Tag: Majlis

MDP MP Ilyas Labeeb appeals to police to refuse “unconstitutional” orders, as protests continue

MDP member of parliament and parliamentary whip Ilyas Labeeb appealed to police to protect the constitution, refuse to follow unconstitutional orders, and to learn from the action of the senior MNDF officers who recently sent a “letter of concern” to Chief of Defence Force about the matter.

Ilyas Labeeb delivered his speech from the campaign truck kept on Fareedhee Magu in the middle of the crowd, facing the police standing behind barricades.

Just as Labeeb began addressing the crowd, police lit up floodlights to spotlight the MP.

“Shining that light in our faces, or implying we are marked for arrest, does not intimidate me. Violently taking MP Ali Azim into your custody does not intimidate me. Even if you come and take me away now, that still won’t scare me. I will come back here and speak out as soon as I am freed again. We are asking for elections, for our constitutional right,” Labeeb said.

“Aren’t you ashamed to be bowing down to unconstitutional orders? Nineteen MNDF officers have sent a letter against the following of constitutional orders, against the politicisation of the security forces. The MNDF is more senior than the police force. Listen to them, learn from them. Give it up now. Your stand on February 7 was that you were demonstrating against unconstitutional orders. What are you doing today?”

“We are standing up for the constitutional rights we are entitled to, for our sake, for the sake of our families, yes, but equally for the future of you and your families. Start protecting the constitution, police, that is in the best interests of the nation.”

Ilyas Labeeb ended his speech by leading the crowd in chanting “Where’s my vote? You stole my vote”, “Election now” and “Forward, forward, swiftly forward”.

By this time, just over a dozen regular police officers formed a line of obstruction behind the barricades, facing the protesters.

Labeeb moved to the frontline of the protest and appealed to the police again, this time speaking directly to them without the aid of a microphone or making it a public speech.

“You boys must think deeply. Why are you following unconstitutional orders? Neither the Police Act nor the Constitution mandates you to do so, in fact it is clearly stated that you must not follow an unconstitutional order,” he said.

“Don’t you realise what they are doing? They send you out here against hundreds and thousands of citizens, you come with your name tags and in simple regular uniform, and you face scorn from the people. Yet it isn’t you, but the Special Operations who hide behind their masks and helmets who run into crowds and brutalise citizens. They are using you young boys as a shield to hide behind. You don’t have to be slaves to the SO officers or the Commissioner of Police,” Labeeb continued.

“Look at [Commissioner of Police] Abdulla Riyaz. He’s hiding in his rooms after sending you all here. He has secured an apartment abroad, planning to run away as soon as the government changes. All the leading people who were part of the coup have. They won’t think of you then. What will happen to you boys if you continue following unconstitutional orders?”

“Remember all that talk about housing flats for the police? Do you know who took the first flat? Abdulla Riyaz. It was meant for regular officers like you, but he took one for himself first. Is this how you want things to be? Are you still going to stay back quietly and let things proceed like this?”

“I know that as you are all listening to this speech of mine now, your seniors will take you in for a chat later tonight. But they are not the ones you should be believing, nor should you believe me. Instead, read for yourselves what is in the Police Act and the constitution. If you need assistance, we can arrange lawyers for you; not lawyers affiliated with MDP but other experienced lawyers.”

“Regardless of how long it takes to get back our right to vote, we will continue demanding it. And when the elections are on, we will beat them with votes. We will win the elections.”

MP went back into the crowds after concluding his monologue to the line of officers.

Monday – the fourth consecutive day of protests – saw protesters grow from a few hundred to just over a thousand by around 10:00pm.

Crowds later thinned out once the SO officers came to the area after protesters moved, and later hid the police barricades at the protest site.

Minivan News observed teams of SO officers run into the crowds twice and make two arrests – one of whom was a man who had previously crossed the police line set out by the regular police officers, referred to as ‘Blues’.

The SO later drove six times to and fro through the protest area in one of their trucks after crowds had thinned out, locating a barricade hidden in a construction site on Fareedhee Magu and sending regular officers to retrieve it.

“Targeting MDP MPs as an intimidation tactic”: MP Alhan Fahmy

Meanwhile, police have been arresting and summoning MDP parliamentary group members in relation to various cases in the past few days after the party started direct action asking for immediate elections.

MP Alhan Fahmy, who was summoned to police headquarters for questioning at 2:00pm on Tuesday described the events as “intimidation tactics being used by the police. They [the government] are using multiple state institutions in their actions of undermining the constitution and its powers”.

