Judges are being sought to oversee magistrates courts in 49 islands, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has announced.
The JSC has said it is searching for chief magistrates for 41 courts and magistrates for 8 courts. The deadline for submitting an application is February 14, 2013.
(0)Dislikes
(0)Efforts to bring in two international legal experts to review the Commission of National Inquiry (CoNI) report have been put on hold due to budgetary constraints, local media has reported.
The parliament’s Government Accountability Committee had attempted to seek the legal experts in order to look into the report of the controversial transfer of power in February 2012.
Parliament Secretary General Ahmed Mohamed was quoted as saying that there were no funds available to the committee in order to bring in the foreign experts.
The committee had earlier chosen a legal expert from Denmark’s Copenhagen university and two lawyers to review the report, who were scheduled to start on Friday and work for seven days, local media said.
Maldivian Democratic Party MP Ali Waheed said that the committee will make a decision and set a date based on “what is decided by the Parliament Speaker on the budgetary issues”.
Parliament Speaker Abdulla Shahid is currently abroad and is expected to return next week, according to local media.
(0)Dislikes(0)The seizure and dismantling of the Maldivian Democratic Party’s (MDP) camp in the south-east coast of the capital by security forces has sparked debates over the legality of their actions.
The camp, often referred to as “Justice Square” at Lonuziyaaraiy Kolhu had served as the base for MDP protests since the resignation of former President Mohamed Nasheed in February.
During a press conference at Iskandar Koshi last night, Police Superintendant (SP)Ahmed Mohamed noted that the “operation [at the camp] was executed with regard to complaints received that major illegal activities were taking place”.
Following the raid, police displayed a case of beer cans and a barrel of home brewed alcohol – reportedly seized from the camp – to local media.
The SP also cited constitutional obligations which include the maintenance of law and order in the face of criminal activities as a reason for the dismantling of the camp.
“The violence in Male’ was also linked to the protesters who started the demonstrations from the Lonuziyaaraai area,” Mohamed alleged.
MDP’s response
Meanwhile, the MDP has denied all allegations about the camp and filed a civil suit against the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) and the Maldives Police Service (MPS) arguing that the security forces had acted unconstitutionally on a number of counts when dismantling the party’s camp.
In the first hearing of the case last night, the Attorney General’s (AG) Office justified the raid. She argued that the raid was executed without a court order, on the grounds of suspected criminal activity in the camp, according to the head of the MDP’s legal team, Hissan Hussian, in an interview with Minivan News today.
According to the AG’s office, the suspected illegal activities negate any need for a court ordered warrant.
Hisan explained that the MDP’s defence calls on Article 19 of the constitution, amongst others. These articles provide freedom from restraint in any activities unless the activities’ restraint is expressly authorized by law.
Should the veracity of the police’s suspicions be supported, they could provide the legal cover necessary to nullify this aspect of the MDP’s argument.
Additionally, the apparent discovery of alcohol at the camp yesterday may jeopardise the MDP’s defense under Article 19 which does not guarantee protection of any activities prohibited under Shari’ah.
The finding of alcohol has been questioned by the MDP, which has argued that a media blackout immediately following the military occupation gave time for such evidence to be planted.
Hissan claimed that basic rights to private property had been infringed due to the actions of security forces.
MDP spokesman Hamid Abdul Ghafoor meanwhile has complained that property belonging to the party members were seized during the raid and “nothing has been returned”.
“They [police] have even eaten the food [at the camp].” Ghafoor alleged.
Police however have stated that all property owned will be returned to the rightful owners and that officers “had not inflicted any damage to any item confiscated from the area.”
The other “reasonable limits” to which the constitution’s basic freedoms are subject to will no doubt form a major part of the next hearing which is scheduled for Wednesday at 4pm.
Ownership debate
Should the MDP’s constitutional arguments prevail, it is likely that they will still have to overcome the issues of jurisdiction regarding the camp area.
Attorney General Azima Shukoor was reported as having told local media yesterday that the area around the tsunami monument belonged to the Maldives National Defence Force, invalidating any deals made between the MDP and the Maldives City Council (MCC).
This argument has been used before by the Defense Ministry who have argued that 3,800 square metres of the south-eastern corner of Male’ were granted to the MNDF in 1997 owing to its strategic significance. State Minister Muizz Adnan confirmed to Haveeru on March 14 that this was the case.
