Tag: Majlis

IMF pursues government and parliament cost cutting with Maldives mission

The Maldives government has claimed it remains committed to working with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in addressing its concerns on cutting state expenditure, following protests claimed to have been instigated as part of a “youth movement” concerned over rising living costs.

Press Secretary for the President Mohamed Zuhair told Minivan News that the IMF had travelled to the Maldives this week to meet with various organisations and individuals, including President Mohamed Nasheed and the Majlis’ Public Finance Committee as part of a mission to oversee a national economic recovery plan.

“They were visiting as part of a wider mission in the country including meeting with the president where they retread concerns over plans to reduce state expenditure,” he said.

The government’s fiscal policy has become a major national issue after a week of consecutive protests held earlier this month across Male’, which organisers claimed had been instigated initially by young Maldivians and supported by opposition politicians.

Protesters are said to have been particularly concerned with the government’s controversial decision to last month devalue its currency, allowing the rufiya to be traded within 20 percent of the pegged rate of Rf12.85 to the dollar – a move welcomed by the IMF.

Amidst the backdrop of perceived public and political dissatisfaction with government finances, Zuhair said that the IMF’s meeting with the Public Finance Committee had aimed to encourage parliament to consider government initiatives to try and increase direct state revenues to balance budget deficits.

“There are several bills on taxation currently under consideration in parliament and an amendment to the Tourism Goods and Services Tax (GST) – implemented in January this year on all services and goods purchased by tourists – from 3.5 percent to five percent,” he said. “I think it is interesting to note that there are many resort owners in parliament.”

While supporting initiatives to reduce costs that have led to ongoing public protests in the country, the Treasurer of The Maldives National Chamber of Commerce and Industry (MNCCI), Ahmed Adheeb Abdul Gafoor, said that the the planned addition of a minimum wage and a Goods and Services Tax (GST) on all businesses operating in the country needed to be gradually implemented.

Speaking earlier this month, Abdul Gafoor claimed that gradual introduction would be vital to ensure the nation’s fledgling economy can cope with any potential changes.

Alongside a parallel aim to try and create new job opportunities for young people, Zuhair claimed that the government had in general been closely following the recommendations of the IMF in trying to cut the state’s wage bill for political appointees and civil servants.

To this end, he said that the government had moved to try and reduce the wages of political appointees by 20 percent and civil servants by 15 percent.

“In enacting these cuts we were hoping that the Majlis would follow and also cut wages. The institution failed to do this as well as the judiciary,” he claimed. “The government as a result had to move to reinstate the wages it had cut.”

Zuhair claimed that the government had been working in line with IMF recommendations and had even tried to perform additional cuts unrequested by the finance body in areas such as reducing appointee wage spending.

Despite pushing ahead with its attempted financial reforms, the government has said that it has opted to meet with some of the youth figures said to be at the heart of organising protests seen in Male’ this month.

However, the session held yesterday was reportedly cut short when Finance Minister Ahmed Inaz walked out at the meeting claiming that the youth delegation included the leader of the opposition-allied People’s Alliance (PA) sports wing, and two others he claimed were “new political figures” created by senior party officials.

“I waited in the meeting until we could address the real issues, but they kept on criticising the government policy and some of the government projects,’’ Inaz told Minivan News. ‘’I did not want to have a heated political debate – we went there to negotiate with the youth regarding the dollar issues, not for a political debate.’’

Mohamed Ahsan, a spokesperson from the youth delegation, said the group was unable to clarify information it wanted from the Finance Ministry as the minister had left the meeting, though senior representatives of the Maldives Monetary Authority remained.

“The MMA officials were very cooperative,” he said. “We found out that the government have not been implementing the MMA’s suggestions to its full extent,’’ said Ahsan. “The MMA clarified almost all the information we required.”

He also said the finance minister “took it politically” because a PA member was present at the meeting.

‘’We have decided to recommence the protests, but due to exams we have temporarily delayed it,’’ he said. ‘’Once the examinations are over we will restart the protests.’’

A first round of negotiations held last week were described as “very upsetting” by the opposition’s Gayoom faction after the delegation accused President’s Office representative Shauna Aminath of stating that the “political solution” to the country’s economic woes was the arrest for the former President.

“We met with four people who claimed to represent youth,” Shauna said. “They presented a piece of paper they said was a youth proposal, but there was almost no discussion of what was on it.
“They talked a little about youth unemployment, and the rising price of milk, cooking oil and petrol. They said that young people did not have enough money to pay for coffees or petrol for their motorbikes.”

The group of four had “repeated the same messages being aired by [opposition] political parties: that the government had sold the airport to GMR, Dhiraggu to [Cable and Wireless], and that six people had control of the entire economy.

“Then they said they understood that the government’s [managed float of the rufiya] was necessary, but were concerned the government had not spoken about it beforehand.”

Back in March, MP for the People’s Alliance (PA) party and a member of the Majlis’ Public Finance Committee said that he believed current government policy was ultimately stifling economic development, claiming administrative costs within the civil service remained a notable problem.

“We have small percentage [of funds] to invest in the economy. We cannot move finances to a higher level though as the government doesn’t have the right policies to do this,” he claimed. “For instance, we need to reduce the number of [inhabited] islands by linking them and cutting the overall number of cost centres required for decentralisation.

The comments were made as the IMF claimed that the Maldives economy remained “unsustainable” even after cuts made to the annual 2011 budget, as it concluded its Article IV consultation earlier during the year.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Gayoom loses defamation case over NYT “looters” article

Former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom has lost a long-running defamation case against the editor of Miadhu newspaper Abdul ‘Gabey’ Latheef.

Gayoom sued Latheef over an article published on June 13, 2010 which referenced allegations of corruption against the former President made in a New York Times (NYT) report.

That story was based on an audit report of former Presidential palace Theemuge, published by Auditor General Ibrahim Naeem, a damning indictment of the former government’s spending habits.

These, according to the NYT article, included an estimated “US$9.5 million spent buying and delivering a luxury yacht from Germany for the president, US$17 million on renovations of the presidential palace and family houses, a saltwater swimming pool, badminton court, gymnasium, 11 speed boats and 55 cars, including the country’s only Mercedes-Benz.”

“And the list goes on, from Loro Piana suits and trousers to watches and hefty bills for medical services in Singapore for ‘important people and their families. There was a US$70,000 trip to Dubai by the first lady in 2007, a US$20,000 bill for a member of the family of the former president to stay a week at the Grand Hyatt in Singapore. On one occasion, diapers were sent to the islands by airfreight from Britain for Mr Gayoom’s grandson.”

