Tag: Maldives judiciary

Maldives judiciary hammered in UN human rights review

Countries across the world have blasted the Maldives for it’s politicized judiciary and expressed alarm over threats to journalists and human rights defenders at a UN periodic review of human rights in Geneva today.

The imprisonment of former president Mohamed Nasheed on terrorism charges was also noted with concern by Norway, Germany, the United Kingdom, Denmark, the United States, Canada and Australia.

But many countries welcomed new anti-torture laws and laws protecting migrant worker and women’s rights in the Maldives, and applauded progress in healthcare and education.

The UN’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) comes amidst heightened international scrutiny of the Maldives over political turbulence triggered by Nasheed’s arrest in February. Hundreds were arrested this weekend in a 20,000 strong anti-government protest.

Foreign Minister Dunya Maumoon said the Maldives is training and building capacity of judges, and said criticism of Nasheed’s trial had “mainly focused on the process and not the merits.”

Many countries also slammed the Maldives for the Supreme Court’s decision to try members of the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) for treason over a submission to the UPR.

Despite the strong criticism, the foreign ministry in a statement tonight said the human rights council had “praised Maldives for the tremendous progress it has achieved in the promotion and protection of human rights.”

Judicial reform

Expressing concern over a “lack of respect for the most basic principals of fair trial and due process” during Nasheed’s trial, Norway called on the Maldives to release the opposition leader immediately.

Germany noted a climate of growing fear in the Maldives due to increasing gang related violence, religious intolerance, and attacks and death threats faced by journalists, politicians and civil society groups.

The UK meanwhile called on the Maldives to ensure administration of justice is “fully consistent with international human rights standards” and take urgent action to protect journalists, NGOs and to investigate and prosecute individuals behind the threats.

The UK also expressed concern over arrests of opposition leaders during the mass antigovernment protest on May 1, and called for dialogue between the government and opposition parties.

Denmark noted irregularities and rushed processes in Nasheed’s trial, and recommended the “Maldives restore confidence in its legal system by ensuring the clear and unambiguous division of powers, including the indisputable independence of its judicial processes and judges.”

The United States urged the Maldives to end politically motivated prosecutions, including the Supreme Court’s prosecution of members of the human rights watchdog.

The US said it was concerned about fair trial guarantees and said Maldives must strengthen the independence of the judiciary by reforming the process by which the judicial watchdog – the Judicial Services Commission – selects and appoints judges.

Adding its voice to calls for Nasheed’s release, Canada said Maldives must reaffirm its commitment to democracy and rule of law, and institute an independent bar association.

Meanwhile, India said the judiciary must adhere to due process to maintain public trust and said the space for legitimate political dissent must be safeguarded.

Botswana, Brazil, Argentina, Slovenia, New Zealand, Ghana, Switzerland, Italy, Ireland, South Korea, Bangladesh, Liechtenstein, Netherlands, Trinidad and Tobago, Kenya and France also spoke on the need for judicial reform.

International spotlight

Responding to criticism of Nasheed’s trial, foreign minister Dunya said the case “has highlighted the profound need to work together and strengthen oversight institutions, including the judiciary and the need to bring urgent reforms to the judiciary.”

She censured Nasheed for his decision not to seek an appeal, stating appellate courts were set in place to address shortcomings by the lower courts.

Nasheed’s lawyers had decided not to appeal after the criminal court failed to provide the necessary documentation within a shortened ten-day appeal period. The opposition leader has instead appealed to president Abdulla Yameen to reduce his sentence and release him through special procedures in the Clemency Act.

On the Supreme Court’s prosecution of the human rights commission, the Maldives representative in Geneva, Geela Ali, declined to comment, stating: “as the matter is yet to be decided, we deem it inappropriate to comment on the matter just yet.”

The charges were brought in September last year under new suo moto regulations that allow the Supreme Court to prosecute and pass judgment. The case is still pending.