Fahmy said that the police had accused him of threatening Supreme Court judges and their families at a protest held on September 26.

“I told them I have done no such thing, that I never called for attacks or threatened any of these judges they speak of or their families. That all I said at the rally was my perspective on the current judges sitting on the SC bench. I told them that I had spoken of a video clip showing indecent behaviour that police has said Ali Hameed has been seen in, and that if so I believe Ali Hameed should no longer be sitting on the bench,” Fahmy told Minivan News today.

MDP International Spokesperson and MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor was also taken into police custody on Monday afternoon, allegedly for not accepting court summons. He has been transferred to house arrest today after the first hearing of the case.

Ghafoor’s lawyer, Fareesha Abdulla O’Shea, however claims that due process was not followed when delivering the court summons.

She said that the case is being presided over by Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

“The case is about Hamid’s refusal to give a urine sample and he is being charged under section 123 of the Drug Act. I advised not to enter a plea as we haven’t received any of the related documents or information from the court yet,” O’Shea said.

“Today, after the hearing, Hamid was issued another summons relating to charges levied for possession of alcohol,” she stated.

MP Ali Azim was arrested from the protests on Sunday night, with SO officers pulling him off the campaign truck, throwing him onto the ground and dragging him away into custody. He was brought to a court hearing on Monday, where the courts added a seven day extension to his detention on account of him being “a threat to national security”.

Azim attended a meeting of the Parliament’s Privileges Committee after his hearing yesterday, where he alleged that he had been ill-treated even after arrest.

“The SO officer on my right side tried very hard to break my finger, I have photos to prove this. Upon being pushed into the van, one of the officers grabbed hold of my groin area very hard,” Azim told the committee.

“They also asked me to provide a urine sample, but I didn’t because my lawyer advised me against it as the charges levied against me did not allow police to make such a request. I was also handcuffed on the trip from Dhoonidhoo to the court in Male’, and on the way to this parliamentary meeting,” he added.

DRP MP ‘Colonel’ Mohamed Nasheed was also arrested at protests and later released, while MP Ibrahim Rasheed is being investigated for allegedly assaulting police.

MP Eva Abdulla has also been arrested at protests on Tuesday.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

PPM seeks to remove MPs from Majlis for contempt of court

The Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) has said it will seek to remove MPs from the People’s Majlis through the Supreme Court, for contempt of court over their challenging of the apex court’s  order to delay the second round of presidential polls.

Several MPs of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) have spoken out against a Supreme Court’s order to delay polls in an ongoing case filed by third placed Jumhooree Party (JP) to annul the vote. The court issued a second injunction on Friday ordering the security forces to halt the Elections Commission and other parties from proceeding with polls.

Following the second injunction, the police surrounded the Elections Commission on Friday and forcibly brought preparations for the runoff to a halt. The MDP won 45.45 percent in the first round and was set to compete with the PPM in runoff polls on Saturday.

Speaking to the press today, PPM’s legal advisor Mohamed Waheed Ibrahim said, “There is a dispute on whether [MPs] have lost their seats in parliament due to speaking out against Maldives’ Supreme Court’s order and defaming the Supreme Court, and other court’s judges. I would like to inform you we will file this case at the Supreme Court.”

Meanwhile, MDP MPs Alhan Fahmy and Imthiyaz Fahmy received police summons for an investigation into contempt of court. The police told Minivan News more MPs are under investigation, but declined to reveal names.

A police summons sent to Alhan and uploaded on Twitter states the MP is being investigated for “threatening judges and their families and contempt of court at a protest outside the Supreme Court on 23 September 2013.”

PPM’s legal advisor Waheed said the list of MPs they are seeking to disqualify from parliament “is long”. Furthermore, the PPM said it would not hesitate to file complaints against Speaker Abdulla Shahid if he had spoken out against the apex court’s order. Abdulla Shahid defected to the MDP in April.

Waheed also said the PPM believes the Supreme Court should decide who to hand the presidency to should presidential elections fail to take place by the end of the presidential term on November 11.

The MDP and its ally the DRP now control 39 out of 77 seats in the Majlis; a simple majority. The two parties passed a resolution on Monday ordering the EC to proceed with polls as planned, and called for the security forces to support the EC. However, the resolution was ignored in favor of the Supreme Court order.