This claim is disputed by Hissan who felt this agreement was superseded by the 2010 Decentralisation Act, under which the land was transferred to the MCC. The land was then leased to the MDP, with the lease running until the end of July.
This view has been corroborated by Mayor of Male City, Ali Manik, who also told Haveeru that the council had not been informed of the security forces’ intentions.
The Attorney General’s Office explained during the court hearing on Monday night that the reason a court order was not required was because the space was a public one. Attorney General Shukoor referred Minivan News to the police for further comment on the issue.
Hassan Latheef of the MDP’s legal team doubts that this argument is “watertight”.
“Ninety-five percent of Male’ belongs to the state, so this is a questionable policy. There should be a warrant. One should not go into private property,” said Latheef.
Controversy over the area’s use has been building for some time. The decision to extend the MDP’s use of the area until the end of July was contested, with Council member Ibrahim Shujau in particular feeling that it was unfair that one group monopolise a public space for such a length of time.
Local media recently alleged that the MCC had denied a medical emergency helicopter from using the area’s helipad.
Similarly, there have been reports of complaints being made regarding the noise created by the camp and the disturbances caused to local residents.
(0)Dislikes(0)The Commonwealth will provide technical expertise to the Maldives to help resolve the ongoing judicial crisis in the Maldives, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has stated.
High Commissioner of the Maldives to the UK, Dr Farahanaz Faizal, met with Deputy Secretary-General of the Commonwealth Mmasekgoa Masire-Mwamba this week and raised “the urgent need to modernise the Judiciary to international standards and possible Commonwealth assistance in this regard.”
The crisis was sparked on January 16 when the government ordered the military to detain Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, Abdulla Mohamed, after he filed a High Court injunction against his police summons.
Allegations against the judge dating back to 2005 include misogyny, sexual deviancy, throwing out an assault case despite the confession of the accused, political bias, obstruction of police duty, disregarding decisions of high courts, deliberately holding up cases involving opposition figures, barring media from corruption trials, ordering the release of suspects detained for serious crimes without a single hearing, maintaining “suspicious ties” with family members of convicts sentenced for dangerous crimes, and releasing a murder suspect “in the name of holding ministers accountable” who went on to kill another victim.
In one instance Abdulla Mohamed was accused of requesting that two underage victims of sexual assault act out their attack in court, in front of the perpetrator.
The judge had previously been under investigation by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), but had successfully sought an injunction from the Civil Court against his further investigation by the judicial watchdog.
The JSC itself has itself been accused of perjury, embezzlement and corruption – by one of its own members.
The ongoing detention of the judge has polarised public opinion in the Maldives and resulted in several weeks of opposition-led protests consisting of between 200-400 people, some of them resulting in violence and injuries to police, protesters and journalists.
Judge was “clearly demonstrating his independence”: ICJ Australia
Earlier this week ABC Radio in Australia aired an interview with John Dowd, President of the Australian branch of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), who stated that Judge Abdulla Mohamed had “clearly been demonstrating independence as he’s supposed to do and the government doesn’t like it.”
None of the government’s allegations against the judge warranted his arrest, Dowd argued, “and it’s clear that the must be immediately released. This will do serious damage to the Maldives internationally and their tourist industry is a big part of their income and they just can’t allow this to go on.”
The Maldivian judiciary, Dowd claimed, was “generally competent”.
“It’s not a legally focused country. They’ve had a change of government after some 30 odd years and there’s obviously a settling down period and they do need assistance in terms of bringing their legal system up to date. But nonetheless, there is nothing wrong with the way the judges carry out their duties and it’s just a classic situation of a government not liking someone’s decision.
“It’s got a funny legal system in that there are aspects of Sharia law in it and British Commonwealth law and so on. But I would have thought that the Commonwealth Secretariat could have arranged some judges or someone that could go in there to mediate, and the Commonwealth is the more likely basis for resolving the issue. It really is very difficult for outsiders to intervene and I don’t think the UN is the correct body,” Dowd told the ABC.
Maldives Foreign Minister Ahmed Naseem responded to the criticism on ABC Radio the following day.
The government, he said, did not want to keep Abdulla Mohamed under arrest, but did not want him sitting on the bench until the charges against him were cleared – “but the point here is that we are in a Catch-22 situation – which court do we go to?
“Existing judges swore themselves in unilaterally without looking into the relevant clauses of the constitution, which says that they have to be sworn in according to the new constitution.