Dunya said the Maldives had formulated a judicial sector strategic action plan with new benchmarks for increasing efficiency, effectiveness and public confidence in the judiciary.

“Almost everyone seems to have something to say, about what they think is good for the Maldives. As a result, every baby step that the Maldives takes is fiercely debated all over the world, including in the corridors of power in key capitals,” she said.

“It is easy to criticize, but we urge you to not only do that: invest in us, bring about meaningful change.”

She insisted Maldives’ institutions must have the space to grow organically, and said meaningful democratic change cannot be imposed. Change “can only be sustained if the change is locally owned, locally driven and locally shaped,” she said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed takes over ‘Sun’ Shiyam’s case

Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed has taken over the alcohol smuggling and possession trial of Maldives Development Alliance (MDA) leader MP Ahmed ‘Sun’ Shiyam.

Citing a letter sent from the criminal court secretariat to Judge Ahmed Sameer Abdul Aziz, who was previously overseeing proceedings, Haveeru has reported that the action was taken in response to a letter from the Supreme Court.

The decision has come amid media reports that Judge Aziz was to be replaced with Judge Shujau Usman after a request from government coalition leader Shiyam

According to the court spokesperson, the action was taken following complaints regarding the case, and was done under Article 55 (e) of the Judicature Act.

The article specifies that it is the responsibility of the senior judge in superior courts to “take action in relation to delays and other complaints related to cases submitted to the court”.

Shiyam request allegedly stated that Judge Aziz’s “hand gestures and facial expressions” indicated a personal grudge against him which could lead to an unfair trial.

According to reports, in addition to making the request for the removal of Judge Aziz from the Criminal Court and Supreme Court, Shiyam wrote a letter to Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz stating his belief that his complaints regarding the judge had further increased the risk of receiving an unfair trial.

In a letter addressed to the chief justice, which was acquired by the media, Shiyam was reported to have said he had received reports that the judge may be “considering a hastened and strict verdict” against him.

Denying reports that the case had already been handed over to a new judge, the court today said it still remains with Chief Judge Abdulla.

Shiyam was charged with smuggling and possession of alcohol in March 2012 after customs officers at Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) discovered a bottle of alcohol in his luggage.

The case remained in the investigation stage for a year after the Prosecutor General’s Office sent it back to the police in August 2012 citing a lack of necessary information.

Since the trial began in November 2013, the Criminal Court has cancelled four scheduled hearings after being unable to deliver the summons chit to Shiyam.

He appeared before the court for the first and the only hearing held in the case on March 13 this year after a court order was issued to bring him before the court under police custody. Shiyam denied the charges and requested more time to research the case.

The second hearing in the trial has been rescheduled three times, the most recent instance occurring earlier this week.

In late March, CNM reported that Judge Abdulla – prior to the official schedule date for the second hearing – had attempted to hold an unofficial hearing while judge Aziz was on leave.

If found guilty Shiyam could lose his seat in parliament as per Article 73(c)(2) of the constitution which states that members of the parliament will be disqualified upon receiving a criminal sentence of more than twelve months.

Meanwhile, a hearing in the trial of Shiyam’s brother, Ahmed Salim Mohamed, for disobedience to order have also been cancelled this week, on the same date Shiyam’s latest delay.

Haveeru reports that Chief Judge Abdulla has on several occasions asked presiding Judge Muhtaz Hussein to hand the case over to him, though the court informed Minivan News today that this has not yet happened.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

UN sends delegation as UK urges judicial reform

A political delegation from the United Nations’ (UN) Department of Political Affairs (DPA) will arrive in Male’ next week to discuss the Maldives’ current efforts at judicial reform as part of its ongoing democratic transition.

The delegation, headed by UN Assistant Secretary-General Oscar Fernandez-Taranco, will meet with government officials, opposition leaders and civil society representatives. Revolving around the current situation the Maldives, discussions aim to identify opportunities to support democratic growth.