The MDP has said it will utilise its simple majority to seek no-confidence motions against three ministers and the Prosecutor General.

In a statement on Saturday, the PPM has praised the Supreme Court’s election delay orders as a “giant stride forward in championing the constitutional rights of the Maldivian people.”

PPM contends that the court has sole and final jurisdiction to determine all disputes concerning presidential elections and is the final authority on interpretation of the constitution.

“Members of the MDP are breaking law and order continuously even now and spreading false information among the public, while also misguiding the international community,” the statement read.

The PPM has supported JP’s case to annul the vote, and has filed a separate case to delay polls to allow the party time to campaign.

The MDP has repeatedly criticised the Supreme Court for Justice Ali Hameed’s continued presence on the bench despite the leak of three sex videos in which Hameed appears to be fornicating with three different foreign women in a Colombo hotel room.

The UN Special Rapporteur for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, in a damning report in May expressed concern over “inadequate and politicised” composition of the JSC and “shock” that members of the judiciary, including the Supreme Court, held memberships in political parties.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

EC continues run-off preparations, stresses supremacy of constitution

The Elections Commission (EC) has said it will continue with preparations for the second round of presidential elections – scheduled for September 28 – and has stressed the supremacy of the constitution following conflicting orders by the Majlis and Supreme Court on a polling date.

The Majlis passed a resolution yesterday during a heated session, ordering the Elections Commission to proceed with polls as planned, as the Jumhooree Party (JP) seeks to annul the vote at the Supreme Court.

The apex court at 9:00 pm last night issued an order indefinitely postponing the run-off until it issues a verdict.

“We have not stopped any of our preparations,” President of the Elections Commissioner Fuwad Thowfeek told the press today. He then held up the constitution, saying “The main document we must follow is the constitution. The Constitution along with the election laws and regulations states how and when to hold elections.”

Vice President Ahmed Fayaz declined to comment on which order the EC would follow, saying the commission was in discussions with the Supreme Court, Majlis, and the President’s Office on a polling date.

Fayaz also stressed the supremacy of the constitution saying, “The Supreme Court, the presidency, Majlis, state institutions – all exist through the constitution and therefore cannot act against the constitution.”

“We may receive an order to proceed with polls, we cannot throw up our hands and go to sleep. We have to be ready at any point,” Fayaz added.

Fayaz pointed to a Supreme Court ruling at 8:00 pm on February 4, 2011, in which it had ordered the EC to proceed with local council elections in Addu City the next day. At the time, the Civil Court had ordered the EC to halt polls over a dispute to provide city status to Addu Atoll.

Delaying polls would be “logistically near-impossible,” Fayaz said. Polling booths are set up in school buildings throughout the country, he explained, but schools would not be available for polling between October 5 and late November as secondary school students sit for the GCSE O’Level exams.

The court ruling to delay polls was signed by four of the seven Supreme Court Judges – Justice Abdulla Saeed, Justice Ali Hameed, Justice Adam Mohamed Abdulla, and Justice Dr Abdulla Didi.

“Based on Article 144 (b), we order the Elections Commission and other relevant state institutions to delay the second round of the presidential election scheduled for 28 September 2013 until the Supreme Court issues a verdict in this case,” the injunction read.

The EC maintains that the JP’s allegations of electoral fraud are unsubstantiated and, even if proven, would still be insufficient to affect the outcome of the first round election results.

Meanwhile, the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) – whose candidate Mohamed Nasheed polled first on September 7 – have taken to the streets in protest, having previously made clear that it would not allow a Supreme Court bench “consisting of disgraced judges accused of lewd conduct” to “abrogate the will of the people.”

Supreme Court Judge Ali Hameed has been implicated in a series of sex videos, but the judicial oversight body Judicial Services Commission (JSC) decided not to suspend the judge – against the advice of  a subcommittee it set up to investigate the matter.

The JP’s presidential candidate Gasim Ibrahim was a member of the JSC at the time of this decision.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament refutes President Waheed’s claim of 100 pending bills

The People’s Majlis has refuted President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan’s claim last week that 100 pieces of legislation needed to implement the 2008 constitution have yet to be passed by parliament.

In a press release yesterday (August 23), the parliament secretariat revealed that 43 bills were required to give effect to the constitution adopted in 2008, of which 24 were submitted and 18 were passed by parliament during the past five years.