Onus of proof

The Civil Court ruled today that as both articles were based on a state audit report, the information made public by the country’s first independent auditor general should be considered valid unless proven otherwise.

The court judgment added that there was no legal basis for individuals or media outlets to be held responsible for proving the truth or falsehood of an official audit report.

Delivering the judgment, Judge Mariyam Nihayath said that while the court believed the articles in question could be damaging to Gayoom’s reputation, information publicised in an audit report must be considered factual unless proven otherwise.

“Regardless of how damaging statements made or information provided is to the plaintiff’s honour or dignity, if the statement or information is true, [defamation law] states that it cannot be considered defamatory,” she said.

Latheef told Minivan News today that the court case was the first case Gayoom had lost in 32 years, and was a landmark case for freedom of the media.

“The media must be able to report on independent authorities such as the Auditor General’s Office or the Anti-Corruption Commission,” he said. “His lawyers said in court four or five times that they wanted to stop the media writing about these things.”

The court’s ruling meant that Gayoom was obliged to sue the source of the allegations, the Auditor General’s office, rather than the media that reported on it, Latheef said.

“[Gayoom] has been saying for three years he would take the Auditor General to court, but he hasn’t because he knows he will lose. But he thinks that, because I’m just an ordinary man, he can sue me,” he said.

Latheef said that one of Gayoom’s lawyers had approached him to settle out of court, but said he had refused as that would not have resolved the issue of media freedom at stake.

“They also approached me indirectly through some of my close friends to say why didn’t I settle and say sorry in court, and then they could support me. I said it was not compensation I needed.”

Latheef said Gayoom’s lawyers had told him after the verdict that they intended to appeal in the High Court.

“I am ready to go all the way to the Supreme Court,” said Latheef.

Gayoom’s spokesperson Mohamed ‘Mundhu’ Shareef had not responded to Minivan News at time of press.

Head of the Maldives Journalists Association (MJA), Ahmed ‘Hiriga’ Zahir, said he agreed with the ruling and felt that it was a good precedent for the country’s journalists.

“The NYT reported on the audit report and Mr Latheef reported on the NYT story. I agree with the court’s judgement,” Hiriga said, concurring that the media was not under obligation to prove the veracity of official government reports.

“The authenticity of the audit report is a different question, and the accusation is that the Auditor General was biased and that the report was politically motivated. That was the basis of the argument by Gayoom’s lawyer,” Hiriga said.

“Politically motivated”

The opposition have steadfastly maintained that the report was a politically-motivated attempt to sully the then-president’s reputation prior to the election. Naeem was however appointed by Gayoom.

“It is common knowledge that Naeem’s audit reports were both politically-motivated and riddled with inaccuracies. References from such documents are unbecoming of professional journalists, albeit the MDP government utilises them as handbooks to achieve their political objectives,” said the DRP in a statement following publication of the article.

“The MDP government, in an year and a half of searching through its ‘presidential commission’, has failed to find anything that they can pin against President Gayoom to defame his character. The MDP government will continue to fail in their sinister plots,” the DRP statement read.

“The DRP will take all necessary action to alert the international community to the government’s sinister motives behind the allegations against the former president. We condemn the government for its continued attempts to shroud its incompetence in running the country behind cheap propaganda gimmicks.”

Naeem’s tenure following publication of over 30 audit reports, alleging rampant corruption and “organised crime” by the Gayoom administration, was short-lived.

On March 24 last year, Naeem sent a list of current and former government ministers to the Prosecutor General, requesting they be prosecuted for failure to declare their assets.  Naeem cited Article 138 of the Constitution that requires every member of the Cabinet to “annually submit to the Auditor General a statement of all property and monies owned by him, business interests and all assets and liabilities.”

He then held a press conference: “A lot of the government’s money was taken through corrupt [means] and saved in the banks of England, Switzerland, Singapore and Malaysia,” Naeem said, during his first press appearance in eight months.

Five days later he was dismissed by the opposition-majority parliament on allegations of corruption by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), for purportedly using the government’s money to buy a tie and visit Thulhaidhu in Baa Atoll.

The motion to dismiss Naeem was put forward by the parliamentary Public Accounts Committee (PAC), chaired by Deputy Speaker and member of opposition-allied People’s Alliance (PA), Ahmed Nazim, who the previous week had pleaded not guilty to charges of conspiracy to defraud the former Ministry of Atolls Development while he was Managing Director of Namira Engineering and Trading Pvt Ltd.

Nazim was today dismissing claims from opposition MPs that he has dodged Criminal Court summons regarding the matter eight times to date.

The parliament has meanwhile yet to approve a replacement auditor general, with the finance committee refusing to endorse any of the candidates put forward so far by President Mohamed Nasheed.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Deputy speaker would “welcome” heightened transparency in the Majlis

Deputy Parliamentary Speaker Ahmed Nazim has claimed that he would welcome moves to promote transparency in the People’s Majlis, such as revealing the financial assets of MPs to the public, but added similar commitments would also be needed from the country’s judiciary and executive.

Speaking to Minivan News earlier this week, Nazim, who is also a serving member of the People’s Alliance (PA) party and the Majlis’ Public Accounts Committee, said he would “fully support” any initiative to improve the image of parliament such as providing details of the property and assets of MPs. However, the deputy speaker said he believed that the appointment of an auditor general, a position that has been vacant since March 2010 when Ibrahim Naeem lost a parliamentary no-confidence motion by 43 votes to 28, was needed to oversee such a process.

The claims were made as debate over whether MPs should publicly declare details of their assets and income was found to have reached an impasse, with opinion divided in the Majlis over whether doing so was a constitutional necessity.

The issue had also been raised by the political NGO, Transparency Maldives, which claimed that it was having difficulties in getting details on the assets and financial status of MPs despite parliament showing a generally more open attitude to supplying information.

The NGO, which operates a project called Parliament Watch alongside the Maldivian Democracy Network, believes that the right of the public to know the financial details of their elected representatives in the Majlis was “in the spirit” of the constitution. Transparency Maldives added that it believed that transparency within the actions and decision making of parliament had nonetheless improved in recent years despite possible concerns about MP finances.

Although the decision for public declarations of MPs’ financial statements was rejected this week, parliament also failed to agree to two additional recommendations that financial statements should be released only under a court order or to the public upon investigations by state institutions.

On Tuesday (April 19), Nazim in his capacity as deputy speaker of the Majlis, said the matter had been declared “void” on the basis that neither proposal was accepted by MPs, but he added that parliament’s Secretary General had sought counsel on the matter and would go ahead according to the “rules of procedure”.