In November last year UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay visited the Maldives and said the country had made “significant advances” during the first few years of its transition, but a gap still existed between the rhetoric and the reality on the ground.

The Commonwealth has also pledged to assist the island nation in its efforts towards judicial reform, while British Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Alistair Burt, is holding discussions with President Mohamed Nasheed to resolve the current stalemate.

“Although the [Maldives’] judiciary is constitutionally independent, the sitting judges are under qualified, often corrupt and hostile to the democratically elected regime,” said MP John Glen of Prime Minister David Cameron’s ruling Conservative party.

Glen further called on the House Leader to “urgently make time for a debate on judicial reform in the Maldives,” reads a press statement.

Leader of the House of Commons and Conservative Party MP George Young pointed out that the British High Commission in Colombo is involved. “We want to help Maldives to make progress towards democratic reform in the direction that my friend John Glen outlines,” he said.

The Maldives formally requested international legal assistance from the UN Human Rights Commission on January 22. Last year, ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) also appealed for international intervention in what it considered an “increasingly blatant collusion between politicians loyal to the former autocratic President, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, and senior members of the judiciary.”

The Maldives government initiated a judicial standoff on January 16 when it ordered the military to arrest Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed after he filed a High Court injunction against his police summons.

Allegations against Judge Mohamed date back to 2005 and include misogyny, sexual deviancy, throwing out an assault case despite the confession of the accused, political bias, obstruction of police duty, disregarding decisions of high courts, deliberately holding up cases involving opposition figures, barring media from corruption trials, ordering the release of suspects detained for serious crimes without a single hearing, maintaining “suspicious ties” with family members of convicts sentenced for dangerous crimes, and releasing a murder suspect “in the name of holding ministers accountable” who went on to kill another victim.

In one instance Abdulla Mohamed was accused of requesting that two underage victims of sexual assault act out their attack in court, in front of the perpetrator.

The judge had previously been under investigation by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), but had successfully sought an injunction from the Civil Court against his further investigation by the judicial watchdog.

The JSC itself has itself been accused of perjury, embezzlement and corruption – by one of its own members.

The ongoing detention of the judge has polarised public opinion in the Maldives, resulting in three weeks of opposition-led protests which draw crowds of 200 to 400 nightly on Male’ calling for the judge’s freedom and the downfall of the government. Several police officers and protesters have been injured during the protests and a number of journalists have been the victims of targeted attacks.

In addition, a few government buildings and private property belonging to government officials have been damaged.

Protest leaders have pledged to continue the demonstrations until an “even stronger” protest on February 24. Meanwhile, MDP has gathered regularly at its party camp where activists have occasionally urged party members to “go out and confront the opposition”. No such order has officially been given, however MDP has asked party supporters to come to Male’ from surrounding islands for a demonstration on February 17.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

India will back Maldives “through upheavals”

Two years after registration the Friendship Association of India-Maldives (FAIM) launched its website last night in honor of India’s Republic Day, pledging new opportunities for cross-cultural dialogue between the two nations.

Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed said the country would “continue to get aspirations and lessons from the Indian experience.”

In conjunction with the cultural classes and services available through the Indian Cultural Center (ICC), FAIM aims “to strengthen the relationship, create friendships and build mutual understanding between the peoples of India and Maldives through organizing social, cultural, academic and other activities of mutual interest.”

Highlighting India’s artistic traditions, FAIM staff expressed a strong interest in supporting arts in the Maldives.

“The Maldives has very little internal support for the arts,” said a FAIM secretary. “We would really like to see what we can provide,” he said, acknowledging that the Maldivian community has a lot of hidden talent.

India and the Maldives enjoy close partnerships in education, technology and transportation development; India recently passed a regulation allowing Maldivians visa-free entry for 30 days.

In addition to encouraging cultural exchange, FAIM encourages a greater understanding of the distinct cultures. “Although archaeological finds indicate that the Maldives was inhabited as early as 1500 BC, much of the country’s origin is lost in history – most of which is as much folklore and myth as fact,” states the FAIM website.

