution; and [contending] that there was sufficient evidence to prove with certainty that the Elections Commission acted dictatorially in violation of the guidelines given in the Supreme Court case 39/SC-C/2013 with the intention of benefiting a particular party:-

As it is clearly stated in article 26(a) and (c) in chapter two of the constitution that every citizen of the Maldives 18 years of age or older has the right to vote in elections, and in public referendums, and to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; as article 69 of the constitution states that no provision of the constitution shall be interpreted or translated in a manner that would grant to the state or any group or person the right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of the rights and freedoms set out in this constitution; as article 65 of the constitution, referring to chapter two of the constitution that outlines the fundamental rights and freedoms of Maldivian citizens, states that, “Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this chapter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court to obtain a just remedy,” and where the rights of a person, a group or community has been adversely affected by administrative action, every such person, group or every person who may be directly affected by such action has the right to submit the matter to court.

And article 113 of the constitution states in clear language that the Supreme Court shall have sole and final jurisdiction to determine all disputes concerning the qualification or disqualification, election, status, of a presidential candidate or running mate or removal of the President by the People’s Majlis, and that such a decision by the Supreme Court shall be the final word; as article 145(c) states that the Supreme Court shall be the final authority on the interpretation of the constitution, the law, or any other matter dealt with by a court of law; and as article 20(b) of law number 22/2010 (Judicature Act) states in clear and unambiguous language that it is obligatory upon the executive, the People’s Majlis, the judiciary, members of independent institutions, state institutions, persons in state posts, the security services comprising of the police and military, and all citizens to obey decisions of the Supreme Court,

The [Jumhooree Party] case is in regard to a dispute referred to in article 113 of the constitution concerning the election of a presidential candidate, and as article 113 definitively states that only the Supreme Court has the authority to settle such disputes, there is no legal or judicial basis to disagree within the region where the constitution of the Maldives holds sway that making a judgment in the case submitted by the Jumhooree Party and resolving the dispute concerning the election of a president is a constitutional responsibility within the special jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as the guardian of the constitution:-

As the Elections Commission that made the arrangements for voting in the first round of the presidential election mandated by the constitution of the Republic of the Maldives in the year 2013 is an impartial independent institution formed under article 167 of the constitution; as it is the responsibility of the Elections Commission to ensure the proper exercise of the right to vote, and to ensure that all elections and public referendums are conducted freely and fairly, without intimidation, aggression, undue influence or corruption; and as it can be clearly seen from article 17(2) (6) and (7) of law number 8/2008 (Elections Commission Act) that it is the responsibility of the members of the commission to promote rule of law, protect the rights and freedoms of citizens, to not commit any act either directly or indirectly to support or oppose a candidate or a political party, to not commit or participate in any act or express any opinion that might cast doubt on the independence of a member, and not commit any act that might cast doubt on the independence, freedom and impartiality of the commission – the arrangements for the presidential election held on September 7, 2013 were made in violation of the compulsory guidelines given to the Elections Commission in the Supreme Court case 29/SC-C/2013 as the guardian of the laws and the constitution of the Republic of Maldives; and as a result of the actions of the Elections Commission regarding the election, which broadly facilitated fraud, undue influence and corruption, 773 persons were allowed to vote despite conflicting ID card numbers, 7 persons whose names were not were not on the list were added to it manually with a pen, 18 persons voted despite the DNR [Department of National Registry] registry showing they were deceased, 7 children voted according to the registry, 3 persons voted twice, 225 people voted despite not being given ID cards under their names because their records were considered “repeated” in the DNR, 2830 people were allowed to vote despite their permanent addresses not matching, 952 people voted despite their names not matching, 7 people voted despite their names not being in the DNR at all, and records showed that the ID card numbers of 819 people did not match in the printed voter registry because of the carelessness of elections officials who noted it down after they had voted; as it can be seen that a large number of Maldivian citizens were deprived of their constitutionally guaranteed right to vote and as there was opportunity for one person to vote more than once; and as there is no legal or judicial basis to consider that the proper exercise of the right to vote as required by article 170(a) of the constitution was fully ensured in the aforementioned election, based on the witness testimony heard in this case, the clerical evidence, and the expert report compiled by the expert forensic team assigned by the Supreme Court regarding the evidence, [the Supreme Court rules] that presidential election held on September 7, 2013 is a void election that lacked legitimacy, and orders the Election Commission and other relevant state institutions to make arrangements for the first round of the presidential election required to be held in 2013 by the constitution under the following [guidelines];

(1)        The Elections Commission and relevant state institutions should jointly make arrangements to hold the election required by the constitution to be held in 2013 in adherence to the guidelines provided in this judgment before October 20.

(2)        If a second round is required in accordance with the law and the constitution, the Elections Commission and relevant state institutions should jointly make arrangements to ensure a second round of the presidential election before November 3, 2013.

(3)        Make arrangements for voting to ensure that all citizens who turn 18 years of age by the date of the election required by the constitution to be held in 2013 is able to freely and fully exercise the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right to vote in accordance with the rules or guidelines stated in this judgment.

(4)        Accept the Department of National Registration’s database as the main source to determine eligible voters in terms of age, and ensure that children under the age of 18 and the deceased are not included in listing eligible voters.

(5)        Ensure that voting in all electoral districts in the Maldives and abroad is based on the latest list that includes the voter’s name, permanent address and ID card number and [that the list] has been agreed upon as valid by the Elections Commission, candidates or their representatives, and [ensure that] no other list will be used in any electoral district either in the Maldives or abroad.

(6)        Ensure that all persons who register following the announcement for voter registration will not have their names changed to a different district when they are divided into the voting districts, and [ensure that] the list does not include the names of any persons other than those registered to vote in that district.

(7)        As those registered in the Male’ municipality special register are legally considered residents of Male’, and since there is no real reason to register [them] in a house in a particular ward or constituency of Male’ to vote in the presidential election, [the Elections Commission should] make arrangements for all persons in the Male’ municipality special registry who have been changed to houses to vote in specially designated ballot boxes [for those in the special registry].

(8)        Ensure that no one will be allowed to vote twice, and that every voter will be issued one ballot paper, and appoint all officials with the knowledge of candidates or their representatives to ensure that all officials in voting districts are safe from allegations of supporting or representing a particular political ideology or candidate.

(9)        Ensure that reports on the voting process in every district are compiled after completion of voting in the presence of representatives of candidates to ensure that the report is compiled without fraud or falsehood, omit or mark the names of people who did not vote in that district, ensure that the number of people who voted is not higher than the list of voters, and ensure that the report is compiled in the presence of representatives of candidates to assure that the people who voted in the list are those registered to vote in that district.

(10)   The Elections Commission and relevant authorities should make it illegal for any person (including officials) who enters the polling station to carry phones, handbags, files or any item (excluding pens) that could be considered to infringe upon the rights of candidates and ensure that no such action took place.