Speaking before the vote, Nazim said that the issue had been sent to parliament by the Majlis’ secretary general over concerns about an isolated issue raised by the country’s Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) in requiring the financial statements of one unidentified MP.

Under present standing orders that outline parliament procedure, the deputy speaker claimed that sitting MPs were required to provide information to the Majlis by the end of October each year detailing their annual finances between the twelve months from May 29 to May 28.

Nazim said that amidst the ensuing debate over whether these statements should be made freely available to the public, the decision to do would definitely serve to “improve the image of parliament.”

While provisionally welcoming the initiative, Nazim claimed that he believed the Majlis would only public release details of their financial status alongside a similar commitment by judges and senior cabinet ministers.

“It would be for the auditor general to collect this [financial] information from cabinet ministers, judges and government members,” he said, accepting that the position had been vacant for more than 12 months.

“No [financial] information has been put into the public domain, once this happens the Majlis would consider following suit.”

Presidential Press Secretary Mohamed Zuhair told Minivan News that ultimately, the decision on whether to make the financial statements of MPs available to the public was down to parliament itself and not related to the government.

“It all depends on how transparent they [parliament] wish to be,” he claimed. “There are opportunities to be accountable, yet holding back on these details might lead to allegations [of possible corruption].

When asked whether cabinet member were themselves considering or already required to reveal details of their earnings and assets, Zuhair added that the issue related to a very different kind of social contract that they were bound to.

“Government employees are banned from working in the public sector or within any positions that might create a conflict of interest,” he added.

Aiman Rasheed, Projects Coordinator for NGO Transparency Maldives, claimedthat MPs were generally operating in a much more transparent manner during the current parliament.  However, he added that while parliamentarians were not required to supply their financial statements to the public, choosing to do so would be more in the spirit of the constitution.

Through its work on the Parliament Watch project, Rasheed claimed that at present NGOs like Transparency Maldives were finding it very difficult to know which MPs submitted their financial statements to the Majlis by the required deadline of October, with requests for a detailed list of members still not being met.

“There is obviously a lot of discomfort about this in the Majlis,” he said. “But for the most part, documents [relating to MPs] are available. As far as we are concerned this parliament is really open.”

Despite welcoming possible improvements in the transparency of the Majlis, Rasheed said that the Parliament Watch project would be releasing a report in the next few months detailing its findings in trying to bring greater scrutiny to parliamentary records in relation to members’ attendances and work rates.

However, amidst the debates over public accountability in the Majlis, a number of MPs have raised criticisms of the role of media in shaping public perceptions of parliament and its work.

(Maldivian Democratic Party) MP “Reeko” Moosa Manik said this week that while he agreed with the constitutional principle of publicly declaring assets and wealth, it was not an advisable time to do so in “today’s political atmosphere.”

The MDP parliamentary group leader remains embroiled in an acrimonious feud with private broadcaster DhiTV, owned by business magnate “Champa” Mohamed Moosa.

Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) MP Riyaz Rasheed concurred with Moosa, claiming that parliament should be concerned about concerted efforts by some media outlets to “disgrace and humiliate MPs.”

“This is not being done by DhiTV’s owner or its management, we know that now,” he said. “But previously we believed that it was planned and carried out by the management there. But that is not the case.”

Echoing a claim made by several MPs in past weeks, Riyaz alleged that unsuccessful candidates for parliament and their family members or associates were behind hostile media coverage of parliament.

“In truth, when the financial status of MPs is made known, some MPs will be worried and others will embarrassed,” said minority opposition People’s Alliance (PA) MP Abdul Azeez Jamal Abubakur.

“That is, those who have a lot of money might be very worried and those who do not will be embarrassed. Therefore, at a time when our status is being revealed in the media, I don’t accept at all that these facts should be available to just anyone.”

Independent MP Mohamed Nasheed meanwhile argued that MPs should not shirk from their constitutional responsibilities by blaming the media. “We will answer in the media to the things said in the media,” he said.

Along with debates over accountability, Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Dr Abdulla Mausoom claimed yesterday that despite the cancellation of a scheduled meeting in the Majlis’ main chamber , work was still ongoing in the parliament, which he believed was playing its part in pushing legislation to allow law enforcement officials to deal with violent crimes, despite certain “public perceptions” to the contrary.

The opposition party MP claimed that parliament was stepping up its workload to ensure the government, as the country’s executive branch, had the right powers and capabilities to uphold the law.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament cancelled over ‘lack of work’

Today’s main parliamentary session was cancelled the basis of there being no work on its agenda.

Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Dr Abdulla Mausoom has meanwhile claimed that the Majlis was nonetheless “on track” with its legislative duties and was being unfairly criticised for a perceived spike in gang violence across the country.

Speaking to Minivan News, Dr Mausoom claimed that despite the cancelation of a scheduled meeting in the Majlis’ main chamber today, committee work was still continuing in the parliament, which he believed was playing its part in pushing legislation to allow law enforcement officials to deal with violent crimes, despite certain “public perceptions” to the contrary. The opposition party MP claimed that parliament was stepping up its workload to ensure the government, as the country’s executive branch, had the right powers and capabilities to uphold the law.

While alleging that current statistics indicated that there were an estimated 460 people on the country’s streets who should be held in custody over their suspected involvement in criminal activity, Mausoom said he believed that national media had incorrectly created an impression that potential parliamentary failings were solely responsible.

“There are people who have been sentenced [for criminal behaviour] that are currently out on the street. There is a public perception that a lack of legislation has led to this,” he said. “The media perception is that more legislation is needed to do their work and that they have to be detained somehow. However, I do not think this is the case.”

Mausoom said that the formation by the president of a National Crime Prevention Committee and the passing during the current parliamentary session of a number of bills, such as measures to punish individuals carrying items that can be used as weapons, served to highlight that the Majlis was working to try and deal with public concerns about gang violence and other major crimes.

“MPs and opposition parties have made agreements to try and work together to ensure major bills are passed quickly,” he said. “Two of the bills currently in the Majlis relate to criminal process and witness protection, but these will take time as they are very technical.”

Mausoom added that he understood possible frustrations from the public that parliament’s main session had been cancelled and would not reconvene till next week after Deputy Speaker Ahmed Nazim said that certain MPs wishing to present bills to the floor were unavailable to do so today.