“Now, this new constitution strictly stipulates that these judges should have qualification to act as judges. The present judges that we have don’t have these qualifications.
“There are quite a lot of people whose interests are vested with these judges. That is, there are politicians connected to the former regime, who have many court cases. Now all these court cases are being held by the judge who is under detention at the moment. No cases have been conducted on this and no sentence has been passed. So it’s in the interests of the opposition to see that this judge remains as a judge.”
The country’s “entire judiciary is at stake”, Naseem argued. “What democracy can we have, when we don’t have a proper judicial system and we can’t dispense justice properly? The democracies of the world should really help us and find ways of sorting this issue out. We have requested UN bodies to help us in this and they’ve promised to send us some people to sit down with us and work something through.”
Criminal Court letter
Meanwhile, a group of Criminal Court judges this week sent a letter to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Ahmed Faiz, contending that the Supreme Court had as much responsibility for the crisis as President Mohamed Nasheed.
Ensuring an independent judiciary as envisioned in the new constitution adopted in August 7, 2008 was “a legal as well as national duty” of the Supreme Court, the judges noted, adding that it was “regrettable” that the Criminal Court’s functions have not been developed in line with the changes to the criminal justice system.
Among the main points raised in the letter included the Supreme Court abolishing an article in the Judicature Act – “without any discussions with anyone” – that stipulated the formation of judicial councils, intended to represent all courts and provide advice and counsel.
The Supreme Court also took over a case filed at the Civil Court challenging the legality and validity of the JSC’s process for vetting candidates to the High Court “in the name of public interest litigation” and dismissed the case without issuing a verdict.
Moreover, the letter stated, the Chief Justice “turned a deaf ear” to numerous complaints from the public as well as judges and took no action regarding Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.
The judges also criticised the Supreme Court for not undertaking efforts towards dialogue with the government or President Nasheed to resolve the current crisis, calling on the Chief Justice to bring both sides to the negotiating table.
The letter took note of inconsistent standards and rulings made by different judges of the Criminal Court regarding extension of detention and evaluating evidence as well as the release of suspects detained for serious crimes, and referred to a list of “urgently needed” reforms previously recommended to the Supreme Court.
(0)Dislikes(0)The first complaints filed against Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed in July 2005 included allegations of misogyny, sexual deviancy, and throwing out an assault case despite the confession of the accused, Minivan News has learned.
A letter sent to President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom by then Attorney General Hassan Saeed, obtained by Minivan News (page 1, 2), outlined three specific allegations against Abdulla Mohamed.
While presiding over a sexual offence case against Azeem Abdullah of Chaandhaneege, G.A.Kanduhulhudhoo, on May 19, 2005, Saeed told Gayoom that Abdulla Mohamed “made the two children who were summoned as witnesses against the accused stand in front [of the court] and asked them to look at the people present.
“He then made the children identify the individuals they were looking at. Although the children said in court that the accused performed the indecent act he was accused of, the Judge made the children act out the indecent act in the presence of the perpetrator and the rest of the court.”
Saeed’s second allegation concerned the hearing of physical assault case on June 6, 2005, against Ibrahim Ali of H. Saaroakaage.
“The case was submitted based on the admission of the accused that he had committed the assault, but Judge Abdulla Mohamed of the Criminal Court dismissed the case, stating that there was no case against the accused,” Saeed wrote.
In Saeed’s third allegation, concerning a criminal case on June 6, 2005, against Ahmed Naeem of Male’ Municipality Special Register, “after completing the sentencing of the defendant, Abdulla Mohamed said, ‘…very few men ever meet women who love them. You may meet a woman who loves and cares for you. You should not run after a woman who does not love you. It is also stated in Holy Quran that women are very deceptive.’”
The Judicial Services Commission (JSC), the judicial watchdog, eventually formed a complaints committee to investigate the cases against Judge Abdulla in December 2009, which met 44 times but had failed to present a single report as of March 2011.
Speaking at an opposition rally on January 24 against the detention of Abdulla Mohamed, Saeed acknowledged that he was “not satisfied with Judge Abdulla’s actions either.”
“[But] he did not have to do things to my satisfaction. I submitted the legal points I noticed [related to the judge’s conduct] to the head of the judiciary at the time, President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom. I could have removed Judge Abdulla from the post through pressure. But I did not do it because it was not my responsibility,” Dr Saeed said.