(11)   Ensure that a verified second list identical to the voters list in every district is placed in the district available for public viewing.

(12)   The Elections Commission together with the security services should ensure secure arrangements for printing new ballot papers with adequate security features appropriate for the election to be held before October 20, 2013 under the constitution, transferring ballot papers from one place or island to another, maintaining security for ballot papers, and maintaining security for ballot boxes after voting.

(13)   The latest token number issued to voters must be announced every 30 minutes to voters [waiting in queue], the relevant official should note the token number near the person’s name on the list while marking the name of the person after he or she has voted, and impartial officials must be appointed to ensure that no person’s name is marked twice and that two token numbers are not listed near the same name.

(14)   In order to ensure that arrangements for the presidential election required under the constitution are made in accordance with the compulsory guidelines given to the Elections Commission in this judgment, [the Elections Commission should] consult with other state institutions within no more than 72 hours of this judgment to ensure that [the necessary] arrangements will be made.

(15)   To minimise the possibility of a person being registered to a different district illegally without his or her knowledge, the Elections Commission should not accept re-registration forms or the forms submitted by a third party that does not include the name, address, identity card number and fingerprint of the person requesting re-registration, the person submitting the form as well as [the same information of] two witnesses. To ensure that [incomplete forms are not accepted], the Elections Commission should publicise a list including the names of those re-registered, the new district they have been registered to, their names, addresses, and ID card numbers.

(16)   As the aforementioned expert report revealed that a high number of foreigners who should not have had access to the Elections Commission server and database had regular access to it, the Elections Commission’s server and full IT system should be reformed and improved in accordance with the professional opinion of the National Centre for Information Technology and other relevant state institutions to assure confidence [in the server and IT system].

Dissenting Opinion

Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussein and Abdulla Areef

The Jumhooree Party requested the annulment of the first round of the presidential election held on 7 September 2013, claiming the Elections Commission violated the Constitution, Elections laws and the Supreme Court verdict number 2013/SC-C/39, violated fundamental rights guaranteed in the constitution to every citizen and requested the Supreme Court to declare it a right for every presidential candidate to receive the registry of individuals of who had voted from the Elections Commission, and requested the voter registry be invalidated, claiming the registry was not accurate as it was not compiled in accordance with relevant laws and guidelines noted in the Supreme Court’s verdict 2013/SC-C/39.

We note the following with reference to the testimony and evidence presented by the complainant, defendant and those who intervened in the case, the Maldives’ constitution and Act no 12/2008 (Presidential Elections Act), and Act no. 11/2008 (General Elections Act).

1. The complainant, Jumhooree Party, has noted the following in contending the existence of irregularities in the “Voter Registry of Presidential Election 2013”:

  • 669 dead people noted on the Department of National Registration’s list are included in the Voter Registry of Presidential Election 2013
  • 41 individuals who were not 18 years of age by 07 September 2013 had changed their date of birth and are registered as 18 years old in the Voter Registry of Presidential Election 2013
  • 102 individuals are repeated twice (due to possessing double ID cards) in the Voter Registry of Presidential Election 2013
  • 1818 individuals who did not have valid ID cards and therefore were not included on the Department of National Registration’s list were included in the Voter Registry of Presidential Election 2013
  • 1187 individuals who are on the Malé Municipality Special Roster were registered in houses without the owner’s permission and are registered on the Voter Registry of Presidential Election 2013. The Election Commission does not have the authority to do so.
  • In compiling the Voter Registry of Presidential Election 2013, attention was not paid to find out and list the Maldivians who live abroad (this does not include Maldivians who registered to vote abroad)
  • Among people who have the right to vote but were not listed on the voter registry, some were allowed to vote, while others were not.
  • Upon arriving at the polling station, some individuals found votes had already been cast in their names, however, these individuals were allowed to vote again
  • The ballot papers used in the presidential election on 07 September 2013 lacked strong security features and hence allowed for inauthentic ballot paper copies. This will affect the election outcome
  • With reference to the points noted above, the Jumhooree Party believes 2630 people who do not have the right to vote were allowed to vote in the presidential election held on 07 September 2013

2. Although the Jumhooree Party filed this suit under Article 113 of the Constitution, with reference to the points noted below, it is clear this complaint relates to the voter registry as per Article 170 (b) of the Constitution. The Jumhooree Party has asked:

  • For the list of individuals who have voted in the presidential election of 07 September 2013 be made available to all candidates
  • To invalidate the Voter Registry contending the registry was not compiled in accordance with the constitution, relevant laws and Supreme Court verdict 2-13/SC-C/39
  • For the Presidential Election of 2013 be invalidated
  • To issue an injunction ordering the Elections Commission not to proceed with elections unless it corrects the wrongs raised by Jumhooree Party and abides by guidelines put forth in the Supreme Court verdict 2013/SC-C/39

3. The following points are noted with reference to relevant constitutional articles, Act no 12/2008 (Presidential Elections Act) and Act no. 11/2008 (General Elections Act):

  • Article 171 (a) and (b) of the Constitution states that voting in all public elections or public referendums conducted by the Elections Commission, shall be by secret ballot and that immediately after the close of the polls, the presiding officer who is appointed by the Elections Commission shall, in the presence of such candidates or their representatives if present, count at the polling station the ballot papers of that station, and record and publicly declare the votes cast in favor of each candidate or question in public referendum
  • Article 172 (a) and (b) states that a person may challenge a decision of the Elections Commission concerning an election or public referendum, or may challenge the results of an election, or contest the legality of any other matter related to an election, by means of an election petition presented to the High Court and the manner for dealing with any challenge submitted pursuant to article  (a) shall be provided for in a statute on elections

4. Article 62 – 65 of the General Elections Act states the manner with which any challenge submitted pursuant to Article 172 (a) shall be dealt with.

