Tag: Majlis

Parliament committee passes implementing tobacco-free zones as scheduled

Tobacco-free zones are to be implemented from January 1, 2013, after the Subordinate Regulations Committee of the People’s Majlis decided not to delay their introduction, local media has reported.

Entitled “Regulation of Determining Tobacco-Free Zones”, the regulation aims at inhibiting the consumption of tobacco products by prohibiting smoking in certain public areas.

Traders’ associations and MP for Nolhivaram Constituency Mohammed Nasheed proposed to delay the starting date of the Regulation for one year, according to local newspaper Haveeru.

Opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MPs were reported to have  supported the proposal to delay the starting date, claiming there to be “a lot of issues” with the regulation.

After considering the matter, the Subordinate Regulations Committee made a final decision on a narrowly-approved vote.

Under the new regulation, smoking or similar consumption of tobacco will be prohibited within the following places; tea shops, cafes and restaurants, parks, government office premises, office premises of companies with government shareholding, office premises of independent state institutions, public places where people usually gather in numbers, old age homes, homes for those who need special care, and rehabilitation centres.

However, under special permission from the Ministry of Health, cafes and restaurants can define a special area where people can smoke.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament passes bill redefining limitations on freedom of assembly

Parliament on Tuesday (December 25) passed the bill on “Freedom of Peaceful Assembly” despite unanimous opposition from the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP). The legislation was first submitted by independent MP Mohamed Nasheed on 5 April 2012.

The bill, which was initially called ‘Freedom of Assembly Bill’ was passed on the parliament floor with 44 votes in favour, and 30 votes against.

Among the key features of the bill is the outlawing of demonstrations outside private residences and government buildings, limitations on media not accredited with the state and defining gatherings as a group with more than a single person.

One of the main stated objectives of the legislation is to try and minimize restrictions on peaceful gatherings, which it claims remain a fundamental right.

The legislation continues that any restrictions enforced by police or other state institutions on participants at a gathering must be proportionate actions as outlined under specific circumstances defined in the bill.

The bill also provides a definition for ‘Gathering’ in Article 7(a), stating it refers to more than one person, with the same objective, purposefully attending a public or private place temporarily and peacefully expressing their views there.

Article 9(a), meanwhile, defines ‘Peaceful’ in relation to a gathering as being one where the organizers have notified [authorities] that this is a gathering to achieve a peaceful purpose, and provided no acts of violence occur, nor are there any chants, writing or drawings encouraging violence used in the gathering. Additionally, in such a gathering, no acts violating any laws must be committed, nor encouraged. Nor should participants have any items on them which can potentially be used to commit acts of violence.

Section (b) of Article 9 rejects defining a gathering as ‘not peaceful’ on the basis of words or behaviour of certain participants during a protest that may be considered hateful or unacceptable by other persons.

Under the new bill, citizens are not allowed to hold gatherings within a certain distance of the headquarters of police and the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF).

Demonstrations would also be outlawed within a certain distance of the residences of the president and the vice president, the offices of the Maldives Monetary Authority (MMA), tourist resorts, harbours utilized for economic purposes, airports, the President’s Office, the courts of law, the Parliament, mosques, schools, hospitals and buildings housing diplomatic missions.

The bill also states that demonstrators wishing to protest against a specific individual, may not use megaphones, stand outside, or have a sit-down outside that person’s residence.

The regulation also states that although demonstrators do not need to seek authorization ahead of a gathering, police must be then notified of any pre-planned demonstrations before they commence.

Among the actions prohibited under the bill include an article stating that participants in a demonstration are not to have on them swords, knives, other sharp objects, wood, metal rods, batons, bleach, petrol, kerosene, any form of chilli (including dried or powdered), acid, explosives, any other items that can potentially be used as a weapon or any gear used by police for riot-controlling and peacekeeping.

Article 21 stipulates that participants will also not be allowed to cover their faces with masks, balaclavas or any other material which would prevent them from being identifiable.