However, Mausoom claimed that “public perceptions” about the cancellation of today’s main session and wider concerns that MPs may not be acting professionally were failing to address wider societal problems concerning crime that he believed represented a failure of the government to deal with the issue.

“The Majlis is not the executive [governing] branch, we are the legislative branch,” he said. “My question to the government would be; what is the missing piece of legislation that is preventing you from doing your jobs and protecting people?”

Mausoom’s comment come after parliamentary speaker and fellow DRP MP Abdulla Shahid told Minivan News last month that he believed that while the Majlis had become much more productive in the number of bills and legislation it was passing, the institution had still failed to live up to public expectations.

“The three branches of government are trying to deal with a situation where, as in any transition, the expectations of the public are at a very high level. When you have a new democracy come in, citizens will be wanting things to change overnight. [These expectations] have been seen in many countries,” the speaker said at the time. “The challenges that we have here – with the judiciary and parliament – are not because we are unable to perform, but that we are unable to perform to the expectations of the people.”

Shahid accepted that subjects such as outlining a clear and clarified penal code, as well as an Evidence Bill to support judicial reform and policing, were vital areas needed to be addressed by MPs, with partisan behaviour between rival parties within the Majlis creating the impression that there was no interest in having such bills passed.

In order to facilitate a faster moving reform of criminal legislation, Shahid claimed that talks had been opened during March between the various political stakeholders required to finalise any agreements.

“I met with party leaders and also the chair of all the committees yesterday (March 30). There is the general desire amongst the leadership to find ways of increasing the productivity rate of the house. We feel even though we continue to do work ahead of what any other parliament had done, still we are far behind in meeting the public’s expectations,” he added.  “The reality is that we need to meet these public expectations. The committee chairs have given me an agreement that they will try and finds ways of fast tracking many of the bills, while political parties supplied an agreement that on issues on which they may disagree, they will endeavour to deal with the technical and more mundane bills faster.”

Aside from MPs working along partisan lines, Shahid said that the issue of language was another significant challenge for members to overcome – especially in translating very technical proposals relating to legal definitions into Dhivehi from other languages.

While other Commonwealth countries were able to take existing legislation and adapt the document accordingly, the Speaker took the example of the Penal Code. In its original English draft, put together by Professor Paul Robinson at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, the code was said to have perfect sense, yet the Speaker said it did not translate directly into the Dhivehi language.

The speaker’s comments were generally shared by certain local NGOs like Transparency Maldives, which claimed that it believed parliament was additionally failing to meet its responsibilities as set out in the national constitution.

Aiman Rasheed, Projects Coordinator for Transparency Maldives, told Minivan News earlier this month that although it accepted that there had been improvements within the effectiveness of the Majlis concerning the amount of legislation passed, the NGO was concerned that parliament had failed to work independently and pass vital bills such as a national Penal Code.

“Shahid is right when he says that parliament has failed to meet public expectations,” he claimed at the time. “It is not just in meeting public expectations that the Majlis has failed in, but constitutional expectations as well.”

Rasheed said that although parliament was holding the president and the executive accountable for their actions, he believed that there was a failure to review legislation in terms of financial and political impacts before it was being passed from parliamentary committees back to the Majlis.

Rasheed said that the NGO had spoken with 15 MPs from across a number of political parties including the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and the DRP as part of a project called Parliament Watch designed to try and put a spotlight on governance and political decision making. From these discussions, Rasheed claimed that the NGO had uncovered a wide consensus of concerns over parliament’s ability to review and research the legislative process.

“All the parliamentarians that we have spoken to said that they believed that the current set up is not sufficient for parliament to meet its constitutional requirements,” he said. “There is no proper system of review mechanisms [within parliament].”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Pension body CEO claims optional payment proposals endanger “social protection”

The CEO of the Pension Administration Office has attacked a proposed amendment to the 2009 Pension Act that would allow for optional payments into the scheme, claiming such a move would set back social protection in the country.

Haveeru today cited CEO Mohamed Hussein Manik as claiming  that although amendments may be needed to pension payments in the country, proposals forwarded by MPs to remove a mandatory seven percent wage payment from all state employees aged between 16 and 65 years would effectively undermine the scheme completely.

The claims were made following a week that has already seen changes made to the Pension Act; an amendment passed on Monday (April 11) served to delay inclusion to the pension scheme for expatriate workers employed within the Maldives by at least three years.

The sitting also saw an additional amendment proposed by minority opposition People’s Alliance (PA) MP Ahmed Nazim to exempt MPs from the pension scheme, however this did not pass after 41 MPs voted against it, while 29 voted in favour and five members abstained.

In considering amendments to allow certain individuals to opt out of the pensions scheme, Manik stressed reservations about optional payments

The pension body CEO also told journalists that he believed considerations to allow the removal of  funds from a pension scheme before an employee’s retirement would endanger the long-term stability of the national payment plan.

According to Haveeru’s report, every state employee is required under the Pension Act to be registered into the payment scheme, with an estimated 37,708 public workers currently contributing.  Some 2,500 private employers have also registered to pay into the pension programme ahead of a deadline scheduled for May 1 this year.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament confirms ongoing “confidential” investigation of JSC

Parliament’s Committee for Independent Commissions has confirmed it is conducting a closed-door investigation of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), the body responsible for the appointment of judges and oversight of the judiciary.

The JSC has been both the subject of a damning report by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and an investigation by the Anti-Corruption Commission into the JSC’s awarding of extraneous committee allowances.

Several judges – including Chief Judge of the Family Court Hassan Saeed – who were passed over for appointment to the High Court by the JSC have come forward to complain about issues relating to the JSC’s procedures after his appeal was dropped by the Supreme Court.

During a press conference held in parliament today, Committee Chair Mohamed Mujitaz confirmed that a sub-committee was conducting an ongoing investigation into the JSC, but said the members of the sub-committee had decided to keep the proceedings confidential.

According to Parliament’s regulations, closed door meetings can be held on issues relating to national security, law enforcement, or where a person is at risk of being defamed or perceived “as having committed a wrong.”

Minivan News understands that the three members of the Sub-Committee include Chair Ahmed Hanza, Mohamed Mujitaz and Independent MP Mohamed Nasheed. Hamza and Nasheed had not responded to Minivan News’ request for comment on the matter at time of press.

The President’s Member of the JSC, Aishath Velezinee, an outspoken whistleblower and critic of the JSC who has previously accused it of not just compromised independence but collusion with members of parliament to oust the executive, said the sub-committee had shown no interest in answering the letter of no-confidence she had sent in February 2010.