The legislation was mandated by article 299 (b)(2) of the constitution, which states, “the People’s Majlis shall until the enactment and commencement of laws required to give effect to this Constitution, approve a course of action in relation to these matters. The Executive shall within thirty days of the commencement of this Constitution draw up a list of such laws and submit it to the People’s Majlis. Within ninety days of the commencement of this Constitution, the People’s Majlis shall draw up and approve a schedule for enactment and commencement of such laws.”

The parliament’s press statement noted that current Attorney General Azima Shukoor was in the same post in 2008 when the list of 43 laws was submitted. Azima – former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s last attorney general – was reappointed to the post by President Waheed following the controversial transfer of presidential power on February 7, 2012.

“Therefore, given the situation, we regret the false claims made by the President in a way that could cause loss of public confidence in parliament, and which was made with the intention of achieving a specific purpose,” the press release stated in conclusion.

President Waheed made the claim at a ceremony on Thursday night to confer national awards of honour and recognition. In his speech (Dhivehi), President Waheed contended that the public has not enjoyed the benefits of the reforms envisioned in the 2008 constitution due to “loopholes in a very young and incomplete constitutional framework.”

“We see a person who does not have the approval of the People’s Majlis, in charge of the highest number of state employees. We are in a situation where the people doubt the highest court in the country. Suspects in criminal cases are in state institutions. Murderers and people who have committed arson roam freely in the streets. The rights of women and children are unprotected,” President Waheed said, according to the President’s Office website.

President Waheed further contended that all the provisions in the constitution “cannot be said to have been drafted with the whole country’s framework of governance in mind.”

As the constitution was drafted during the final years of “a long rule,” he argued, some provisions were added “with the intention of changing the condition that existed then.”

“When the drafting of the constitution was completed under these circumstances, a number of problems were noted,” he said. “Some 100 laws needed to implement the constitution have yet to be formulated.”

The Majlis statement meanwhile provided a list of the bills passed, pending and yet to be submitted by the executive. The six pieces of legislation currently under review at the committee stage include the freedom of information bill, the education bill, the penal code, the criminal justice procedures bill, the evidence bill, and the jails and parole bill.

Among the 19 bills that have yet to be submitted include legislation on public referendums, freedom of expression, press freedom, parliamentary ombudsman, state secrets, defamation, women’s rights, public services, trade unions, legal counsel, civil justice procedures and national security.

The executive was also required to submit amendments to existing laws governing the Human Rights Commission, the Civil Service Commission, the auditor general, children’s rights and family matters.

The legislation passed by the parliament in the past five years for implementation of the constitution included bills establishing independent institutions such as the Elections Commission, Judicial Service Commission, Police Integrity Commission, Anti-Corruption Commission and the Prosecutor General’s Office.

Parliament has also passed laws governing the courts, presidential and parliamentary elections, freedom of assembly, decentralisation, parliamentary privileges, political parties, customs, state pensions, state benefits for persons with special needs, and electoral districts.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament’s Committee on Social Affairs submits social protection bill

Parliament’s Committee on Social Affairs on Monday (July 22) submitted a social protection bill to parliament for review, after amending the bill to stipulate 11 instances in which the state must protect and assist under-privileged citizens.

According to the report submitted by the committee, the objectives of the bill are to provide as-yet unspecified support to citizens facing difficulties as a result of poverty and to increase equitability between the rich and poor. Support for citizens lacking the means to obtain basic necessities and the provision of state facilities to all citizens in the most equitable manner possible were also among the aims.

The bill stipulates the provision of financial aid to single parents, and support to children under the care of guardians other than biological parents.  These same guardians and students are also included as recipients of support.

It furthermore guarantees support to neglected persons, as well as persons suffering from psychological disorders.

The bill additionally stipulates the provision of subsidies for expenses on food products, electricity, water and accommodation.

The bill offers support in “emergency situations”, while small and medium businesses located in any industrial district facing difficulties is also included.

Neither the amount of financial aid that an individual may be provided under the bill, nor the criteria individuals must meet to qualify for aid are included in the draft. Instead, the act says that these details must be established in regulations gazetted three months after the ratification of the bill.

According to the bill, an individual or a person on behalf of the applicant is required to register with the National Social Protection Agency (NSPA) for support and subsidies granted by the state.

It also include clauses which obligates the NSPA to uphold the confidentiality of personal information of all persons who file for support, adding that employees of the agency who divulge such information may be subjected to fines ranging between MVR 5,000 (US$325) to MVR 10,000 (US$650).