The bill does guarantee organizers and participants of a gathering the right to decide where to hold a demonstration as well as choosing its objectives and the persons who are given the opportunity to speak during the protest.

The bill will not be applicable to activities, gatherings or meetings organized by state institutions, or those organized under any other law and to sports, games, business or cultural events.

According to the bill, if participants in a gathering have to face material or physical loss due to the negligence of police who must provide protection, then the police institution must provide compensation. It further adds that in such instances, the affected individual cannot be penalized for having taken part in the gathering.

The regulations also impose restrictions on police officers, preventing them from partaking in activities such as joining a gathering, displaying agreement or disagreement to messages or themes of a protest and ordering where or when to hold demonstrations.  Police officers are also prohibited from intervening in a gathering unless they are in uniform and states officers must not cover their faces unless as part of their riot gear under the bill.

Right to assemble

The bill also states that the right to assemble can be narrowed in the instances of a perceived threat to national security, or in order to maintain public safety as well as to establish societal peace in accordance with existing laws, to protect public health, to maintain levels of public discipline or to protect the rights and freedoms guaranteed to other individuals.

With regard to the media’s right to cover demonstrations, the bill adds that the Maldives Broadcasting Commission (MBC) must draft a regulation on accrediting journalists within three months of the ratification of the Bill on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly. It is only those journalists who are accredited by the MBC who will be granted access to cover and report on gatherings and police activities in the vicinity.

If an accredited journalist is believed to partaking in the gathering’s activities, treating these journalists as equal to those assembled is left at the discretion of the police. The bill, however, does not define what could be considered such an act.

The Maldives Media Council and the Maldives Journalists Association have expressed concern over these stipulations on Wednesday.

The limitations defined in the bill will bring positive changes: Home Minister

Minister of Home Affairs Mohamed Jameel Ahmed has stated that the Freedom of Peaceful Assembly Bill would bring positive changes to the country’s political environment and that it would provide guidance to politicians.

“It’s been established today that every right comes with accompanying responsibilities. I believe even the constitution reflects these principles. However, these principles need to be broken down into a law that would bring convenience to the people. Some among us thought when the constitution came that these are limitless freedoms that we’ve got. These past days we have seen people acting under that belief,” Jameel was quoted as telling the Sun Online news service.

“Under the name of this freedom, they were violating the personal and individual rights and protections of citizens. They were going at people’s residences, gathering outside and yelling vulgarities at parents and families, depriving children and families of sleep. All under the excuse of freedom of assembly.”

The Home Minister said that this bill would bring necessary limits at a time when many undesirable activities were being carried out under the guise of freedoms. He noted that the freedom of assembly was granted within limits in all other developed countries.

Not an ideal time to tamper with fundamental rights: MDP

Responding to the claims, MDP Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor expressed concern that the fundamental right to assemble was being limited through the bill at “a time like this.”

“It is not wise to tamper with constitutionally provided fundamental rights at a time like this, when we are in times of a coup. But even that can be understood only by persons who can at first understand democratic principles, of course,” Ghafoor said.

“We need time for the Maldivian psyche to be able to grasp the concepts of fundamental rights first.”

“Home Minister Jameel is a prescriptive, Salafiyya-educated, uncivilized man. He has never yet been able to partake in and win any elected posts, his statements hold no weight in the eyes of the people. He is a man who obviously does not even understand this very basic, fundamental concept,” Hamid said in response to Jameel’s statements in media about the freedom of assembly bill.

Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN), which is cited in the parliamentary committee report as an entity that provided written feedback on the bill was unable to comment on the bill at the time of press.

MDN said that the NGO had today received the final bill which had been passed by the parliament, and that they were currently reviewing it to establish how much of their recommendations had been featured in the final bill.

Minivan News tried to contact MP Mohamed Nasheed, who was not responding to calls at the time of press.

Chair of the committee MP Riyaz Rasheed and Vice Chair MP Ahmed Amir were also not responding to calls this evening.

Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) Vice President Ahmed Tholal’s phone was switched off at the time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Committee approves six month jail term for violating MPs’ privileges

Parliament’s Privileges Committee completed work Sunday (December 23) on the parliamentary privileges bill submitted back in 2010 by MP Riyaz Rasheed. The proposed bill will now be forwarded to the People’s Majlis floor for a vote.

Under the draft legislation, a person found guilty of committing acts that are deemed disrespectful towards parliament, or that interferes with the Majlis work, would face a fine or a jail sentence of between three to six months.

The bill further stipulates that members of the public found guilty of disruption while attending the People’s Majlis to view proceedings would either be fined between MVR 500 or MVR 1000 or sentenced to jail for three to six months.

Moreover, persons found guilty of providing false information to the parliament or any of its committees would be fined an amount between MVR 3,000 and MVR 10,000 or sentenced to three to six months in jail.

On the arrest of serving MPs, the draft legislation conceded that parliamentarians could be arrested if they are seen committing a crime, but stipulated that the Speaker of Parliament must be notified at the earliest time following such an arrest.

In the event that an MP has to be arrested under different circumstances, police must provide a court order obtained through an application by the Prosecutor General.

The bill additionally stipulates that even when under arrest, MPs must be allowed to attend parliament proceedings.

In contrast to existing parliamentary rules of procedure, the draft privileges bill allows the arrest of MPs even at a time when a no-confidence motion against a state official has been tabled in the parliament.

The bill however stipulates that MPs under arrest must be allowed to participate in no-confidence votes.

The bill also states that no MP must be summoned to a court of law or any institution in a manner which may interfere with their official work at the parliament or in any of its committees.

It further states that a court summons must not be delivered to an MP while they are on the premises of the parliament building.

Additionally, the bill states that no MP must misuse his elected post or any information gathered in official capacity for personal benefit or to facilitate such benefit to a third party.

Minivan News attempted to contact Chair of the Privileges Committee MP Hussain Mohamed, but his phone was switched off at the time of press.

In the two years that the privileges bill has been pending at the committee stage, groups of concerned citizens have demonstrated against some of the clauses in the bill.

Some concerns raised by the group include the inhibition of criticism against parliamentarians, large amounts of remuneration, special treatment in criminal justice proceedings and a pension scheme unique to parliamentarians.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Deputy Speaker Nazim slams prosecutor general over work rate on corruption cases

Deputy Speaker and People’s Alliance (PA) MP Ahmed Nazim has claimed Prosecutor General (PG) Ahmed Muizzu had failed to either come to a decision on or forward to court some 72 percent of cases submitted to his office by the Maldives’ Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC).

The criticisms levelled by Nazim, who was cleared earlier this year of several corruption charges, were dismissed by PG Muizzu as being inaccurate.

Nazim’s criticisms were raised today during a parliamentary debate on the Anti-Corruption Bill submitted by independent MP Mohamed Nasheed.

“We are seeing that regardless of how much we empower the ACC, the cases they complete through investigation often are blocked from reaching the courts,” Nazim stated, while also pointing out the importance of further empowering the ACC.  “As found recently by the Public Finance Committee, 72 percent of the cases submitted to the PG Office by ACC in the past three years remain unattended on the PG’s desk. The PG has neither submitted these to the courts, nor shared his decisions on them.”

Nazim also criticised the appointment of people allegedly involved in ongoing corruption cases to senior government posts.

“Because the cases [in which these individuals are allegedly involved] are not getting prosecuted, they are getting more opportunities to continue with their corrupt actions. I therefore think it is important for us to amend the PG Act once we pass this current bill. We need to define a duration within which the PG must decide on cases submitted to his office. If we want to eradicate corruption, we cannot allow the PG to keep cases untouched on his desk in this manner,” Nazim said, criticizing Muizzu’s performance in office.

“Unless the corrupt are tried in courts and given due penalties, they will not be reluctant to continue with their acts of corruption.”

“Honourables in parliament will know most about corruption”: MP Mohamed Rasheed

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Mohamed Rasheed criticized fellow elected officials, stating that the “Honourables in parliament will know most about corruption”, going on to detail some of the corruption allegations that have been raised against individual MPs during the 17th People’s Majlis.