  • Article 64 states any individual may file a complaint at the High Court if election laws are violated, or if they are unhappy with the Election Commission’s decision in an election complain.
  • Article 63 states that any individual who has the right to vote, candidates standing for election, political parties, authorized observers and monitors have the right to file election related complaint.
  • Article 64 (a) (b) (c) states that if a petition is submitted to the High Court, it must be accompanied by reasons, details and evidence and submitted within 14 days of the announcement of official result.
  • Article 65 (a) states a court should annul the election in a specific geographical area and order a revote only in the area if the court finds undue influence, bribery to influence voting, or violation of the General Elections Act and subsidiary laws

5. The following is noted with reference to Act no 11/2008 that was passed pursuant to Article 170 of the Constitution. The Act states that the Elections Commission responsibilities and powers include conducting, managing, supervising, and facilitating all elections and public referendums, ensuring the proper exercise of the right to vote, and to ensure that all elections and public referendums are conducted freely and fairly without intimidation, aggression, undue influence or corruption and holding and declaring the results of those elections and public referendums within periods prescribed by law

  • Article 4 of the General Elections Act states the Election Commission must conduct, manage and supervise all election
  • Article 2 of the General Elections Act states that the Elections Commission must prepare and maintain a voter registry
  • Article 9 (a) (b) (c) of the Act states that the Elections Commission must update the voter registry with most recent information and publish the voter registry in the government gazette with voter names, sex, and permanent address, 45 days before an election, and on that same day the registry must be published in a public space in every inhabited island, and ensure access to any individual who wants to see it and must publicize the place where the registry is published
  • Article 10 (a) (b) (c) and (b) states that political parties and any individual who is above 18 years of age, regardless of whether they are included the voter registry, have the right to complain over information included or not included in the registry and if such a complaint exists they must submit a complaint in writing to the Elections Commission within ten days of the voter registry being published in the government gazette, and the Elections Commission must review the complaint within 5 days of the end of the 10 days, and inform the party who raised the complaint of the decision and the reasons for the decision, and must revise the voter registry accordingly and publish the new voter registry in the gazette and also make the revisions in the voter registry lists published in public.

6. Jumhooree Party submitted five lists as evidence to prove that the Elections Commission’s Voter registry was not compiled in accordance with the constitution, relevant laws and Supreme Court verdict 2013/SC-C/39. However, the sources from which the information obtained for these five lists are not known. These lists are 1. A list of dead people present on the Voter registry (669 individuals) 2. A list of individuals who were not 18 years of age in the Voter registry (41 people) 3. Individuals whose names were repeated twice on the Voter Registry (204 names) 4. A list of individuals who were not issued ID cards by the Department of National Registration (1818 names) 5. A list of individuals who had registered at addresses without the knowledge of the owner of the address (1187 names). The Elections Commission submitted lists of those who had voted in the first round of the presidential election held on 07 September 2013 for all 470 ballot boxes (796 booklets) on orders of the Supreme Court. Jumhooree party’s five lists and the Election Commission’s list of those who had voted were given to a Maldives Police Services expert team consisting of document examiners of the forensic services directorate, computer forensic analysts and technical staff for comparison. We note the following from the expert report compiled by the Maldives Police Services:

  • When the list of the 41 underage voters noted by the Jumhooree Party was matched with the DNR database, 32 of the 41 were found to be underage, but information for the remaining 9 could not be confirmed. The registry of individuals who had voted shows 12 of the 32 had voted in the presidential election of 2013 held on 7 September 2013.
  • When the Jumhooree Party’s list of 669 dead people included in the voter registry was compared with the Voter Registry, 637 of the 669 were found on the Voter registry. Of these 637, 14 individuals were found to have voted in the presidential election of 2013 held on 7 September 2013. Of these 14, two individuals voted with identity cards other than those issued to them
  • When the Jumhooree Party’s list of 204 repeated names was compared to the Voter Registry, 174 entries were found on the Voter Registry. Of these 174, 22 individuals’ information due to repeated permanent addresses had been noted as repeated entries in the Department of National Registry. However, none of these people were found to have cast repeated votes
  • When the Jumhooree Party’s list of 1818 individuals who had not been issued ID cards by the Department of National Registration was compared with the Department of National Registration’s database, it was found that 1637 of the 1818 were not issued ID cards by the Department of National Registration (the remaining 181 people’s information was not found). Of the 1637, 207 individuals were found to have voted in the presidential election and 96 of the 207 voted with ID cards numbers that were different to that included in the list published in the gazette
  • When the Jumhooree Party’s list of 1187 individuals on the Voter Registry who had registered at addresses without the owner’s consent was compared with the DNR database, 1186 individual’s records were found, of these 44 are believed to have voted in locations other than their place of domicile, and 1115 of 1186 are found to have voted, however, 1159 of those who voted did not vote in any other ballot box than the one they registered to vote in
  • In instances where there were discrepancies in information of voters between the voter registry and the DNR database, the information was corrected with a pen as per the DNR information, and these individuals were allowed to vote. However, this did not allow for repeated voting in the Presidential Election 2013 held on 07 September 2013
  • 7 individuals were added by pen to the Voter registry on 7 September 2013 and were allowed to vote. However, as per the list of those who had voted on 7 September 2013, these seven votes were not repeated. With reference to the points noted above, there are 473 votes that may affect the first round of the presidential election 2013. In addition to these irregularities, there are other discrepancies noted in Maldives Police Services’ forensic report. The Elections Commission must revise these discrepancies in order to maintain public trust and ensure elections are held as per the Constitution and election laws

7. The plaintiff and those who provided witness statements asked for anonymity. There were clarifications to be made in the 14 anonymised witness statements. However, since such clarifications may have violated the anonymity of the witnesses, such questions were not asked. Further, the secret Maldives Police Services document submitted by the Attorney General’s Office submitted to court did not provide a right of response to the defendant. Hence these witness statements and the secret documents have not been counted [in this opinion].

Given, Article 172 (a) of the constitution states that a person may challenge a decision of the Elections Commission concerning an election or a public referendum, or may challenge the results of an election, or contest the legality of any other matter related to an election, by means of an election petition presented to the High Court,

Given the Majlis has passed a statutory elections law (Act 11/2008) as per Article 172 (b) of the constitution which states the manner for dealing with any challenge shall be provided for in a statute on elections, and as Article 65 (a) of Act 11/2008 with reference to Article 64 of the same act states a vote in a specific area may be annulled and a revote ordered in that area if the court decides there is undue influence in an election in that specific area,

Given official results of an election can only be annulled only in the specific area, specific ballot box or boxes, in which undue influence has occurred as per Article 65 of Act 11/2008 (Elections Act), there is no room to annul the votes of the 211,890 people who voted in the 2013 Presidential Election held on 7 September 2013.”

Justice Ahmed Muthasim Adnan’s Dissenting Opinion

The Jumhooree Party requested the Supreme Court – under Article 113 of the Constitution, Article 10 (b) and 11 (a1-3) of Act no 22/2010 (Judicature Act) –  annul the first round of the presidential election held on 7 September 2013, claiming the Elections Commission violated the Constitution, Elections laws and the Supreme Court verdict number 2013/SC-C/39, violated fundamental rights guaranteed in the constitution to every citizen and requested the Supreme Court to declare it a right for every presidential candidate to receive the registry of individuals of who had voted from the Elections Commission, and requested the voter registry be invalidated, claiming the registry was not accurate as it was not compiled in accordance with relevant laws and the Supreme Court’s verdict 2013/SC-C/39.

The defendant in this lawsuit is the Elections Commission. The Maldivian State, and the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) intervened in the case. However, the MDP later left the case.