The Social Protection Bill was initially submitted to parliament on October 19, 2010. It was sent to the Committee on Social Affairs for review and amendment on December 14, 2010.

The Committee had its first meeting regarding the bill on October 8, 2012, after a period of almost two years since the bill was sent for review. At this meeting, a subcommittee to focus on the matter was appointed.

The subcommittee included Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ahmed Rasheed, Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Abdul Azeez Jamaal AbuBakr, Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Hassan Latheef and Jumhooree Party (JP) MP Hassan Adil.

According to the committee report, other institutions that have provided comment and feedback on the bill are the Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Finance and Treasury, Ministry of Gender, Family and Human Rights and the Attorney General’s Office.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Sheikh Ilyas again summoned to Parliament Committee; says MPs “ignorant of Islamic ways”

Parliament’s Penal Code draft committee has once again decided to summon Chair of Adhaalath Party Religious Council and member of Maldives Fiqh Acadamy Sheikh Ilyas Hussain, after he failed to attend the committee’s previous summons.

The committee stated that it has asked Sheikh Ilyas to attend a committee meeting on May 15 regarding a sermon he gave at the Furugan Mosque in March titled “The Purpose of Islamic Shariah”.

In the sermon, Ilyas swore to God that the Penal Code was intended to destroy the religion of Islam. Calling the penal code “a trap made by the West” to eradicate Islam in the name of Muslims, Ilyas alleged that it did not have penalties for fornication, theft, corruption, forgery, or robbery. He further claimed the code stipulated that if a person claimed they were intoxicated when committing a crime, then they would not be subjected to punishment.

After the initial decision to summon Ilyas, Penal Code Committee Chair Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ahmed Hamza rejected the Sheikh’s claims and stated that “[Sheikh Ilyas] has told the public that there are some provisions in the Penal Code that are not in it. We want to bring him and have a chat and inform him about the provisions that are there in the Penal Code.”

“MPs summon me as they are ignorant of the ways of Islam”: Ilyas

Upon being summoned to parliament again, Sheikh Ilyas told local media that the committee continued to summon him only because they were ignorant of the Islamic way regarding the matters he had raised.

Ilyas stated that the parliament members who sat in the committee had insisted that the Penal Code did not have any clauses against Islamic principles, but only because none of them possessed sufficient religious education to understand the reality. He added that he will would explain the matter to the MPs through verses of the Quran and the sayings of the Prophet when he attends the committee meeting.

Ilyas further stated that the bill has a number of clauses which contradicted the penalties defined in Islamic Sharia, and that it had many “deceptive clauses”.

“I will strip the MPs naked”: Ilyas

Sheikh Ilyas was also reported in local media as stating that he would “strip the MPs naked” if he is summoned to the Penal Code Committee.

“I am willing to attend the committee. I will not be called Sheikh Ilyas if I fail to strip them naked. What will they prove? Who gave these people the right to take out the penalties defined in the Quran and categorise them into Part 1 and Part 2?” Ilyas stated.

Ilyas also called on all Maldivian media to broadcast the committee meeting which he is to attend live on TV.

Ilyas made the comments at the gathering held by Adhaalath Party and the National Movement at the Artificial Beach on April 30.

The Adhaalath Party has previously alleged that the parliament committee had added a clause to the Penal Code after Sheikh Ilyas gave the sermon in the Furugan Mosque, and accused the committee of orchestrating a cover up.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Amputation for theft added to draft penal code

The draft penal code bill has been amended to include punishments as prescribed in the Quran, such as amputation for theft.

The new article added during a parliamentary committee meeting Thursday (March 28) states that if someone convicted of a crime requires legal punishment, as specified in the penal code, that person will face punishment as stated in the Quran.

MP Imthiyaz Fahmy clarified the amendment to the draft penal code is about hadd punishments only and “not at all” about all Sharia offences, speaking with Minivan News today.

“Hadd offenses are already crimes in the draft penal code. However the prescribed punishments in Sharia for those particular crimes are not codified in the draft penal code, but instead they are left up to the interpretation of Sharia,” stated Fahmy.

“But to completely evade making a reference to hadd punishments or to mention that no hadd punishment at all should be imposed is impossible to the the fact that Sharia shall be one of the basis of all the laws of the Maldives,” he added.

Criminal punishments are detailed for murder, fornication, thievery and drinking alcohol.