“The constitution today forbids influencing judges. So, looking at the current scenario, the country has gone ten years backward.”
The current judicial crisis was sparked after Abdulla Mohamed filed a case in the Civil Court which granted him an injunction halting his further investigation by the JSC. This was following by a High Court ruling against a police summons on January 16, which prompted police to request the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) take the judge into custody.
Home Minister Hassan Afeef subsequently accused the judge of “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist”, listing 14 cases of obstruction of police duty including withholding warrants for up to four days, ordering police to conduct unlawful investigations and disregarding decisions by higher courts.
Afeef accused the judge of “deliberately” holding up cases involving opposition figures, barring media from corruption trials, ordering the release of suspects detained for serious crimes “without a single hearing”, and maintaining “suspicious ties” with family members of convicts sentenced for dangerous crimes.
The judge also released a murder suspect “in the name of holding ministers accountable”, who went on to kill another victim.
Vice President of the Maldives Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan opposed the judge’s detention, stating on his blog that “I am ashamed and totally devastated by the fact that this is happening in a government in which I am the elected Vice President.”
The government then requested assistance from the international community to reform the judiciary. Observing that judicial reform “really should come from the Judicial Services Commission (JSC)”, Foreign Minister Ahmed Naseem said the commission’s shortcoming are “now an issue of national security.”
“We have been working to improve the judiciary since we came to power, but we have not succeeded,” said Naseem. “We have asked the international community to assist us in this effort several times, and we find that they are willing to help at this point,” he explained.
A group of lawyers have meanwhile sent a case to the International Criminal Court (ICC), appealing that the judge’s detention is an “enforced disappearance” under the ICC’s Rome Statute.
(0)Dislikes(0)As we see in the stories carried daily in this newspaper, Maldives is deep into the difficult business of building a strong and democratic society. There is often an understandable impatience about the time it takes to see the fruits of democracy, but when you compare to other countries that have had to do the same thing, you realise that the Maldives is trying to achieve in a few years what others have taken decades or centuries to do.
This is possible, but the key to success continues to be mobilising everybody around issues that are in the national interest. This is particularly true in the area of justice, which is the foundation of all democratic societies and the development of any nation. Developing a strong and independent justice system needs a concerted effort from all three branches of government, and civil society.
Change in the Maldives has brought its own anxieties, and society is particularly concerned about increasing levels of crime. This lends new impetus to the reform of the Criminal Justice System.
A reliable and operational criminal justice delivery system is needed to sustain democracy and the rule of law, strengthen new democratic institutions, and protect security, economic development and foreign investment, based on the firmest of foundations of justice and human rights. Establishing a robust criminal justice system is a very complex, long and difficult exercise, requiring work across many areas.
A vital step, however, is ensuring that the legislative foundation is put in place as soon as possible. Of priority, therefore, is enactment of criminal reform legislation, particularly the Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), Evidence Bill, and the Juvenile Justice Bill.
A solid and modern Penal Code gives consistency to legal systems and makes criminal law more understandable and transparent to people. The Penal Code defines the general principles of criminal responsibility, classifying crimes and their penalties. If there is a proper Penal Code, it is much less necessary to draft legislation defining every crime or procedure. The Criminal Procedure Code will define procedures in criminal matters, which then provide transparency and accountability.
Another important piece of legislation is the Juvenile Justice Bill. Statistics on crime demonstrate that children under 18 and youth are involved in a lot of the cases of violent crimes. However, currently there are no strategic crime prevention programmes or rehabilitation programmes specifically targeting juvenile offenders.
In addition, there is no detention facility that caters for juvenile offenders, and there are no separate spaces for juvenile offenders to be incarcerated. In light of the emerging challenges and the increase in juvenile crime, the current law does not adequately cover rights of children or address the need for proper treatment of children in conflict with the law to rehabilitate them back in to society.
Until August 2008, Maldives’ criminal justice depended heavily on confessions. However with Constitutional reform, we are moving from a confession based to an evidence-based system, which is in line with international standards. It is therefore vital that we have an Evidence legislation that is in line with the new Constitutional reform and best practice.