Rasheed also raised a procedural point while Nazim was speaking, saying he was very happy that “the most corrupt man in the Maldives is talking about the anti-corruption bill.”

The procedural point was overruled by Parliamentary Speaker Abdulla Shahid.

Rasheed further criticized Nazim, saying: “He is the man who raised the pay of all the judges, gave them above a MVR 100,000. How can we stop corruption when the chair of the Public Finance Committee has thrown all our judges into corruption?  Some people who are infamous in the line of corruption are part of this 17th People’s Majlis as ‘honourables’, and this has broadened the chances of corruption.”

MP Ahmed Nazim had four cases of corruption against him, all of which concerned public procurement tenders of the former Atolls Ministry secured through fraudulent documents and paper companies. By February 23rd, the Criminal Court cleared Nazim from all corruption charges, stating at the time that evidence submitted to prove the allegations against him was “not enough to criminalise.”

Meanwhile, ACC Vice President Muaviz Rasheed today stated that issue of cases being delayed at the PG Office was a standing issue, adding that the commission had not calculated any specific percentages regarding workload.

“There are some major corruption cases that are getting delayed, including the border control case and the Disaster Management Centre case,” Rasheed said.

“Perhaps it is just a matter of lack of resources. Probably all the institutions are just facing similar setbacks,” Rasheed added.

Meanwhile, Prosecutor General Ahmed Muizzu told Minivan News that he did not believe that the percentage rate of the number of cases sent in by the ACC left unattended by his office was as significant as 72 percent.

“The majority of the cases sent to the PG’s Office comes from the police. Less than one percent of this amount is sent by the ACC, the Police Integrity Commission, Customs or other institutions. By December 20, we have closed 75 percent of all the cases that have been submitted here, meaning we have either rejected or sent them to court.”

“Of course, there might be some cases submitted by the ACC among the pending cases, but I don’t believe it would amount to as much as 72 percent,” Muizzu said.

Muizzu added that sometimes “different aspects of the investigation” were submitted to the PG’s office for review.  He said that in such instances, his office would neither formally reject or close the cases.

“We do not lag behind compared to other institutions dealing with criminal justice,” Muizzu said.

MP Ahmed Nazim was not responding to calls at the time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP requests parliament look into alleged police cover-up of bystander’s death

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) filed a motion Wednesday (December 12) asking parliament to look into the death of Abdulla Gasim Ibrahim, accusing the Maldives Police Service of a cover-up.

Leaked CCTV footage released in early December threw into dispute the official police account of 43-year-old Gasim’s death. Police had initially stated that he had died due to injuries caused in a motorcycle accident, while the footage appears to reveal that a police officer had some involvement in the incident.

In the footage, a police officer is seen attempting to stop a speeding motorcycle suspected of being used by thieves to flee a crime scene.  Using his baton, the officer in the footage appears to hit out at the vehicle’s driver, causing him to lose control of the bike that then collides with Gasim’s motorcycle.

The MDP has submitted a motion to the parliament asking the Committee on Oversight of the Executive to look into the matter, and hold those responsible accountable.

“The police have not shared details of the actual events with either the family or the public. The video footage that was leaked shows that things happened in a way absolutely contrary to the initial reports. That is why we have submitted the motion and asked the parliament to look into this and make the authorities answerable to this,” MDP MP Mohamed Aslam said.

The motion was submitted by Mohamed Aslam and supported by MPs Ilyas Labeeb and Mohamed Rasheed – all from the same party.

Police Integrity Commission (PIC) President Abdulla Waheed stated today that he was out of Male’ on an official trip and was unaware of case proceedings at the moment.

Meanwhile PIC Director General Fathimath Sarira, speaking to Minivan News on December 3, has stated that the commission had previously received the footage and an investigation was nearing the point of conclusion.

Gasim’s family has said they have received no updates to date on how the case was proceeding either from the PIC or the police.