The committee’s chairperson, MP Ahmed Hamza, told Sun Online the new draft penal code will require amputating persons convicted of theft, while a person convicted of apostasy (renouncing Islam) will also face punishment.

The bill does not include apostasy as a crime, therefore someone found guilty of this offense cannot be subjected to Quranic punishment, committee member MP Ahmed Mohamed clarified.

Gambling is also not criminalised, according to committee member MP Abdul Azeez Jamaal Aboobakuru. He told local media that the bill does not “state a manner in which such crimes can be convicted”.

Fahmy explained that Sharia law does not prescribe a hadd punishment for gambling.

The penal code draft bill does include factors that must be considered before convicting a person of murder; for example, any contradictory evidence would prevent such a conviction.

Imposing the death penalty cannot be subject only to the confession of the accused.

“Sharia does not run headlong into death penalties, amputation or stoning to death. Therefore depending on the circumstances, Sharia may avoid capital punishments,” said Fahmy.

He further clarified that Sharia punishments may be interpreted according to any of the schools of Sunni Muslims.

While interpretation of Sharia law punishments are within the purview of Maldivian judges, Fahmy believes that the current judicial system is incapable of providing Maldivian people justice, even with the new penal code.

“I do not believe the judiciary and the criminal justice system in the Maldives is capable of doing justice or able to take care of the new penal code. The judiciary is unable to ‘keep up with the Jonses’,” Fahmy stated.

The parliamentary committee’s additions to the bill follow its rejection of all but one amendment suggested by the Fiqh Academy of the Maldives.

Speaking to local media on Monday (March 25), Hamza said the committee had decided to accept only a suggestion concerning the offence of theft. Other amendments, he said, were merely changes to the wordings of the bill and carried little legal weight.

“They have submitted amendments to abolish certain sections. These include certain legal defences. When we looked into removing those defences, we found this impacted fundamental principles embedded to the draft penal code. So we decided to reject their suggestions,” he stated.

Following the decision, Vice President of the Fiqh Academy Sheikh Iyas Abdul Latheef told local newspaper Haveeru that the academy had informed parliament that current draft penal code should not be enforced in the country.

“The current draft does not include the Hadds established under Islamic Sharia. There is no mention of the death penalty for murder, the punishment of stoning for fornication, the punishment of amputation for theft and the punishment for apostasy. We proposed amendments to include these punishments,” Latheef stated.

Comments submitted by the United Nation agencies in the Maldives, Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM), and Attorney General are being considered and incorporated into the draft text.

The initial draft of the penal code was prepared by legal expert Professor Paul H Robinson and the University of Pennsylvania Law School of the United States, upon the request of the Attorney General in January, 2006. The project was supported by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP).

Professor Robinson’s team have published two volumes (Volume 1 and Volume 2) consisting of commentaries on sections of the draft bill.

The bill was first sent to the Majlis (parliament) in 2006 and will replace the 1961 penal code.

The penal code bill is being forwarded to the parliament floor this upcoming week, according to local media.

False preaching regarding rape and fornication

The parliamentary committee slammed the “false preaching” of the Chair of Adhaalath Party’s Scholars Council Sheikh Ilyas Hussain over the bill earlier this week.

Sheikh Ilyas declared that the new penal code does not recognise fornication with mutual consent as an offence.

MP Nazim Rashaad contended that whether sheikh or not, nobody could misinterpret the clause and claim that the bill did not recognise “mutually consented sexual intercourse” as an offence, and accused the Sheikh of lying to discredit the bill and parliament.

Briefing committee members on the sections concerning sexual offenses, Rashaad stated that under the draft penal code, both fornication and rape are offences under section 411 of the draft bill.

The existing penal code does not explicitly recognise “rape” as a crime, and cases are handled under provisions for sexual offences.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Illegitimate address by coup president warrants no official response”: MDP PG Leader Ibu Solih

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Parliament Group Leader Ibrahim Mohamed Solih (Ibu Solih) has stated that the party will not be responding to the presidential address delivered by President Mohamed Waheed Hassan during Monday’s parliament opening ceremony.

Solih said the statement held no legitimacy as Waheed himself was an illegally installed president, and hence warranted no official response.

“Waheed is in his position through a coup d’etat. A year having passed since does not change that fact. That is what we demonstrated in parliament today,” Solih told local media.

“We are only obliged to respond to a presidential address given by a legitimate leader.”