Strong and functioning criminal justice systems certainly depend on a solid foundation of law, and effective courts, police, prosecutors, prisons and other institutions and actors. But it is equally important that public confidence in the system is high – to know that criminal conduct will be investigated and prosecuted in accordance with the rule of law, that the streets will be safe, that rehabilitation of offenders is possible, that human rights will be protected. Public confidence is served by knowledge and certainty. This demands the process of investigation and prosecution to be independent of political pressure, that it is transparent and follows a process that is fair and just.
We have already seen this year that pressure to ‘do something’ about crime, combined with a lack of the legal and institutional foundations discussed in this Opinion Editorial, can lead to a tendency to find reactive short-term solutions to complex problems, and even violate human rights.
The Maldives, instead, needs a proper criminal legislative framework as a matter of urgency. A real opportunity is now before the Majlis, supported by the justice system and the Government, to deliver a unanimous and thorough response to crime. It is possible to pass these key pieces of legislation in this session of the Majlis.
Technical support is available, if it is needed, from the UN and others, but above all, it is now a matter of political will to take this important step, in the national interest, to finalise and pass these key legislations. I urge MPs of all parties to pass these Bills as a matter of priority, resolve areas of disagreement constructively, and present the Bills to the Majlis for passage.
Andrew Cox is the Resident Coordinator of the United Nations System in the Maldives.
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]
(0)Dislikes(0)Aishath Velezinee is a member of the Judicial Service Commission of the Maldives (JSC). She holds a Diploma in Journalism (IIMC, India; 1988), BA in Government; and in Women’s Studies (University of Queensland, Australia; 2000) and a Masters’ in Development Studies (Institute for Social Studies, Netherlands; 2004).
http://www.velezinee.aishath.com/content/why
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]
(0)Dislikes(0)On Tuesday the Maldives appointed a Supreme Court bench in one of the few displays of cross-party cooperation seen in parliament since the ratification of the 2008 Constitution.
But Raadhafathi, a Maldivian national currently working on a project to strengthen the justice sector of the Maldives, and with experience training judges and inspecting courts all over the country, claims the road to an experienced, impartial and capable judiciary will be long and arduous.
The Maldives is in a state of transition. A new Constitution, a new Supreme Court, a new President, multi-party systems and many other factors creating a crucial period for the judiciary as well as for the country as a whole.
I am writing this to highlight the justice sector of Maldives.
Since independence the Maldives has acceded or ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), Convention Against Torture (CAT), Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The Maldives was officially awarded a seat in the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva in May 2010.
The Constitution adopted in 2008 provides for independence of the judiciary, creates new individual liberties, establishes judicial review and gives certain responsibilities relating to the judiciary to the Judicial Services Commission (JSC). These developments present challenges as well as opportunities for the judiciary.
The dynamic reforms of the past two years require that the judiciary transforms itself to ensure that it has the capacity to address the issues brought before it in the coming years. The Maldives is geographically unique in that it is comprised of 20 Atolls containing nearly 1200 islands, out of which 200 are inhabited. This presents numerous governmental challenges which judiciaries in other countries do not face.
During the past five months I have:
It is evident there is an urgent need to increase the capacity of judges and the court staff to handle the number and complexity of the cases brought to the judiciary, in particular protecting rights enshrined in the Constitution. In addition, Human Rights is a new concept in Maldives and very few people poses the necessary skills and knowledge.
Major features and problems of the legal and judicial system operating in the Maldives
There are total of 208 judges/magistrates in Maldives. Although rights are defined and independent institutions exist to ensure rights are protected, the weakness of the current legal framework lies with the lack of trained professionals in the justice sector, in particular judges, magistrates, prosecutors and police.
98 percent of the legal profession in Maldives (including prosecutors, lawyers, judges, magistrates) are less than qualified to be in the legal profession. Most judges and magistrates have only completed secondary education, and they are not required to be lawyers.
Very few have completed undergraduate or post graduate degree from a western country. Most degrees are from Egypt or Saudi Arabia, and they are usually from unrelated fields. Some have received a Diploma in Sha’riah Law from Institutions established in Malé.
There is no common denominator in judicial training and experience. Some have learned in Arabic, some in Dhivehi, a few in English (the majority of the Judges I have met do not speak English to a serious degree).
The average age of judges at present is 28-32 years.
This situation gives rise to many problems such as reconciling Shari’ah law and the codified common law, as well as the attitudes of judges trained in the Shari’ah law and lawyers trained in common law traditions of the Commonwealth. In addition, the lack of laws governing legal procedure exacerbates the situation further, ensuring there is no consistency in their judgments or conduct of cases.