“I don’t know what else we can do. [police] are elusive and very slow, which is why we keep calling back. All I want is justice,” Naseema Khaleel, Gasim’s wife previously stated.

Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) Vice President Ahmed Tholal was not responding to calls at the time of press.

The MDP and former President Mohamed Nasheed had previously also released statements condemning the alleged cover-up of the incident, calling on Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz to take responsibility for the matter.

“I am shocked and appalled by the leaked video, which appears to show a policeman hitting a motorcyclist in the head with a baton, which led to the death of an innocent bystander,” Nasheed stated at the time.

“Under [President Mohamed] Waheed’s administration, we are seeing a return to the thuggish brutality of Maldives’ authoritarian past. I implore the international community to pressure the Waheed government to immediately and impartially investigate this case, to bring human rights abusers in the security forces to book, to cease its harassment of opposition members, and hold early elections so democracy can be restored.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MP Muthalib calls for killing of former President’s Special Envoy Ibrahim Hussain Zaki

Adhaalath-aligned MP Ibrahim Muthalib has called in parliament for former President Mohamed Nasheed’s Special Envoy, Ibrahim Hussain Zaki, to be “hanged to death” as a “traitor to the Maldives”.

Speaking in the parliamentary chamber on November 26, Muthalib called for the arrest of Zaki, claiming that “traitors have to be killed” else they will “destroy the country”.

Muthalib’s comments follow those made by Adhaalath Party Leader Sheik Imran at the ‘GMR go home’ rally earlier this month.

Speaking at the rally, Sheik Imran reportedly stated that Zaki would “leave both worlds” on the day GMR is “chased out of the country”.

The latest threat comes after Zaki warned India that rising fundamentalism in the Maldives threatened the country’s economic interests.

Zaki told reporters that the attack on the GMR contract is “an Islamic fundamentalist issue”, adding: “When Islamic fundamentalism takes over the country, if the Lashkar-e-Taiba can take over the country, then I have no choice [but to call in forces from India].”

Zaki previously claimed that many top figures within the Adhaalath Party were educated in Pakistan and draw their philosophy from the hard line Salafist form of Islam.

Indian media reported on Thursday that: “Zaki, 67, a former minister in successive Maldivian governments headed by former presidents Maumoon Gayoom and [Mohamed] Nasheed, said he would have called for Indian forces to protect the multi-million-dollar investment by Indian infrastructure firm GMR Group.”

India’s Daily News & Analysis reported Zaki as saying that fundamentalists in the Maldives “have links with terror group Lashkar-e-Toiba” and warned that if Islamic fundamentalism goes unchecked the country could turn into a terror state that threatens Indian security.

Muthalib alleged that Zaki’s motivation to defend the GMR deal came from fear of having to spend “a long time in jail” or face “a death sentence” as an investigation would prove that he had accepted “large amounts of money” as bribes from the Indian company.

“Honourable Speaker, these are traitors to the nation. They have to be killed. If they are not killed and left to live, the country will be ruined. They will destroy the country,” Muttalib said, as recorded in parliament’s minutes.

“Therefore, I am calling on the Maldivian government one more time to arrest Ibrahim Hussain Zaki as quickly as possible and, after conducting a trial against him, to hang him to death as a traitor the the Maldives.”

MP Muthalib further alleged that Zaki was “the chief architect” of 1988 failed coup attempt and called on the government to launch an investigation into his alleged involvement.

However, the article in which Zaki was quoted, notes that he is “known in India as the man who telephoned then Indian prime minister Rajiv Gandhi to seek help when Gayoom was threatened by a coup in 1988”.

Muhthalib stated that Zaki was “once again attempting to have Malabars invade the country”. He also called on the government to strip Zaki of the title of honour previously given to him by the state.

Following the remarks, Speaker Abdulla Shahid said calling for a person’s death in the Majlis chamber was “unacceptable.”