I note the following with reference to the Constitution, Act no 08/2008 (Election Commission Act), Act no 11/2008 (General Elections Act), Act no 12/2008 (Presidential Elections Act), testimony provided by the Jumhooree Party, testimony provided by the Elections Commission, testimony provided by third party interveners, documents submitted to court, the answers provided to judges, and procedural aspects of this case.

  1. The Jumhooree Party has three requests
    • Declare the handover of the list of individuals who voted in the Presidential Election of 2013 be a right afforded to every presidential candidate
    • Declare the voter registry unlawful as it was compiled in violation of the Constitution, relevant laws and Supreme Court verdict no 2013/SC-C/39 and invalidate the registry
    • Declare null the presidential election held on 7 September 2013, and order the Elections Commission to proceed with elections only in accordance with the Constitution, Elections laws, Supreme Court Verdict no 2013/SC-C/39, and after correcting the wrongs noted by the Jumhooree Party
  2. As Article 172 (a) of the Constitution states that a person may challenge a decision of the Elections Commission concerning an election or public referendum, or may challenge the results of an election, or contest the legality of any other matter related to an election, by means of an election petition presented to the High Court, and with reference to Article 10, 64 and 65 of Act no. 11/2008 (General Elections Act), it is known that the Jumhooree Party’s petition’s jurisdiction lies with the High Court, and the aforementioned laws detail the manner in which such a challenge may be dealt with in a court of law, and that the Jumhooree Party submitted such a petition to the High Court and the High Court issued a final verdict in the case
  3. When examining the Jumhooree Party’s claim that the Voter Registry was not compiled in accordance with the Constitution, the relevant election laws and Supreme Court verdict 2013/SC-C/39, I note that the Elections Commission prepared a registry of all individuals who have the right to vote as per Act no 11/2008 (General Elections Act) and published the registry in the government gazette on 30 May 2013, and as per Act no 11/2008 (General Elections Act) the registry was revised and published for a second time in the government gazette on 21 July 2013. Article 8 through 12 of Act no 11/2008 (General Elections Act) clearly states that the Elections Commission must prepare and publicize the Voter Registry, allow revisions to the registry, allow individuals to re-register in instances where they are not present in their place of domicile at the time of voting. With reference to testimony and documents provided to this court, it is evident the Elections Commission followed all the procedures outlined in Article 8 through 12 of Act no 11/2008 (General Elections Act)
  4. The Supreme Court case no 2013/SC-C/39 was submitted to the court on 22 August 2013, and a verdict was issued on 02 September 2013, and the verdict was supported by a majority of the Supreme Court, and the verdict was issued five days before the presidential election to be held on 7 September 2013. Hence, when the Supreme Court verdict no 2013/SC-C/39 was issued, very little time remained for the presidential election on 7 September 201
  5. Point five of the Supreme Court Verdict no 2013/SC-C/39 states: “while it is certain that none can deprive a person of age, his right to cast his vote pursuant to Article 26(a) of the Constitution, upon scrutiny of submissions of the parties at the proceedings and the evidence tendered with reference to the allegation of the applicant that the Elections Commission had failed to verify the accuracy of the voter registry forms required for the Voter Registry to be compiled for the upcoming elections of September 7,2013, with specific reference given to the circumstantial evidence tendered i.e. selected forms from among the complaint forms material to this application themselves, the Justices find no avenue may be allowed for compromise of any constitutional right guaranteed to the people. Article 170(b) requires the Commission to compile, maintain, edit when necessary the Voter Registry for all public elections and referendums and this duty of maintaining this Registry with the registration of voters who wish to vote at places other than their place of domicile is a positive one which falls upon the Commission. This is essential to ensure that the competitive Presidential Elections impending do not end in circumstances of violence and hatred. Functions such as the duty to ensure that those temporarily impeded from exercising their voting rights owing to Registry irregularities at places of their domicile are catalogued and allowed to rectify the respective irregularity after normal polling hours and the duty to ensure that no one but eligible voters enter the voting premises are all duties which the Commission need necessarily undertake. These duties further include ensuring all eligible voters have the unimpeded opportunity to cast their vote at their respective places of domicile and that to ensure that all registered under the Malé Municipality Registry as legal residents of the capital city, to be able to vote in determined locations in the capital unless registered to vote elsewhere. The Commission shall also ensure positively pursuant to Article 170 that the election that is held throughout the country will be administered based on the final list issued by the Elections Commission and that the copy of this Registry is issued to the benefit of the Candidate’s representatives and lastly, that there is no reference of any kind or nature towards any other document for such purpose. The Commission shall ensure all such procedures towards guaranteeing the integrity of the impending elections, all as positive constitutional duties entrusted upon them under Article 170 of the Constitution.” It is evident the Elections Commission carried out orders noted in the Supreme Court’s verdict no 2013/SC-C/39
  6. I do not accept some of the evidence presented to court. A secret document the defendant was not given the right to respond to was submitted. (I am unable to provide more details on this note because of the secret nature of the evidence presented.
  7. The plaintiff was not able to present credible evidence to annul the first round of the presidential election held on 7 September 2013. With reference to the Constitution, election laws and Supreme Court verdict no 2013/SC-C/39, I do not believe the irregularities noted in the report comparing the access log of the computer software, Ballot Progress Reporting System, used by the Election Commission on voting day, the voter registry issued by the Election Commission to the Jumhooree Party, the voter registry 2013 published in the government gazette, and the Department of National Registration’s database, are enough to annul the presidential election held on 7 September 2013
  8. Article 111 of the Constitution states a second round of the Presidential Election must be held within 21 days. Supreme Court verdict no 2009/SC-C/02 states “The constitution mandates that all state institutions ensure obligations which carry specific constitutional dates must be carried out within the specified timeline. The only lawful justification not to do so would be if events that are not within the control of man occur, such as natural disasters, war….” This verdict was a unanimous Supreme Court verdict and hence, all state institutions must carry out constitutional duties, as stated in the constitution within the time period stated in the constitution.

With reference to the aforementioned points, I do not see it necessary to issue a ruling on Jumhooree Party’s claims.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

October 19 election date “a huge victory”, Nasheed tells supporters

Former President Mohamed Nasheed rallied supporters last night during a large Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) gathering near the Tsunami Monument in Male’, relaunching its ‘ehburun’ (‘one round’) campaign after 11 nights of protests.

Thousands attended the rally, at which Nasheed hailed the announcement of an election date as a “huge victory” in the country’s “irreversible move towards democracy.”

Nasheed finished first in the annulled poll on September 7 with 45.45 percent of the popular vote, missing out on the ’50 percent plus one vote’ needed for a first round victory.

The Elections Commission has scheduled the new vote for October 19, noting that as a repeat of the first round, all candidates names would have to appear on the ballot as before.