The judicial system is in considerable chaos. There are no Rules of Court, instead certain rules and regulations are found in more informal publications called ‘Court Circulars’.
In criminal cases, there is no formal onus of proof, and Judges can and do conduct cases any way they want. Every Judge does his or her cases differently and unpredictably.
State attorneys can appear in private legal cases and can be and are members of the Majlis. These arrangements are a direct breach of the separation of powers doctrine. This again demonstrates a failure to appreciate how a democracy and the separation of powers are intended to operate.
The right to a fair trial is a cornerstone of democratic societies. How a person is treated when accused of a crime provides a concrete demonstration of how far a state respects human rights. Unfortunately in the Maldives:
Despite all this, the JSC, the independent body responsible for the judiciary, approved all judges to be appointed without term (tenure to retire at 70). If the JSC were to continue the way they have been conducting themselves, there is no hope to strengthen the judiciary of Maldives nor to protect rights enshrined in the Constitution.
The transitional period (Chapter 14 of the Constitution) ended on 7 August 2010. While the Supreme Court has been appointed, unfortunately the judiciary remains in a state of disarray.
No one (including the executive, parliament and judiciary) knows the meaning of the term ‘separation of powers’, ‘what the law is’ nor even what ‘Human Rights’ means.
No one obeys or respects the legal system, and the Maldives legal system is oppressive and unjust. The entire situation contravenes basic tenets of the rule of law and requires urgent change. The concepts of enforceable natural justice, procedural regularity and due process are not known in Maldivian courts.
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]
(0)Dislikes(0)The Family Court has claimed that unregistered marriages occurring in the Maldives are denying children the legal rights of those born to ‘registered’ couples.
According to Maldivian law, children born out of wedlock can face difficultly obtaining legal recognition for matters such as claiming their inheritance.
Permanent Secretary for the Ministry of Islamic Affairs Mohamed Didi confirmed that children born to couples who exchange vows in unsanctioned private marriages do not have the same legal rights as children born to those who marry legally.
“It’s a serious problem,” Didi said, explaining that such children can experience problems claiming inheritance and tracing their family.
“The children cannot find their family line or claim their property,” he said.
There were “certain religious people” giving false information to others in small communities, he said, who were instructing their followers to marry “according to Islam and not Maldivian law.”
Didi noted that although these marriages could technically be recognised by Islam, “the country’s law says we have to register a marriage.”
He said the ministry is running “awareness programmes giving proper information to people,” as well as providing education through the media, information sessions at the ministry and during Friday sermons.
Didi said the ministry “has not found clues” as to why certain religious scholars are marrying people outside the law, but he thinks the only reason is “they want to have a bigger group of followers.”
The Family Court confirmed it was dealing with some cases involving private marriages, and said if the marriage was not registered at the court, it was not technically legal.
Couples receive a certificate through the court which proves they are married, she explained.
Children born to couples who are not registered will not appear under the father’s name and “will not have legal rights”, the court registrar noted.
Press Secretary for the President’s Office Mohamed Zuhair said the problem was all down to the “concubine business.”
According to legal procedures concerning polygamy, for a man to marry more than one woman, the first wife must give her consent for her husband to marry someone else. In this event, his finances and ‘level of commitment’ will be examined by the court.
Zuhair said some men who did not pass the requirements were getting married outside the law.
“The problem is that divorce is then also not legal, and children are unable to claim their inheritance,” he said, noting that although the marriage could be recognised under Islam, it was not recognised under Maldivian law.
Zuhair noted the greater issue behind these ‘private marriages’ was the discussion by Islamic scholars over whether State laws should stand alone from Shari’a, although “of course State law is influenced by Shari’a law.”
“The Constitution gives power to the State,” he said, “but certain Islamic scholars believe this shouldn’t be the case.”
A source who wished to remain anonymous from an island “well known for these type of illegal marriages” told Minivan News that “there is a group of people who believe the Constitution of the Maldives should not be followed because it is not based on Shari’a law.”
He said these people claimed that judges at the courts were “apostates” and that marriage under a Maldivian court could not be recognised under the tenets of Islam.
He said people who do not follow this group “would also be considered apostates.”
He said many people involved with this group were also not sending their children to school because they would have to sing the school song “as they believe singing is haraam, and also claim the school uniform is not very ‘Muslim’.”
(0)Dislikes(0)