Zaki’s remarks “threat to national security”: Defence Ministry

In a statement on Friday (November 23), the Defence Ministry condemned Zaki’s remarks made to Indian media “in the harshest terms” and contended that “such actions are very dangerous [threats] to national security and encourage activities that would harm the country’s independence and sovereignty.”

Zaki responded to the criticism faced by his comments through a statement released yesterday (November 25), claiming that his comments were “misrepresented”.

“The comments I made were directly related to long-standing security cooperation between India and the Maldives, and the common interest of both countries in ensuring peace, stability, law and order in the Maldives, and the emerging international law obligation of Responsibility to Protect. They respond directly to the growing political violence in the Maldives with clear international dimensions,” said Zaki.

He further states that it is “ludicrous” to suggest that India would receive a request that violates the sovereignty of the Maldives.

“My comments in India were completely within the framework of the United Nations resolution 44/51 on Protection and Security of Small States, which the Maldives proposed to the UN in 1989 and of which I am the author. They were fully consistent with the principles set out in UN resolution 2625 and with the regional and the bilateral agreements in force between the two countries.

“To suggest that a call for proactive regional security cooperation was tantamount to treason only reflects the international outlook of those currently governing the Maldives; and I strongly disassociate myself from any such imputation,” added Zaki.

Political groups within the Maldives have been calling for the government to annul the Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) development contract with Indian infrastructure giant GMR.

The Adhaalath party have played a pivotal role in the anti-GMR campaign, staging multiple protests and an issuing an ultimatum for the government to adhere to.

The first six-day ultimatum to “reclaim” the airport was originally announced by the party earlier this month. However, this was extended to November 30 after no action had been taken by the government by the end of the six-day deadline.

Following the latest ultimatum Sheikh Imran warned of “direct action” should there be no conclusion to the dispute by November 30.

Defence of Mohamed Fahmy

Muthalib rcently caused controversy over his comments relating to the dismissal of President of the Civil Service Commission Mohamed Fahmuy on charges of sexual harassment.

Muthalib spoke against removing Fahmy, excusing his actions as being “encouraged” by Satan.

“If we are to make our women nude and exposed, and then send them out to mingle with men, then why speak of protecting them? Honourable Speaker, this cannot be done in this manner. If a man and a woman are in a room alone, Satan will be there as the third person and will encourage sinful activities,” Muthalib said.

“Their place is in their houses, to serve their husbands and look after children. If we give them the opportunity to go out and mingle then we can no longer talk about their dignity and protection. It is people who harass women who are now speaking in their defense here today,” he further added.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MPs claim bill on the right to remain silent contradicts constitution

Parliament has divided opinions on the Bill on the Right to remain silent submitted by independent member of parliament, Mohamed Nasheed.

The bill had its second reading in parliament on Tuesday, following the first reading on October 3. During the ensuing one hour debate, Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MPs mainly spoke against the bill, while most MPs aligned with the ruling coalition supported the bill and advocated for it to be expedited.

“The right to remain silent is a fundamental basis on which the criminal justice system in many other countries are built upon. They do not have to explicitly define this in their laws as it is already well established in their respective societies,” Nasheed explained in parliament today.

“Our case is different. We first heard the phrase ‘the right to remain silent’ with the ratification of the 2008 constitution,” Nasheed said, adding that unlike other countries, Maldivians did not have any local material to refer to for better understanding of the right.

He said that the bill therefore aimed to define clearly what comes and what does not come within the boundaries of the right to remain silent, where this right can be applied and the legal outcomes that may ensue.

No threat to MPs

A number of MPs, some from the ruling coalition parties and some independent, spoke in favour of the bill. They insisted that narrowing the right to remain silent would assist in police investigations, thereby contributing to bringing down crime rates.

Some MPs stated that this bill only caused inconvenience to criminals, explicitly stating that it posed no risk to MPs and politicians.

Independent MP Ahmed Amir said that the MPs themselves needed to prove to the nation that all of them were people who refrained from getting involved in criminal activities, asking “Why then must we be concerned about this bill? I do not believe any member here needs to be concerned about this bill.”