The PPM was scheduled to enter a September 28 run-off against Nasheed before the Supreme Court opted to annul first round altogether. The 4:3 verdict hinged on a confidential police report – unavailable even to the Election Commission’s defence lawyers – supposedly claiming that 5,600 votes were ineligible due to errors such as address mismatches. The dissenting judges dismissed this evidence as invalid, noting only the claims of 473 ineligible votes – 0.2 percent of the total ballots cast.

“Our rivals wanted to arrest me for a long time. Our rivals want to dissolve the party system. Our rivals want to annul the presidential election indefinitely. Our rivals want the security forces to take over the Maldives’ government,” Nasheed told his supporters.

“Our rivals don’t want a democratic system in the Maldives, they do not want Maldivians to have the right to vote. They want to establish an authoritarian government again.,” he said.

With the first polls declared to be free and fair by all national and international observers, the MDP raised concern over the credibility of the order invalidating the first round of elections “by a Supreme Court bench tainted with allegations of corruption, and scandal.”

“The MDP is further disturbed over the Supreme Court’s comments allowing for an incumbent to remain as President despite the end of the Presidential term. The MDP does not believe that the Constitution allows for anyone to be President after the five year term which currently ends on 11 November 2013. Elections must be held to restore legitimate government and democracy in the Maldives,” the MDP said in a statement.

“The Election Commission stated that the only reason they halted the constitutionally stipulated second round of the Presidential Elections was due to a lack of cooperation by the security services and the Government, resulting in an environment non-conducive for free and fair elections.

“Thus, the MDP believe that the Supreme Court will entertain further spurious and vexatious claims as long as there is no interim arrangement allowing MDP a say in the affairs of the government,” the party added, but said it was “prepared for any election announced by the Elections Commission.”

“The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) firmly believes that all matters relating to the carrying out of Presidential elections must be decided upon by the constitutionally mandated Elections Commission,” the party stated.

“The MDP hopes that the elections takes place as soon as possible under the careful scrutiny of domestic and international observers.”

The Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) has meanwhile announced that it is in discussions with both President Dr Mohamed Waheed and the Jumhooree Party (JP) regarding the fielding of a single candidate for the upcoming repeat of the presidential election.

“The PPM is a party that works with people. I know senior people are calling President Waheed and Jumhooree Party leader Gasim Ibrahim. President Maumoon speaks to them,” the party’s running mate Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed told local media today.

“If you are for the nation and religion, the first thing you have to do is beat MDP [Maldivian Democratic Party],” said PPM presidential candidate Adbulla Yameen.

“Then decide on who comes to power. We will, God willing, win this election if everyone thinks about this and remains steadfast.”

The Supreme Court case was initially filed by the third placed JP after its candidate and leader Gasim missed out on the second round by 2,677 votes.

Speaking at a press conference yesterday, JP vice presidential candidate Dr Hassan Saeed also posited the idea of pooling support.

“We are trying to achieve results in a first round together with as many people as possible. There is talk among us to propose one candidate,” he told local media.

Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali has already announced that his party – the country’s third largest in terms of membership figures – will support Nasheed in subsequent polling.

Thasmeen had entered the first round as President Waheed’s running mate, however the incumbent leader received only 5.13 percent of the vote.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Party Island: Sun Island resort employees allege purge of MDP staff

Employees at Sun Island Resort and Spa have accused its management of firing a large number of staff based solely on their political affiliation and suspected support for the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

Sources from the resort allege that over 30 staff members have been fired following the announcement of the results of the first round of the presidential elections, held on September 7.

Sun Island is owned by resort tycoon and Jumhooree Party (JP) leader Gasim Ibrahim, who contested in the first round, finishing third with 24.07 percent of the vote. Gasim subsequently submitted a case to the Supreme Court alleging fraudulent voting, which eventually resulted in the decision to annul the first round on October 7.

According to the results of the ballot box placed on Sun Island in first round, the JP received 206 votes and the MDP 60 votes. Meanwhile, the Progressive Party of Maldives got a total of eight votes while independently contesting incumbent President Dr Mohamed Waheed did not receive any votes.

Staff at Irufushi Beach and Spa resort have also recently expressed concern over a “firing spree” affecting staff members professing to support the MDP.

Yellow T-shirt leads to multiple dismissals

Eighteen year old Zamin Abdul Raheem told Minivan News of the circumstances under which he was dismissed without notice from his post at Sun Island, after almost a year of service.

“We were doing some community cleaning work in the staff area after my duty hours, and I happened to be wearing a yellow T-shirt on the day. While a supervisor and I were having a chat, the general manager (GM) walked up and angrily asked me why I was wearing a T-shirt of this colour and said very angrily and accusingly ‘finally your political views and the candidate you voted for are being revealed’,” Zamin explained.

“I replied, saying the colour of my attire reveals nothing, that I wear various colours. I said I had cast a secret vote, as is in the law, which made the GM angrier. He retorted ‘we’ll see about that’ and stormed off. By 6:00pm that day I got a call from the Human Resources Department (HR) asking me not to report to duty. Three hours later, they called again and informed me that I’d been fired, though they couldn’t specify a reason for it,” he said.

According to multiple sources at the resort, the supervisor was also fired on the same day, after management questioned him as to why he had been “standing so care-freely with a man who dared to wear yellow”.

Two other staff members claimed that they were fired for going to the jetty to see off the dismissed staff, with whom they had worked closely.

“The constitution of the Maldives clearly guarantees us the right to support any political party we prefer. I told the management too that I will not be enslaved by anyone, just because Gasim gave us a job he thinks he is entitled to have the management force us to vote for him and go to his rallies. I’ve seen what he is like. By running for presidency, he is trying to enslave the citizens of this country,” Zamin said.

“Thirty fired, thirty to go”: firing spree worries staff

Mohamed Ali, a cashier who was fired on September 27, says he received a call from HR informing him of his dismissal and ordering him to leave the resort premises on the first available transfer.

“They said it was a staff cut-down as an official reason. I asked them why then they couldn’t follow procedure, and give me due notice, to which the reply was that they ‘Didn’t know, it’s orders from the management’.”

“Another colleague was also fired at the same time, and obviously the whole team from our department got frustrated. We went together to the HR to ask questions, and this resulted in the immediate dismissal of the five others who accompanied us there to raise concerns,” Ali said.

“Although they said we’d be given air transfer as is the norm, at the last minute they tried to pile us into a small supply boat, which would take seven hours to reach Male’. We refused, and ended up having to pay our own airfares.

“We were so afraid of losing our jobs that we had to just agree with whatever political opinions the management voiced. They forced us to do political things to the point where even someone who might have initially supported Gasim would change his mind.”