“On August 4 I sent a letter requesting an injunction order on the reappointment of judges until parliament had completed its investigation [of the JSC],” she said, adding that this too had gone unanswered.

Velezinee confirmed that JSC members had been summoned by the sub-committee, but had been informed that the questioning had related to her own conduct.

“The focus of the investigation appears to be taking action against me,” she claimed. “They’ve also asked for attendance sheets. Why is this being conducted in secret?”

“I’ve named five people – including two members on the sub-committee – as involved in this ‘silent coup’,” she said.

“The judiciary has not transformed [since the introduction of separation of powers], just transferred. The old boys [of the former administration] are trying the legitimise their return to power with a court order. Judging from the recent behaviour of the Supreme Court, it is in on it now which is utterly irresponsible and a tragedy.”

Professor Murray Kellam, a former Australian Supreme Court Justice who recently spent several weeks observing the JSC on the invitation of UNDP, pressed for transparency stating that “sunlight is the best antiseptic”.

“The process in your Constitution is that [in the event of] gross misconduct and gross incompetence, the Majlis (parliament) has the job of dismissing [the JSC], and that’s consistent with other places in the world,” he said.

“But the problem here is that the body making the recommendation is also the membership.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

The politicisation of life, death and faith

The Parliament (Majlis) today resumes the debate on amending the Clemency Act to bring back capital punishment. Although the constitution allows the death penalty, the Maldives is abolitionist in practice.

The last time the Maldivian state put a person to death was in 1953. Depending on whether or not a majority of MPs agree to send the proposed amendment to the committee stages, today begins the process of reversing this tacit understanding of the death penalty as a form of cruel, degrading and inhuman punishment.

The amendment was proposed by MDP MP Ahmed Rasheed (Hoarafushi) after an urgent motion he introduced earlier in the Majlis session of March 8 to discuss the recent escalation of violent crime. It came on the foot of a savage altercation between members of rival gangs on March 4 in which three men were injured and a member of the public was forced at knife-point to hand over his motorcycle to one of the perpetrators. Blood was spilt in broad daylight, at the Artificial Beach, a public place frequented by families. Clearly, it is an issue that requires the immediate attention of the Majlis.

The debate that ensued, however, appeared to focus less on practical measures that can be taken to address the problem and more on finding a scapegoat with the meatiest political flesh for rival MPs to bite into.

Several MPs rushed to point the finger of blame at anyone else except the legislature itself: the security apparatus was acting with impunity in its refusal to be answerable to the Majlis; the criminal court was not doing its job properly; the president had been too lenient with members of the old regime who committed acts of torture and embezzled state funds; and the president had neglected to give due importance to the matter in his inaugural address of the Majlis on March 3, allegedly discouraging members from pursuing the matter with the required urgency.

People in glasshouses

“I was arrested on July 7 last year in allegations of planning to attack a politician with a sharp implement. They kicked in the door of my house. That was how it happened with me. But people who kill others on the street walk free,” Deputy Speaker of the Parliament and MP of the opposition-aligned People’s Alliance (PA) Ahmed Nazim said, joining the debate on March 8.

“And when I was under house arrest, confined within my own four walls, there were people throwing stones at my house, shattering the glass. They, too, are out there somewhere, walking free,” he continued. He was, Nazim said, “one of the few people in the Majlis with personal experience” of gang warfare and violent crime.

The ‘personal experience’ factor was significant in the debate. In addition to Nazim, MP ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik (MDP) and independent MP Ahmed Amir, relayed similar narratives of up close and personal encounters with violent crime. “I, too, was imprisoned,” Moosa said.

Having made allegations of torture against former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, his proposed solution to the problem was to imprison Gayoom himself. “As long as Gayoom walks free, there will never be an end to this problem”. MP Amir relayed his own woes of being “hit in the back while an MP”, and updated the Majlis on the fact that nothing has been done since, leaving him with a feeling of diminished equality.

MP Ahmed Rasheed, had a similar personal narrative underlying his push for implementing the death penalty. Based on “one case in which I was personally involved in”, he generalised for the Majlis the woeful inadequacies of the current criminal justice system.

“The lawyers that the Prosecutor General send to the court to represent the state are usually young children, with no experience”, he said. “With an hour, half an hour or twenty minutes to go before the court sits, these children are handed hefty case files, and told: “Here, young lady, take the file”. They are, of course, trounced by the more experienced lawyers for the defendant”, he said.

MP Rasheed’s blatantly sexist hymn sheet was shared by Deputy Speaker Nazim, who also referred to the “young 18-19 year-old girls” who represent the Prosecutor General in court, and are allegedly posing a threat to national security. Neither MPs mentioned that the more educated members of the judiciary are to be found among the country’s youth and not among the ‘experienced judges’ most of whom have had very little legal training despite having been on the bench for long periods of time.

Putting the death penalty in an Islamic frame

The deeply personal nature of the Majlis’ debate on an issue of such national importance is extremely troubling. So too is the quality of the debate so far that has put the death penalty within the framework of Islam and Shar’ia. Very few MPs have displayed any knowledge of either the long and incessant international debate surrounding the death penalty, nor the rich Islamic jurisprudence on capital punishment. Nor did they demonstrate an understanding that the matter of gangs and rising crime cannot be solved by personal opinions but may need proper study and expert advice across the board on the criminal justice system.

One MP, Ahmed Saleem, for instance, declared all legislation as irrelevant and unnecessary given the completeness of the Qur’an. To clarify his claim, he presented MPs with a hypothetical scenario: “What if”, he said, “someone like Dr Shaheed [former Foreign Minister] were to say that there is nothing in the Qur’an on how to run a foreign ministry.” Such a claim can only be made out of ignorance, for the Qur’an does give guidance on foreign policy, he said.

“God created tribes, countries and states so as each can introduce themselves to the other… Had God made only one country, there would be no need for a Foreign Ministry.” Bang went the Treaty of Westphalia, centuries of diplomacy, and the concept of social constructs, all shot down to nothing with one sweeping statement.

Reducing the death penalty in Shari’a to mere advocacy to “kill the killer” is to reduce the rich and complex debate surrounding the death penalty in Shari’a to mere revenge. Such reductionism is a practice more often associated with those who criticise Islam from the outside than with those who speak in its praise from within.

Although all Muslims accept the permissibility of the death penalty because it is addressed in the Qur’an, its application is varied ranging from those who impose it to a short list of crimes to those who call for a moratorium on it altogether. Capital punishment in Islamic law, as reputed Islamic scholars have highlighted, has its own dhawabit (checks and balances). It is not imposed until due process has been observed, and all extenuating circumstances fully considered. Those who are calling for the death penalty ‘as per Sharia’ would also do well to remember, or to find out, that the state only has the power of execution – imposing it is not a power of the state.