While welcoming guests for “a light evening”, Indian High Commissioner and FAIM patron Dynaneshwar Mulay addressed the ongoing political turbulence and judicial crisis in the Maldives by affirming the close ties shared between the two nations.

“A democracy will see upheavals,” he said. “The Maldives is perhaps one of India’s closest partners. The Indian High Commission will always be there to help the Maldives.”

Mulay recollected that the Indian public protested against corruption last year, upholding rights embedded in its 1950 constitution. The protests, triggered by Anna Hazare’s Ghanid-esque hunger strike in April, captured world audiences and was voted one of Time Magazine’s Top Ten Stories of 2011.

Affirming the importance of India’s warm relationship with the Maldives, President Mohamed Nasheed said consolidation of democracy, including establishing a rule of law and an independent judiciary, is “our biggest and most important project.”

Thanking the Indian “people, its government and its institutions for the very necessary and good assistance they continue to give to the Maldives in our work to become a democratic society,” the President assured those gathered that the government shares concerns raised about the nation’s judicial crisis but views them as part and parcel of the task at hand.

“We have heard many criticisms, and we will continue to hear them. Would the end justify the means?” he queried.

“What I am sure of is that the people of this country aspire for a free and fair judiciary. And they want the judiciary to look like them. They wanted the presidency to look like them. They wanted the Parliament to look like them. And therefore the new judiciary has to look like them. They have to look like the Maldives. That is what has been asked of me, and that is what I am going to do.”

“Very often we have to invent, and invent out of the box,” the President said, asking for other powers to understand the Maldives’ current situation as a necessary, if complex, path to a stronger democracy.

Emphasising the value of cross-cultural dialogue in diplomatic matters, the President expressed hope that the traditional Indian thabla music would “broaden our minds and give us means to understand what is happening around us.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MNBC journalists beaten, tasered during protest

State television journalist Moosa Naushad was attacked by approximately 15 individuals while filming the opposition-led protest outside Maldives National Broadcasting Corporation (MNBC) last evening.

Naushad was struck down from behind. After showing his media badge the badge was taken from him and he was continuously kicked and beaten while lying on the ground, MNBC Director Adam Shareef said.

MNBC Editor Thoyyib Shaheem intervened by showing his own media badge, but was tasered in the stomach. Naushad was taken to Indira Ghandi Memorial Hospital (IGMH) at 1:00am on January 24 where he was treated for a broken hand. Shareef said the journalist had sustained fractures in his shoulder blades and feet, but had no internal damage. Naushad had not been released from IGMH at time of press.

The protesters, including opposition Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MPs Ilham Ahmed and Ahmed Mahlouf, allegedly made violent gestures with stones and wooden sticks while advancing on the MNBC building. MNBC have asked why their offices and staff have been targeted, “as if MNBC was ruling this country.”

MDP supporters were also reported protesting near the judiciary, before heading south towards the Haruge and clashing with opposition supporters.

“Over the past several nights our reporters have been verbally abused, threatened and warned they would would be killed by hanging or drowning,” said an MNBC official.

Shareef said he had “no idea” why the media organisation has been targeted, but “we are a government company so perhaps that’s the reason.”

The opposition has claimed that the attackers came from the MDP Haruge and attacked Naushad after reportedly mistaking him for a VTV reporter.

Last night marked the tenth consecutive demonstration since two minority opposition party members were questioned for “hate speech” against the government. The situation developed after military forces took Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed into custody on January 16, after the government accused him of endemic corruption and political favoritism.

Although journalists have been targeted for the past several nights, Naushad’s beating was the most severe instance, Shareef said.

A photo of the attack on Naushad taken by a bystander

According to Shareef the two sides have not had any direct communication over the situation: “the opposition doesn’t want to talk to us, they are boycotting us as a state broadcaster. But we don’t want to speak with them either,” he said, adding that Maldives Journalist Association (MJA) and the Broadcasting Commission have released statements on the matter.