“The GM himself said the 60 staff members who voted for MDP will be thrown out. They just dismiss whomever they suspect. One guy who worked on the resort’s fishing vessel was among the first dismissed as he is from Kulhudhuhfushi which had lots of support for MDP. Even the official reason they gave was ridiculous: that the guy had refused to cut his hair on time,” Ali alleged.

“The resort has previously taken action against staff who refused to re-register to vote in the resort, and those who refused to vote for Gasim.”

Ahmed Ikram, another dismissed staff member, claimed that workers were forced to sign up for JP, to register to vote in the resort, and that people who complained had action taken against them.

“I wouldn’t call it a tourist resort anymore. It’s nothing but a campaign hub,” Ikram said.

Ahmed Naushad, among the cashiers fired, claimed that between dismissal and transfer out of the resort, the management sent security guards, claiming they were to “watch over the dismissed staff as [they] might damage resort property. Naushad said it was similar to “adding salt to a wound” after they had loyally served the resort for long periods of time.

Naushad further said that they were asked by their employers to attend all JP rallies, adding that some staff had even been given some form of payment in return for attending the large rally held in capital city Male’ on August 16.

Fired for going to the jetty to see off his fired friends, Ahmed Sammahu expressed concerns about how there was no line between what was expected from a person’s job and what the management wanted them to do in the owner’s political interests.

“I’ll be frank. Politically, I support MDP. However, when at Sun Island, they forced me and others to display support to Gasim. We even have to participate in all his campaign activities, or else risk termination. I’ve done all that. And yet, they can’t digest the vote I cast.”

Political threat to the company

Ahmed Sirhan stated that he had handed in his resignation after many of his colleagues working in the same department had been terminated “unfairly and under discrimination based on political views”.

“I resigned as a termination was inevitable, and I wasn’t going to stay around and let them do as they pleased. Do you know the management’s tactics when votes near? We had awesome meals in the staff quarters for exactly three days ahead of elections. There were foods like biryani, sausages and corn flakes – things we’ve never been given in the staff kitchen before.”

“We were even treated to free coffee from the staff coffee shop during these three days. And right after voting day, the food quality went way below even what we were used to before,” said Sirhan, whose allegations were repeated by many of his colleagues.

“I’d liken the management’s actions to having patted us on the back as the vote approached, and then trying to strangle us once the votes had been cast,” Mohamed Ali said.

Another staff member who had submitted his resignation was asked to stop coming to work before the period of notice he had given was up. He was informed that unless he left immediately it would be recorded as a dismissal and not a voluntary resignation.

“When asked for a reason, the management said that there is a difference in political ideologies and that I may prove to be a threat to the company. While my monthly salary of MVR 4000 (US$259) was due, they deducted MVR 3000 (US$195) and claimed it was because I had chosen to resign instead of waiting for dismissal,” he claimed.

Trepidation in the resort

A staff member still employed at the resort – who spoke to Minivan News on condition of anonymity – shared the general feeling amongst other MDP supporting staff members remaining in the resort.

“It’s not easy to find jobs in this sector. Everyone’s scared, not sure which one of us will get fired first. There’s about 30 still left and the GM has said to various colleagues that he will fire all 60 who voted for MDP.”

“No one complains about anything, regardless of how unfair it is. For example, we aren’t even allowed to watch Raajje TV in this resort. And all these dismissals are against the Employment Act, not to mention the individual civic rights guaranteed in the constitution,” he said.

Article 4 of the Employment Act prohibits discrimination against any employee based on their political beliefs or affiliation with any political party.

Article 21(b) of the same Act states that political affiliation is not a reasonable cause for dismissal of an employee.

“No knowledge of such incidents”: HR

Minivan News was unable to get in touch with Sun Island Resort and Spa General Manager Mohamed Saeed.

The front office stated that they are not allowed to share the GM’s number or his assistant’s number, or even pass the call to his extension.

When asked if there was any other staff at the resort who could respond to media queries, the Front Desk Officer replied “I suppose it is only the GM who can respond to those queries, but we aren’t allowed to share his number or pass any calls to him”.

A Human Resources official from the resort – who declined to identify himself – refused to comment on the matter besides saying that he was unaware of politically motivated dismissals, saying he has “no knowledge of such incidents”.

JP leader and Sun Island owner Gasim Ibrahim was not responding to calls at the time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court further delays election decision

The Supreme Court of Maldives has delayed its ruling on the potential annulment of the presidential election for the second time today.

Originally scheduled for 2:30pm today, the ruling was moved to 5:00pm, before court officials announced the decision to move the ruling back to 8:00pm.

“The Supreme Court can say whatever they want to say. But the constitution must be upheld,” Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) presidential candidate Mohamed Nasheed told a crowd of supporters gathered near the courthouse.

The case filed by the Jumhooree Party, alleges systemic fraud in the first round of the presidential election, despite the overwhelmingly positive assessments of all observer missions present.

The concluding arguments in the case were heard on September 25, two days after the court had issued an injunction calling upon all state institutions to halt election preparations until the case had been completed.

Numerous international actors – including the United Nations Security Council – have expressed their alarm at the decision to delay the second round, and the subsequent rising of tensions in the country.

Following the destruction of MDP aligned TV station Raajje TV this morning, party supporters gathered by police barricades on Fareedhee Magu.

MDP Imthiyaz Fahmy called for an investigation of the police’s role in the arson attack.

“[Police Commissioner] Abdulla Riyaz publicly announced previously that police will not provide protection to Raajje TV. Look how it has been absolutely burned down today,” said Fahmy.

Former President – and first-placed candidate in the initial poll –  Mohamed Nasheed addressed a crowd of around 300 just before midday.

“The Supreme Court may say anything at two thirty today. Do listen to their verdict, it will make no sense at all.”

“The letters in the constitution cannot dissolve and protect itself, it cannot come out to war to protect itself. It won’t come to life unless we get strength from it and come out to protect it.”

“We are not here to ascertain presidency for Galolhu Kenereege Mohamed Nasheed. We are here to get people’s rights. Not for the MDP, but for all citizens,” he added.

The area – close to the Supreme Court – has been the focal point of MDP protests for 10 consecutive nights following the Election Commission’s decision to abandon preparations for the September 28 run-off, in the face of government and judicial intransigence.

The integrity of the Supreme Court was a persistent theme during early protests, with frequent – often visual – references to the Justice Ali Hameed’s purported role in a series of sex tapes.

“We are demonstrating here and won’t stop until we hear a verdict,” Nasheed’s running-mate Dr Mustafa Lutfi told the crowd.

Police have reported “no tensions and no arrests” during today’s demonstration.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Elections are about belief, rather than law: Judge Johann Kriegler

Additional reporting by Leah Malone

“Ultimately, the test of an election is if it’s accepted by the people,” international judicial expert, and advisor to the Maldives Election Commission (EC), Johann Kriegler said in a public lecture yesterday (September 26).