Arguing against the death penalty in the United States from an Islamic perspective, Dr Azizah Y al-Hibri, professor at the T. C. Williams School of Law at Richmond University for example, has pointed out that in Shari’a it is the victim’s family alone that has the right to seek qisas (a form of retributive punishment) against the murderer. It is the majority view of Islamic scholars that if the victim’s family does not seek qisas in court, the state cannot do so on its initiative – unlike the common law system.

The state does have the power, however, to protect the public through other less retributive punishments such as confinement or exile: what the Maldivian state has opted to do for almost six decades. This restriction on the state is one of the most important – and relevant – aspects of the Shari’a to the current debate. It, or any other jurisprudence, has yet to be included in the discussions.

The importance of Shari’a’s restrictions on the state lies in the status of the judiciary as a branch of the state. Even in countries where the independence of the judiciary has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, restricting the power of the state to take away the life of its citizens is a crucial element of justice. When the state is authoritarian, when the judiciary is biased, or when other branches of the state exercise undue influence over the judiciary, it becomes essential for ensuring that life is not taken away arbitrarily.

Punishment without justice

Herein lies the crux of the matter. Questions over the independence of the Maldivian judiciary have now been at the forefront of public discourse for the better part of a year.

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) recently published the results of its fact-finding mission to the Maldives in September last year. The report found the Maldivian courts to be failing in their duty to serve the public impartially and laid a lion’s share of the responsibility on the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), charged with imposing and maintaining ethical and professional standards of the Maldivian judiciary.

The JSC has dismissed the ICJ report as “irresponsible” and the Constitutional stipulation to remove all unqualified and ethically questionable judges from the bench as “symbolic” with the result that a large number of the judiciary comprise of convicted felons and the morally dubious.

In 2010, the JSC received over 140 complaints against the judiciary, none of which have been investigated. Currently there a total of 115 complaints pending investigation at the JSC, accumulated from 2008 onwards till the present. Questions have been raised over the JSC’s fairness in its recent appointments to the High Court, and it is due to appear before the Supreme Court on the same issue.

Several other failures of the JSC have been equally blatant, but there appears no authority capable, or willing, to hold the JSC accountable. There is no agitation for reform or independence coming from within the law community itself. The Majlis, and its oversight committee supervising the conduct of independent commissions, is the only authority that can bring the JSC to account. So far, it has not done so in any meaningful way.

It should be noted, however, that at the end of last year, the Majlis committee did instigate an enquiry of sorts – one that raises more questions than answers them. The committee, whittled down from 11 to three members for unexplained reasons – all three of whom are lawyers – have been summoning individual JSC members for questioning. The matter raised in these enquiries, unusual both in the fact that it is summoning individual members to answer questions over the conduct of the Commission as a whole and in its closed nature, are secret and banned from media coverage. So far as is known, the enquiries have been of an administrative nature – who attended meetings when and such – rather than of an investigative nature probing the JSC’s refusal to carry out its constitutional duties.

The investigated and the investigators – where is the dividing line?

One of the characteristics of the debate on March 8, which brought the death penalty to the fore, was the determination of some MPs to blame the security forces of the country.

If only they were to be made answerable to the Majlis Oversight Committee on National Security, things would change, went the argument. Problem is, at the helm of the National Security Committee is Abdulla Yameen taken into ‘protective custody’ by the Maldives National Defence Forces (MNDF) in July 2010 and held on the island of Aarah, the Presidential Retreat, for nine days.

The police arrested Yameen on corruption charges earlier that month, but after about six hours in custody, the Criminal Court, in an extraordinary sitting held at midnight, ruled that Yameen should be released into ‘house arrest’. When supporters of the ruling Maldives Democratic Party (MDP) gathered outside his house, MNDF took him into what they called ‘protective custody’.

Yameen, claimed, however, that MNDF had detained him against his will. The Supreme Court found MNDF’s actions to have been in breach of the Constitution; the ICJ report was highly critical of the executive’s involvement in the actions. Currently Yameen is back at Court claiming millions of Rufiyaa in damages for his detention.

In the immediate aftermath of the debacle, the National Security Committee began to summon senior members of the MNDF and other members of the security apparatus before it. MDP MP Reeko Moosa Manik claimed the Committee’s actions were instigated as a form of revenge by Yameen against MNDF and called for his resignation from the Committee. It did not materialise.

In addition to the history of personal involvement between the security forces and Yameen, there is also the more recent spectre of allegations of corruption worth over US$800 million against Yameen published in various South Asian media outlets from India to Burma and the Maldives.

Yameen has denied the accusations, first published in Indian current affairs magazine, The Week on February 11, alleging that the scheme involved blackmarket oil deals between the State Trading Organisation (STO), when it was headed by Yameen, and the Burmese military junta.

More recently, the Democratic Voice of Burma, an independent Burmese news outlet, has connected the same oil-scam to the explosion of heroin in the Maldives in the early 2000s. The heroin addiction of a whole generation of Maldivian youth and its current problems with violence and drugs has been well documented, and its effects clear to see.

Even if the allegations are untrue, it is clearly in the public and national interest that any state figure of authority implicated in such serious offences, to declare a conflict of interest and distance themselves from holding sway over investigations with even the remotest of links to them personally.

There was no reference made to the personal history between Yameen, the president of the National Security Committee, when his fellow People’s Alliance (PA) party member, Deputy Speaker Nazim, so fervently proposed cooperation between the security forces as the solution to the country’s escalating problem of gang violence.

Own backyard

There are currently five bills crucial to the maintenance to law and order, security and crime reduction pending members’ attention at the Majlis. Chief among these, and pending the longest, is the Penal Code.

Submitted in October 2009, it has now been in the ‘committee stages’ for exactly 17 months to the day. Awaiting attention is also the Evidence Bill, submitted in just a month after the Penal Code, in November 2009.

The Narcotics Bill was submitted in March 2010, almost a year ago; and the Bill on Special Measures to Combat Crime was proposed a month later. Neither has passed the ‘committee stages’.

More recently submitted is the Jails and Parole Bill, pending since October last. Also awaiting Members’ deliberation is an amendment to the Police Act submitted in June 2010, and the Private Security Bill submitted the same month.

As a majority of the Majlis remains preoccupied with long recesses, extending their own privileges, boycotts and deadlocks, these vital pieces of legislation – without which even an unbiased judiciary would find it difficult to perform its duties – gathers to itself the dust of neglect.