If Waheed were to be a legal president, then he would be representing MDP. Were it so, then MDP would not need to respond to the address, and the task would be for some other party. So, in either of those instances, MDP has no obligation to respond to Waheed’s statement,” he continued.

MDP also refused to respond to Waheed’s address in 2012.

Parliament regulations state that the majority and minority parties in the parliament besides the one that the President represents must issue a response to the presidential address within a period of 14 days after it being issued.

Solih furthermore expressed concern over some actions during Monday’s parliamentary session.

“While the session was in a recess, an MNDF officer attacked one of our MPs. I saw this happen with my own eyes. I have already lodged a complaint about this with the parliament speaker. The security officer was removed from the parliament halls at the time. Incidentally, we have also identified him,” Solih alleged.

Solih also alleged that the party’s objective during this parliamentary year was to pass many of the important bills that have been pending for long periods of time.

“I believe this year we will see a lot of productive work being completed here. One of these pending bills is the Penal Code. Hopefully, this bill will be passed as law within the month,” Solih stated.

Presidential Address in six hours, six attempts

President Mohamed Waheed Hassan delivered the presidential address in parliament on Monday through six separate attempts made through nearly six hours.

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MPs staged protests inside the parliament chambers while simultaneous protests by party supporters carried on outside parliament, with thousands of supporters chanting “coup president resign now” and “we want an interim government now”.

While normal procedure during previous instances where a president speaks in a parliament is to fly the presidential flag alongside the national flag and the parliament flag, no such flag was hoisted during Monday’s session.

Waheed was prevented from entering the main parliament hall twice, and he proceeded to deliver the presidential address in four separate installments. Local media reported that Waheed had omitted much of the 17 page speech that had been distributed to media ahead of the parliament meeting.

Three of these times, he was led out of the hall by Parliament Speaker Abdulla Shahid due to disruptions caused by MDP MPs who were echoing the chants of “baaghee” [traitor] inside.

After Waheed concluded his presidential address, MDP MPs joined the street protests which were being carried out on Sosun Magu.

Former President and MDP Presidential Mohamed Nasheed joined to greet the MPs as they entered the gathering to the sound of loud cheering from party supporters.

Before the protest was concluded, MP Ali Waheed addressed the crowd, stating that the party would continue protesting against what he alleged is a “coup government.”

“What we have witnessed is the beginning of the end of Waheed’s coup administration,” MP Waheed told the gathered crowds.

“Just like the old dictator Maumoon had to retreat into his cave, Waheed will have the same fate,” he said.

“The events we saw in Majlis has proven a lot of things. The fact that members from all the other parties stayed quiet and did not attempt to intervene in our protests say a lot. They have said ‘no to Waheed’ in the loudest form that they can while they are still part of this current government,” Ali Waheed said.

“Around 30 of our MPs managed to hold Waheed back from speaking in parliament for over five hours despite him coming surrounded by police and army. There is hope that we will be victorious,” Ali Waheed said in conclusion of his address before the party marched off, bringing an end to Monday’s protests.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Policeman used baton according to regulations, no police involvement in Gasim’s death: PC Riyaz

Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz has said that an officer implicated in a collision that left a bystander dead had acted in accordance with regulations on tackling suspects.

Abdulla Gasim Ibrahim passed away following an incident near the Justice Building on August 17 last year, when an officer attempted to stop a fleeing motorcycle by stepping in front of the vehicle with his baton raised. The motorcycle then lost control and crashed into Gasim, who was parked on the side of the road on his motorcycle.

Leaked footage of the incident appears to show the officer hitting the vehicle’s driver with a baton.

Police stated back in August that Gasim had died following an accident where a fleeing motorcycle had crashed into him, failing to mention any involvement of the police officer.

The Maldives Police Service stated in December that the motorcycle which the men had been riding was also stolen property.

Commissioner Riyaz today told parliament’s Committee on Oversight of the Executive that the officer seen holding the baton had not acted illegally through his actions depicted in the footage.

Riyaz had been summoned before the committee to answer questions over alleged police involvement in the death of Gasim.

Speaking at the committee meeting today, the police commissioner stated that an investigation conducted by the Police Standards Command had reached the conclusion that Constable Moosa Shamil – the officer seen in the video – had used the baton to stop a suspected criminal in accordance with the existing regulations (Dhivehi).

Riyaz added that Shamil had completed and excelled at a two-day programme on baton use held by the Police Academy last March.

When some MPs raised the point that the video depicted Constable Shamil hitting the fleeing motorists with a lot of force using a baton, Riyaz replied that that could only be determined through checking forensic reports.