President of the MJA Ahmed ‘Hiriga’ Zahir on Wednesday said that the MJA had released a statement condemning both the attack on Naushad and damage to the offices of DhiTV as soon as he learned of the attacks.

President Mohamed Nasheed’s Press Secretary, Mohamed Zuhair, meanwhile blamed the attack on opposition parties and condemned them for “lurching towards violence, thuggery and intimidation in order to achieve their political ends.”

In a statement, he called on opposition parties to “respect journalists’ right to report the news free from fear or intimidation.”

While MNBC journalists “are not afraid”, Shareef said the state broadcaster will no longer be covering anti-government protests on-site.

“I don’t want to lose my staff. If possible we will have a live feed, but in any case we will cover the whole story, every point,” he said.

Police estimated that between 300 and 400 protesters turned out last night, and claimed that aside from the attack on Naushad only “a few minor injuries” were sustained. After being dispersed at midnight the crowd spread “throughout the city, between the Maldives Monetary Authority building and the [ruling] Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Haruge.”

Police understand that another protest is scheduled for 9:00pm on Tuesday evening.

As the protests continue opposition leaders are calling for extreme measures.

Speaking during last night’s protests, firebrand opposition politician Umar Naseer said bloodshed was not beyond the group’s means, according to MNBC reports. The station also reported that the Adhaalath Party’s Sheik Imran Abdulla, another protest leader, had called for jihad. Hours earlier Sheikh Imran had stated that “non-stop protests are maybe not the best way, even if it’s fighting for the citizens’ rights, as their time and businesses are affected” at a press conference.

PPM MPs Mahlouf and Illham were not responding to calls at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Lawyers forward Chief Judge’s case to International Criminal Court

A group  of lawyers have forward a case concerning the government’s arrest and detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed’s by military forces has been forwarded to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The Maldives became a member of the ICC after acceding to the Rome Statute late last year.

According to the Rome Statute, “the jurisdiction of the [ICC] shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole”, notably genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression. The ICC does not deal with small cases, even if the victims may be in the hundreds.”

The case was forwarded by a group of lawyers contesting the conditions of the judge’s arrest and detention at a Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) training facility on Girifushi.

Maumoon Hameed, a member of the legal team, said the case was submitted “as the continued detention of Judge Mohamed is in clear violation of the International Convention on the Protection of all Persons against Enforced Disappearance.”

Hameed told local media that ICC prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Occampo, would investigate the matter. Minivan News is currently waiting for a response from the ICC.

The judge was arrested by MNDF forces upon police request after he attempted to block his own police summons in the High Court. Allegations against him include corruption, political bias and poor professional conduct, such as requiring underage victims of sexual abuse to re-enact their experiences during court hearings.

MNDF did not release details of the judge’s whereabouts for 48 hours following his arrest, prompting the opposition to define the act as “enforced disappearance”.

The military has not complied with High and Supreme court orders to release the judge. Officials from the military and police forces were today questioned on the matter by Parliament’s 241 Committee for safety and security, and further hearings are pending.

Opposition parties have claimed the judge’s detention as a ‘crime against humanity’, leading to a string of increasingly violence protests since last week. Over 40 people have been arrested in the past four days, and several individuals have been sent to the hospital.

Opposition Dhivehi Quamee Party (DQP) President Ibrahim Shareef termed the arrest an inhumane “kidnapping”, while Vice President Dr Mohamed Waheed surprised the govenrment by expressing shame over the action calling it “the first possible violation since the dawn of democracy in our country”.

The European Union (EU) also expressed concern over the judge’s arrest in a statement in which it encouraged all parties to “act in accordance with these [democratic] principles and to refrain from inflammatory language or other action which could incite hatred.”

Acting on these and other concerns, Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) last weekend visited the judge on Girifushi and reported that he was in good health and conditions, drawing criticism from the opposition for allegedly “backing down” from its duties.