MP Mohamed Musthafa, who proposed the Bill on Special Measures to Combat Crime in April 2010, accused members of the opposition of deliberately stalling its passage through the parliament. “If you push that Bill through, the credit will go to the government, there will be no advantage in that for us,” Musthafa said he was told by some opposition MPs. “Intoxication with politics is leading this country to its ruin,” he said.

As the issue opens up for debate at the Majlis again today, it remains to be seen whether any MP who calls for the imposition of the death penalty in order to fulfil its ‘Islamic duties’ refer to the manner in which the Qur’an urges the victim’s family to move forward and to forgive (Qur’an 2:178, 42:40) even as it provides for the right to demand qisas.

It also remains to be seen whether the same MPs would remind fellow members of the instances in which the Qur’an favours forgiveness over revenge or punishment and extols its virtues in many other contexts (Qur’an 42:40; 5:45; 2:237; 24:22; 2:109).

It will also be interesting to see, whether any of the debate calls on existing empirical evidence that reveals no direct link between capital punishment and deterrence of crime. Amnesty International has found, for example, that in the United States crime is lower in states where capital punishment is not practised compared to the states where it is.

Its conclusion was that: “The threat of execution at some future date is unlikely to enter the minds of those acting under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, those who are in the grip of fear or rage, those who are panicking while committing another crime (such as a robbery), or those who suffer from mental illness or mental retardation and do not fully understand the gravity of their crime.”

Whatever the quality or outcome of the debate, the result will be a strong indicator as to how far the politicisation of life has travelled in the two years since the Maldives became a democracy. If it has come so far as to be able to impose its will beyond life to death, there is little hope that this government is capable, or willing, to resuscitate the increasingly moribund Maldivian democracy.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“If I keep silent, I have become a traitor”: Velezinee vows to continue campaign against “silent coup”

The President’s Member on the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) and outspoken whistleblower Aishath Velezinee has vowed to continue pushing for a public inquiry into the activities of the JSC, despite what she has described as an “assassination attempt” on Monday January 3.

Velezinee was hospitalised after she was stabbed three times in the back, in broad daylight on the main tourist street of Male’, “right outside the Home Minister’s door.”

Many international organisations, including Transparency International and the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), have expressed “grave concern that the attack may be politically motivated.”

Velezinee turned whistle-blower on the JSC in August 2010, after parliament failed to issue an injunction she had requested on the reappointment of judges before the conclusion of the constitutional interim period. Velezinee contends the reappointment of unsuitable judges – many largely uneducated and some with criminal convictions – was rushed through in collaboration with senior members of parliament.

Since then she has campaigned against what she alleges is a “silent coup”, an “alliance between parliament and the judiciary to subvert the rule of law, derail constitutional democracy and use the courts to bring down the executive.”

“I didn’t stop complaining. I realised this was a bigger thing, a conspiracy, and mentioned names. They were not interested in change – they are using all their powers, their status and the respect people have for them to subvert the rule of law.”

The public, she claims, is poorly informed on the matter as “there is a huge information gap because the JSC meetings are closed. If the JSC sittings were open to the media, the public would be able to put together what has happened.”

“I sit in the JSC and I see the Speaker of Parliament (Abdulla Shahid) and DRP MP (Dr Afrasheem Ali), also members of the Commission, do whatever they will. What is done in the JSC is done by parliament.”

For example, she explained on the last day of the final parliament session for 2010, the opposition-majority Majlis amended the Judges’ Act (13/2010) to award a Rf 53,250 (US$4140) monthly retirement package to former JSC Vice Chair and Interim-Supreme Court Justice Mujthaz Fahmy, despite a conviction for embezzling state funds in 1996.

“It was not an honourable discharge, he was not fit to be a judge. But they made an amendment to the judges bill solely for one man – only Mujthaz it applies to, and only Mujthaz it will apply to,” Velezinee explained.

MP Afrasheem observed at the time that judges are awarded high salaries and benefits to ensure their ethical and disciplinary standards, and that it is essential for them to continue to be able to uphold their dignity and impeccable ethical standards even after they leave office.

“If a retired Justice were forced to wheel a cart on the street after leaving the bench, it will not give them the respect and the love that they received in office, and still deserve,” Afrasheem said.

The entire amendment, Velezinee alleges, was “to pay Mujthaz his dues for his role as an instrument in the silent coup.”

Meanwhile the public, she stated, “ is misinformed as to the reality of the judiciary they have. We have high state officials using their status and their authority to confuse the public, and legitimise that which is unconstitutional.

“The public are helpless when it is the state that has dissented. We Maldivians have been taught to obey. Obedience is the priority – our religion is about obedience. It is a completely different culture for us to stand up for ourselves and demand things of our leaders.”

JSC member and whistle-blower Aishath Velezinee

Lead-up

Days prior to being stabbed in the street, Velezinee had been trying to get the Majlis to distribute a 34-page letter to members of the JSC’s parliamentary oversight committee, without apparent success. On January 2, she delivered 250 posters to citizens around Male’, calling for a public inquiry into the JSC.

“The Constitution grants everyone a free and fair trial, but JSC’s treason has deprived the people of not only a right to a free and fair trial but thereby compromised all other fundamental rights,” she wrote on her website, the day before her stabbing. “The State can neither protect fundamental rights of the people, nor further human rights and practice democratic government without the institutionalisation of an Independent judiciary.”

The attack

At 10am on the morning of January 3, Velezinee was walking along the main tourist street of Chandhanee Magu near Islanker school, “when I felt this knock on my back.”

“I thought I had been bumped, I didn’t realise I had been stabbed,” she said. “When I looked back I made eye contact with a guy as he was turning around. So I kept walking and then he turned back and stabbed me a second and third time.”

Her assailant, whom she described as “a young kid, a teenager”, jumped on the back of a waiting motorbike driven by another and rode off.

“At that point I put my hand up and it was completely soaked in blood, and I realised I had been stabbed. If I had fallen I would have been dead, the second two stabs would have finished me off, as would the first if their aim had been correct. But I’m light and my bag got in the way. I think it was meant to be assassination attempt or else hit my spine and make me a vegetable for the rest of my life.”

While still upright she was, however, “bleeding everywhere. I was soaked through.”

“My fear was that I would easily I bleed to death. But I took a deep breath and realised I was alive. As soon as I realised this, the only thing I wanted to do was go and get the blood stopped and get to the Commission because this was the day of the High Court appointments, and I know they wanted me out of the way. I didn’t realise how serious the wounds were, I didn’t see them until two days later when I went for a dressing change.”