“Elections are not about mathematics, elections are not about law. Elections are about people, about perceptions, about beliefs,” said the former judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, who has been working as part of the UNDP’s team in Male’.

Judge Kriegler concluded his lecture, titled ‘Elections: Beauty or Beast?’, by stating that the trust of the electorate is the most important factor in running an election.

Judge Kriegler was reluctant to comment specifically on the current situation in the Maldives, where the Supreme Court and the Elections Commission (EC) have this week been locked in a consitutional battle over whether to proceed with the second round of voting.

The Jumhooree Party (JP), has been pursuing legal action to annul the poll, citing as-yet unsubstantiated claims of systemic failure on behalf of the EC.

The poll has been universally praised as being free and fair by all international observers present during the first round, as well as local NGOs and the Human Rights Commission.

Kriegler chose instead to recount some of his previous experiences in handling elections across the world – most notably in Kenya, 2007.

Following the disastrous fallout from the presidential elections that year, thousands were killed in inter-tribal violence. Judge Kriegler formed part of the post-election dispute resolution team.

The lecture included the specifics of the electoral problems, including the failings of the Election Management Body (EMB) in Kenya at the time, the Elections Commission of Kenya.

Commenting on the quality of the electoral register in Kenya during these elections, Judge Kriegler noted that it was found to be only around 70 percent accurate.

“In my experience, this was good enough,” said the judge.

Maldives election “as good as I’ve ever seen”

During a question and answer session after the lecture, Judge Kriegler was asked if he could comment on the competency of the Maldives EC.

Reasserting his reluctance to comment on ongoing matters, Kriegler stated simply that this was “as good an election as I have seen.”

“Do you want me to say more?”

When looking into discrepancies in the voting process in Kenya, Kriegler noted that a rational excuse was behind most problems, upsetting the conspiracy theorists.

More important, he argued, was the work of political and civil society groups who had been working to delegitimise the EMB for months prior to the election.

“It was a significant factor in what went wrong there.”

Remarking on the changes made between Kenya’s 2007 and 2013 elections, he noted that trust had been the key improvement.

“Kenyan elections were not particularly good this last time round, but the new EMB is trusted, number one. Number two, the judges were trusted,they fired the old lot – lock, stock, and barrel. They said you can re-apply for your job – excellent idea…The result was that…the last election was accepted by the electorate.”

Finally, Judge Kriegler compared his own country’s “messy” 1994 general election with that of Mexico’s “technically perfect” poll in the same year.

Whilst the apartheid ending vote was a success, Mexico’s election ended in months of rioting, he said.

“In South Africa, the poor, incompetent but honest elections were accepted because the people believed in it.  The people believed in it because the electoral management bodies had the support of the political parties,” Kriegler continued.

“The political parties boosted this little body that had no track record and no experience and had an impossible job. But we did the job together – that’s why it worked.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Transparency slams parliament, JSC for failure to address challenges to Supreme Court’s integrity

The failure of parliament and the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to address alleged integrity issues of the Supreme Court judges have “created avenues for political and other actors to question the conduct, injunctions and verdicts of the Supreme Court”, Transparency Maldives has said.

Transparency fielded a team of 400 election monitors during the first round of September 7, stating that the process was fair and credible and that incidents observed on the day would not have had a material impact on the outcome of the election.

The Supreme Court on Monday evening, however, issued an indefinite injunction halting the second round of the presidential election, which had been scheduled for September 28.

The case was filed by the Jumhooree Party (JP), whose presidential candidate Gasim Ibrahim narrowly missed a place in the run-off with 24.07 percent of the votes.

Prior to his registration as a presidential candidate Gasim was a member of the JSC, and was responsible for rejecting a recommendation from the JSC’s own subcommittee recommending that Supreme Court Justice Ali Hameed be suspended pending an investigation into his leaked sex tapes.

The sex tapes and suspension of the election have resulted in escalating protests targeting the courts, with large pairs of white underpants quickly becoming widely adopted as a protest symbol.

“Expeditious resolution of such allegations and issues is imperative to ease rising tensions in the election environment and prevent the derailment of democratic processes,” said Transparency Maldives in its statement.

“Relevant state institutions, including the Judicial Service Commission and the Parliament of the Maldives must expedite the resolution of these issues and allegations, in a transparent manner free of conflict of interest, to reduce questioning of and allegations of partisan bias in such processes.”

The JSC is headed by Supreme Court Justice Adam Mohamed, one of the four Supreme Court judges who endorsed the suspension of the election. Despite a recommendation from its subcommittee to suspend Hameed, the JSC rejected taking action against the judge citing “lack of evidence”. Gasim meanwhile publicly dismissed the videos as “fake”.

A meeting of parliament’s Independent Commissions Oversight Committee yesterday was meanwhile been disrupted by government-aligned MPs blowing whistles, shouting and destroying equipment and furniture.

Local media captured video footage of yesterday’s meeting, including Dhivehi Quamee Party (DQP) MP Riyaz Rasheed vandalising equipment, hurling a chair and threatening cameramen while Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Ali Arif and Maldives Development Alliance (MDA) MP Ahmed Amir blew on whistles and yelled at parliament staff.

Newspaper Haveeru reported that the three pro-government MPs grabbed documents from administrative staff, impeded journalists and used obscene language.

After microphones and recording equipment were damaged, MDP MPs used their phones to record proceedings, during which MDP MP Ahmed Sameer was elected as chair and Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Rozaina Adam as deputy chair.

Former chairperson of the committee, Independent MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed, resigned from the position this week but choose to remain a member of the oversight committee.

In addition to the Kulhudhufushi South MP, the committee includes Sameer, Ali Waheed, Ahmed Hamza, Ahmed Abdulla and Hamid Abdul Gafoor from the MDP; MPs Abdulla Yameen, Mohamed Mujthaz and Ibrahim Riza from the PPM; MP Rozaina Adam from the DRP; and Riyaz Rasheed from the DQP.

At yesterday’s meeting, the committee also decided to summon members of the JSC sub-committee formed to investigate a sex tape of Supreme Court Justice Ali Hameed for questioning over delays to concluding their investigation.

Following the resignation of JSC members Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Didi and President’s Member Latheef Gasim from the sub-committee, the remaining members – JSC members Ahmed Rasheed and lawyers Hussain Shiraj and Mohamed Anil – are to be summoned before the parliamentary committee at 8:30pm tonight.

Haveeru video MPs disrupting September 25 meeting of Parliament’s Independent Commission’s Oversight Committee

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Week in review: September 13-21

Following a full week of hearings into the Jumhooree Party’s election complaints, the High Court granted the party’s request to view the offending register – under supervision- though the party is still seeking greater access in order to prove its claims regarding fraudulent voters. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court accepted to hear the JP’s case seeking to annul the first round altogether.