“I think that even taking a look from our eyes is enough to tell how much chance there is that the baton actually hit the man who is said to have been hit and injured by it,” he said.

While expressing regrets at the loss of a life in the incident, Riyaz praised Constable Shamil saying he would “salute” him for he had displayed “courage in having gone onto the street to stop the motorcycle at the expense of risk to his own life”.

He told the committee that police had submitted the case of Gasim’s death along with the case of the suspected thieves fleeing on a motorcycle to the Prosecutor General’s (PG) Office. Riyaz added that statements had been provided from police who had arrived at the scene as well as those of the officer who had attempted to stop the motorcycle.

He added that if there was a matter of police negligence in the incident, then the PG had the option of pressing charges against them.

Responding to statements by committee members that the family of Gasim had said they had received no communications from the police, Riyaz said the police had obtained a statement from Gasim’s eldest son, 18 year-old Gais Gasim.

According to the commissioner, the Maldives Police Service had been sharing updates with the widow of Gasim, Naseema Khaleel throughout the investigation. Riyaz stated that they had asked Gasim’s family as whether they wished for the guilty to be given the death penalty.

No communication initiated by police

Responding today to Riyaz’s comments, Naseema maintained claims that her family had rarely heard from the police regarding the investigation.

“We seldom heard from the police at all. We continued to call and ask for updates though, and the response we kept getting was that the investigation was going on,” Naseema said.

Naseema added that the PIC had also been vague and unresponsive about their investigations.

“We did hear from them at one point though, when they called and asked for Gasim’s heirs names and contact details. When I provided details, they then called our son, who became 18 years old in January, and summoned him to the police station once,” she said.

“”He has just turned 18 and one can’t really say he is an adult as such. Police asked him questions and he responded as he felt at the time. Police never told me or any guardians that he had been summoned there. That’s what Riyaz referred to today when he claimed family had been kept updated. That is not really the case,” Naseema continued.

“I am extremely disappointed after listening to what happened at that committee meeting today. What about the man who died? Is there no justice for him?”

Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz was not responding to calls at the time of press.

Prosecutor General Ahmed Muizzu and Vice President of the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives Ahmed Tholal were also not available for comment.

Leaked video

Riyaz also stated today that police were looking into how the video footage of the incident had been leaked onto social media.

The commissioner said that the investigation had revealed that the footage was from a police-owned CCTV and had been leaked from inside the police institution, describing it as “a very serious problem”.

He said that there were systems in place to determine that the video had indeed been leaked by police, and that leaking footage used in an investigation was in breach of the Police Code of Conduct.

He stated that the police would find out who was responsible for the leak and would take action against him within legal boundaries.

He pointed out that there had been previous instances where police officers who had committed similar acts had been dismissed from their posts.

PIC Investigation

Meanwhile, the Police Integrity Commission had previously stated on December 3, 2012 that they were nearing completion of their investigation into allegations of police involvement in the death of Gasim.

On September 24, 2012, Gasim’s wife had submitted a letter to the PIC requesting them to look into the incident. PIC Director General Fathimath Sarira had confirmed at the time that the PIC had received the leaked footage prior to it being leaked in social media.

Responding to a question by Minivan News as to why the Commissioner had stated Constable Shamil to be free of fault before the PIC had concluded their investigation, Police Spokesperson Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef said the investigations were treated as two separate matters.

“As per our investigation, there is no negligence in this case from the side of the police officer. If PIC finds there is an issue, or a place like HRCM conducts an investigation and finds there is an issue here, then we will act on those findings accordingly,” he said.

Article 41(c) of the Police Act states that Maldives Police Service should inform the PIC upon the occurrence of death or infliction of grave bodily injury to a person due to the use of force by a police officer.

Asked last December if police had in accordance with the said article notified PIC of the incident, Sarira had stated at the time that: “Police has notified the commission about the accident over a phone call. Although, when we first heard of the case, it was only said that a speeding motorcycle had collided with a parked one and led to a death. But then later, we got the footage too.”

Minivan News asked poliec inspector Haneef why police had not mentioned the involvement of Constable Shamil to either the PIC or the public. Haneef responded saying, “Even I initially knew of it as an accident. We wouldn’t know all the details at once. We learn facts as the investigation moves forward. It was portrayed as a cover-up in coverage, but we say it was an accident as that is what our investigations state it is.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)