“I tried calling 119, it took four attempts to get through, I told them I was stabbed. Nobody stopped to help me, so I saw a neighbour from my childhood and didn’t give him a chance to say no and jumped on the back of his motorbike and said ‘take me to IGMH (Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital), I’ve been stabbed.”

“He took me round the corner to his home, where he could get a vehicle. At that point another man stopped and said “no, you can’t wait if you’re bleeding like that, get on my bike.”

“I got on the bike without thinking and then wondered, ‘who are you?’ He was really good, screaming at traffic to get out of the way, but I was bleeding very heavily. I had to hold on and he was afraid I would faint – it was dangerous on a motorbike.

“He came to Majeedhee Magu. He tried to get a taxi to respond, but I saw a police car and they took me to hospital.”

On the agenda at 2:30pm that day at the JSC was the decision over which applicants would qualify for appointment as High Court judges.

“It was very suspicious the way the Commission acted [after the stabbing],” Velezinee said.

“Not a single Commission member called or came to the hospital or made any effort to see how I was. Instead they hurried to organise an extraordinary meeting to discuss the assault, and then decided to hold a press conference – all of this without checking on me – and as I understand it, it was suggested by the Speaker of Parliament that the Chair of the Commission, who’ve I’ve previously alleged is suffering from a psychiatric disorder, be nominated to give a press conference.

“At the press conference they made very strange statements. They said that ‘Nobody should be attacked for having different opinions, or the way they express their different opinions’.

“The commission did not show me any respect, because after that press conference they organised a meeting on Tuesday to decide on the High Court judges. The Commission had previously agreed not to meet on Tuesdays because Tuesday is cabinet day.

“So I requested Commission members talk with the chair and make him postpone the meeting. The Speaker was leaving the country that night – I asked the Secretary General to speak with the Chair and delay the meeting until Wednesday, but the response I got was that they could not delay the meeting because it was ‘the right of the people to have the High Court’.

“I put out a rude statement accusing the Commission of trying to expedite things while I was incapacitated, and that persuaded them to cancel the meeting. But they did not say they were doing so out of concern for my wellbeing – instead they told the media that the meeting was postponed “because some members are busy.”

Still busy

Velezinee says she does not believe last week’s attempt on her life will be the last.

“I don’t believe the State can actually protect me. Because it is the state that wants me silenced – the parliament and the judiciary. If you look at what happened in the days before the attack, there was a flurry of attacks in the media – including by the parliamentary oversight committee – criticising me, my character and my performance in the JSC. This has been a very organised effort to discredit me, and some people speak in different voices.

“There are honourable men in this country who are owned by others, and they may be put in a position where they believe they have to take my life. I knew there was a chance that I was risking murder, and I wasn’t wrong. It was only because of God’s grace that I survived.”

The police, she said, had been “very effective” in their investigation so far. However police spokesperson Sub-Inspector Ahmed Shiyam said that it was “very difficult” for police to release an update on the case, as it was “complicated”.

Police were, he said, collecting evidence and would release an update to the media “as soon as it is available.”

As to whether the attacks would dissuade her from continuing to campaign against the “derailment of democracy” by parliament and the judiciary, “if I close my eyes, I will have betrayed my country and people,” Velezinee said.

“I will have betrayed them by failing to inform people and give them a chance to change this. When the State fails it is up to the citizens to hold the State accountable. The state has failed here, and as a state official it is my responsibility to inform the public and give them the chance to make an informed decision.

“I know for a fact that rule of law has been subverted. I know for a fact that there is corruption at the highest level in parliament. And I know that if I join the majority in keeping silent, I have become a traitor.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Mahloof cautious, but happy, over civil service salary reinstatement

Newly reinstated civil service salary rates that revoke wage cuts introduced back in 2009 should be affordable under the latest state budget, even amidst pressure to reduce the nation’s spending, Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Ahmed Mahloof has claimed.

Mahloof, who has been outspoken over some of the amendments passed into the 2011 state budget, said that he was “very happy” that the government had moved to revoke a 15 per cent reduction in civil servant salaries that were approved as part of the final budget within parliament.

The MP said he believed that the additional levels of expenditure could be well managed within the budget, especially if the government cut down on the number of political appointees it employed.

“We have been managing these wage levels for a long time, I don’t see there should be any difficulty in maintaining them,” Mahloof said. “However, the government could cut the number of appointees to reduce the budget further.”

Following the decision to reinstate the wages of civil servants and political appointees to similar level before respective cuts of 15 per cent and 20 per cent were made back in 2009, the government estimates that expected revenue for the year will ensure the salaries are sustainable.

The government has come under considerable pressure from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to reduce the country’s budgetary deficit, which it has aimed to cut to about 16 per cent in its finance plans for 2011 from a figure of 26.5 per cent announced by President Mohamed Nasheed in November.

However, Mahloof told Minivan News that he was “deeply concerned” about how long the government would consider retaining the wages for after upcoming council elections had been concluded in February.

“I am really happy about the salaries reinstatement, but I see this as a political stunt,” he said. “The president has increased the salaries of the civil service before; the last time ahead of parliamentary elections. We will have to see if they remain in place and for how long.”

The passing of the budget has not been without controversy over the last week, leading to protests involving NGOs, political activists and civil service workers on Male’s streets over proposed amendments to increase the wages and privileges afforded to MPs.

According to Mahloof, the civil servant wage rises had been the result of recommendations forwarded by opposition members.

The DRP MP claimed he would now be turning his attention to addressing concerns over the affordability of possible rises in the salary of his peers in the Majlis that have proved unpopular amongst demonstrators outside of parliament last week.

“Amendments have also be sent concerning the proposed Rf20,000 wage increases,” added Mahloof.

Despite Mahloof’s concerns over the length of government commitment to the salary levels, acting Finance Minister Mahmood Razee said the reinstatement of civil service wages had been an important commitment for government that had not previously been affordable.

“We have had to match our expenditure to revenue,” the acting Finance Minister said. “We are working with the civil service closely on our plans.”

However, in considering other budget recommendations passed by parliamentary majority, such as increasing the salaries and privileges afforded to MPs, Razee said that they would “certainly have to be reviewed” in terms of affordability within the current projected budget of about Rf12.6bn.

“I will be saying the same to the president,” he added.

Razee had previously said that presidential approval would still be required for any amendments to be passed relating to salaries within the Majlis.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)