Amir said the parliament had narrowed the same right in the Act on Sexual harassment against children, adding “why then are we so reluctant to pass an act to narrow down this right as a whole? That this may cause a loss to us, or the nation, is in my view an irresponsible stance to take.”

Meanwhile, DRP MP Mausoom stated the importance of expediting the bill, pledging complete support to the draft bill.

“At a time when we started moving towards democracy, one reason which led to a number of citizens expressing discontent with a democratic system is that the rights of criminals began exceeding those of regular citizens,” Mausoom said, stating that it was of extreme importance that the bill on the floor be sent to the relevant committee and passed at  the earliest.

PPM MP Ahmed ‘RedWave’ Saleem also supported the bill, and put forward his opinion in parliament.

“On judgement day you cannot exercise the right to remain silent. If you do, your organs will speak for you. However, organs cannot speak today, and so we must speak with our own tongues. If police ask you if you have committed a crime, you can simply say no even if you have committed it, so what is there to be afraid of?” Saleem said.

Addressing the MDP MPs Saleem said, “I want to tell my MDP brothers that this poses no threat to them, only to criminals. There is no threat to any politicians either.”

Contradictions with the Constitution

MPs who spoke against the bill pointed out that the bill directly contradicted articles in the constitution.

Article 20 of the proposed bill states that should a person choose to remain silent, after which sufficient evidence is provided in courts to prove without doubt that he is guilty as accused, then his decision to remain silent can be viewed as further proof against him. It further says that this is because instead of trying to prove his innocence, the accused had chosen to remain silent.

MDP MPs Ali Riza and Ali Waheed stated that this article was in direct contradiction to Articles 51(a), 51(c), 51(d), 51(e), 51(h) and 52 of the constitution.

Ali Waheed further stated, “I do not believe that any Act has the power to completely turn around a right guaranteed in Chapter 2 of the Constitution.”

From the government coalition parties, Jumhoree Party MP Abdulla Jabir also spoke against the proposed bill.

“We have heard in the past that two or three people would be arrested, tortured, forced to confess, and then claiming the investigation to be completed, these people would be sentenced undeservingly. Are we to move back into that again?” he said.

Jabir stated that he would not support the bill as he felt it would bring back the culture of torture, forced confessions and convictions of the innocent.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Majlis committee votes to change party registration and funding requirements

The parliament’s Independent Institutions Committee has voted to change the requirements concerning registration and state funding for political parties, according to the committee’s chair and Independent MP for Kulhudhufushi South Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed.

Writing in his personal blog (Dhivehi), MP Nasheed revealed that “a clear majority” of the committee voted in favour of requiring parties to gain 5000 members before it can be officially registered, and 10,000 members before becoming eligible for state funds. The current requirement is 3000 members for both under the current regulations governing political parties.

The requirements were stipulated in the draft legislation on political parties currently being reviewed by the committee.

Nasheed expressed confidence that the committee’s decision would not be overturned on the Majlis floor when the bill is put up for a vote.

“When the law is passed, the current registered parties with less than 5,000 members would be given a six month period to reach the figure. If a party fails to reach that figure by the end of the period, the particular party would be dissolved,” Nasheed explained.

The changes would currently impact upon President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan’s own Guamee Ittihad Party (GIP) which has only 2,538 members, as well the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) with 2,199 members.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

China gifts RMB 500,000 worth of office equipment to parliament

The Chinese government has donated RMB 500,000 (US$79,945) worth of office equipment to parliament during an official visit by a high-level delegation headed by Li Changchun, China’s fifth highest-ranking leader and member of the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China Central Committee.

According to the People’s Majlis secretariat, the delegation arrived on a two-day visit on Friday afternoon on an invitation from the Maldivian government.

The delegation visited parliament on Saturday for a meeting with Speaker Abdulla Shahid. At the meeting, the dignitaries discussed the close diplomatic ties between the nations forged 40 years ago, noting that Sino-Maldives diplomatic relations have been a model for fostering mutual respect and friendship between big and small nations.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)