After hearing the claims of former Attorney General – and vice-presidential candidate – Dr Hassan Saeed, which included deceased, repeated, and fake voters, the court ordered that the Elections Commission (EC) hand over the voter registry for inspection. Repeated calls to respect the outcome of the election from across the international community failed to impress Dr Saeed.

Maintaining that all allegations are without merit, the EC continued to prepare for the upcoming second round – scheduled for September 28 – officially announcing the first round results despite the JP’s attempts to delay.

The barrage of criticism, particularly from Gasim’s own Villa Television (VTV), led the EC to warn the Majlis that national security could be damaged by “unfounded claims of corruption”.

The national broadcasting commission began looking into VTV’s reporting of unsubstantiated content this week, whilst the police finished looking into the content of the EC’s rubbish, finding no incriminating documents.

Further protests against the EC have been promised by religious civil society groups. The conservative Jamiyathuh Salaf group singled out the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) for criticism in a nationally televised sermon that resulted in broadcasting commission being called before the Majlis once more.

The police appeared to have been drawn into the dispute as an alleged police intelligence document emerged on social media, alleging “some opportunity for fraud” and “illegal voting”. The report was quickly disowned by the police and condemned by the MDP, who also called the Majlis to reconvene tomorrow (September 22) in order to stop “undue influence of political parties in the judiciary”.

Elsewhere in the country, the police in Addu City searched a number of homes as part of their election security operation, whilst fears over black magic persisted in Guraidhoo – the local council refusing use of the school for polling.

President Dr Mohamed Waheed’s Gaumee Ittihad Party (GIP) followed its former coalition partner – the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) in choosing a candidate to back in the endangered run-off. Waheed’s party chose to support the Progressive Party of Maldives’ candidate in round two, whilst the DRP leaders were paraded before MDP supporters following last week’s decision to lend support to former President Mohamed Nasheed in the race – a decision that resulted in the sacking of DRP minister Ali Shareef.

Nasheed visited the house of JP leader Gasim on Thursday though the JP insisted no decisions on future alliances would be made before the courts have finished their work. When addressing a youth forum earlier in the week, Nasheed had expressed confidence that Maldivian democracy could withstand a handful of coups and rigged elections.

Disabled Maldivians demonstrated this week against the impending closure of the country’s only school catering to those with special needs, whilst the pervasiveness of politics was revealed as deaf interpreter Shaheez Abdulla gave an account of his recent stabbing.

The ongoing case of former Civil Service Commission Chair saw his access to the commission as well as his salary revoked after Mohamed Fahmy Hassan had continued to come into his former workplace.

Finally, details were revealed of the government’s cancellation payments to forensic accountants Grant Thornton as well as the circumstances of Swedish nationa Filip Eugen Petre’s flight from the country following his acquittal of charges relating to the deaths of a British couple in 2011.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Former President Nasheed meets Jumhooree Party Leader Gasim Ibrahim

Former President Mohamed Nasheed met Jumhooree Party (JP) Leader Gasim Ibrahim at the business tycoon’s residence in Male’ last night.

Speaking briefly to press after the one-hour meeting, the presidential candidates of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and JP coalition said the pair had discussed matters of national interest and maintaining stability and public order.

Following the first round of the presidential election on September 7 – where Nasheed emerged the front runner with 45.45 percent of the vote and Gasim narrowly missed out on the second round run-off with 24.07 percent – the JP alleged vote rigging by the Elections Commission (EC) and contested the results at both the High Court and Supreme Court.

Asked if a possible coalition between the parties was discussed ahead of the run-off between Nasheed and Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) candidate Abdulla Yameen – who came second with 25.35 of the vote – Gasim said “it has not reached that point yet,” adding that he bore no ill will toward anyone.

Nasheed meanwhile said that Gasim was “a family friend since childhood” who has offered good advice and counsel throughout the years.

The former president added that he expected Gasim to make a decision on either a coalition partner or whom to endorse after the conclusion of the ongoing Supreme Court case.

Gasim raised the possibility that he might face Nasheed in the second round run-off depending on the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

Asked how much confidence he had that the JP leader would back the MDP candidate, Nasheed said Gasim would “never have to come behind me, but we can always work together.”

Nasheed was accompanied at the meeting by MDP parliamentary group leader MP Ibrahim Mohamed Solih.

No decision until court case is over

In the wake of the meeting between the presidential candidates, the Adhaalath Party and former deputy leader of the PPM, Umar Naseer – members of the JP coalition – expressed concern at Gasim’s decision to meet Nasheed, and declared that they would leave the coalition if the JP leader decided to back Nasheed in the run-off election on September 28.

Local media reported that after his meeting with Nasheed, Gasim also met MDP MP Ali Waheed, the party’s parliamentary group deputy leader, and former State Minister for Transport Hassan Shujau at his residence.

The JP meanwhile put out a press release last night insisting that Gasim and Nasheed did not discuss forming a coalition or withdrawing the Supreme Court case.

The statement noted that since the first round of the polls on September 7, Gasim has met former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, current President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik and spoke with PPM candidate Yameen on the phone “more than once to discuss national affairs.”

“Honourable Gasim’s policy is to talk with political leaders of all political ideologies in the country on matters of national interest and encourage maintaining stability and peace,” the statement read.

The party claimed that Nasheed had visited Gasim at his residence twice before last night’s meeting but was unable to meet the JP leader before the third attempt as he was not home the previous times.

The JP statement reiterated that the party would not consider forming a coalition or endorsing a candidate in the second round before the conclusion of the Supreme Court case.

“The Jumhooree coalition’s presidential candidate Honourable Gasim Ibrahim believes that the rights of  thousands of Maldivian citizens were lost because of the Elections Commission rigging the vote and committing a number of acts in violation of election laws. The nation is at the brink of turmoil and unrest. Therefore, more than anything else, Gasim Ibrahim’s efforts at present is focused on restoring the rights of citizens that were lost due to electoral fraud,” the statement read.

International opinion

Meanwhile, joining a growing international chorus backing the credibility of the September 7 election, the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon issued a statement yesterday noting that “the conduct of the first round had been widely recognised as a success by international and domestic election observers.”

“The Secretary-General urges all political leaders to live up to their responsibilities, respect the democratic process and continue to allow for a peaceful, inclusive and credible vote to take place in the second round of the presidential polls on 28 September, as scheduled and in accordance with the Constitution,” the statement read.

“He stresses the utmost importance of the will of the Maldivian people being respected throughout the process.”

The UN Secretary General’s appeal followed a statement by Commonwealth Special Envoy to the Maldives Sir Donald McKinnon declaring that international opinion was “firmly behind” the need for a second round of the presidential election as planned for September 28.

“There are always losers in every election everywhere, but the winners here must be the people of Maldives. The results of their votes must be paramount to the process and the result,” McKinnon said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)