Meanwhile, the government has maintained that the judge’s arrest was lawful and that invoking the term ‘crime against humanity’ is only a political strategy.

“The government of Maldives is taking appropriate action in extraordinary circumstances involving allegations of serious corruption and gross misconduct by a senior judge. Public statements seeking to define his detention as a human rights issue are part of the web of protection which surrounds Judge Abdulla Mohamed,” said a government legal source.

Citing the ICC’s Rome Statute, the legal source has noted that “detention of a person can only be construed as a ‘crime against humanity’ if that detention is committed by a State as part of a widespread systematic attack on a civilian population, and if that detention is followed by the refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of freedom, and or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of that person with the intention of removing the person from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.

“The detention of Judge Abdulla Mohamed is not part of a systematic attack on a civilian population and the government has acknowledged his detention to both his family and the public at large,” the source stated.

The source described the allegations against the Chief Judge as “of serious concern to the Maldivian government and community” and claimed to hold evidence of “gross misconduct” against the Judge.

In particular, the government claims that the judge exercised “undue influence” over at least one member of the Civil Court to prompt a ruling against the Judicial Services Commission’s (JSC) investigation of the Judge last year.

Observing that the High and Supreme courts remained silent during the affair, the government accused the judge of “tacit acceptance of a ploy to prevent the JSC from exercising is powers under the constitution.”

Furthermore, by accepting the Civil Court’s ruling the JSC indicated its own subscription to biased input, the source claimed.

Speaking today to Minivan News, in his own capacity, opposition Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) member Abdul Rasheed Nafiz endorsed the gesture of sending the case to the ICC.

“Right now, this is a legal argument. The opposition says the military cannot arrest judges, and the President says he has the authority as commander-in-chief. The Supreme Court tried to resolve the matter but it has had some problems. We need a mediator, and now it’s time for the international community to get involved”, he said.

Among the criteria for the ICC to take on a case in the Maldives is doubtful willingness and capacity of the country’s own judiciary to handle the case in question.

Speaking to Minivan News in September, President’s Press Secretary Mohamed Zuhair said it was important for the Maldives to have access to an international judiciary

“This is a big step for a country whose previous leaders have been accused of human rights violations. I believe their cases would be fairly addressed in the ICC,” he said, while an ICC official hoped membership would help the Maldives proceed with judicial reform.

Towards that end, the Foreign Ministry has requested an international legal delegation from the United Nations’ Human Rights Commission to help resolve the current impasse in the nation’s judicial system.

Meanwhile, former President’s Member on the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), Aishath Velezinee, today told Minivan News “I would like it if the ICC were to accept this. Not because of Abdulla Mohamed, but because it will mean they will have to look into why he was taken.”

Velezinee has accused the opposition of subverting the judiciary for political purposes, with the aim of protecting their supporters from prosecution and retaining control over the judges as previously held by the former Ministry of Justice.

“It was a coup,” she told Minivan News today. “Now they are asking the Supreme Court to investigate – the same Supreme Court which has asked the authorities to investigate people who criticise the judiciary. No single person has criticised the judiciary more than me – and I say this because I have all the evidence, and all the papers.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Chief Judge “took entire criminal justice system in his fist”: Afeef

Ministers have sought to give their legal justification for the involvement of the armed forces in the arrest of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, Abdulla Mohamed, amid spiraling political tensions.

In a televised statement on MNBC One last night, Home Minister Hassan Afeef said military assistance was sought for “fear of loss of public order and safety and national security” on account of Judge Abdulla, who has “taken the entire criminal justice system in his fist”.

Afeef and Defence Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfan said police requested the involvement of the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) in the arrest of Abdulla Mohamed.

Defence Minister Tholhath revealed that police sent a letter to the armed forces on Monday, January 16 “requesting assistance to carry out its legal duty under article 71 of the Police Act, stating that the Criminal Court was not cooperating with police and that as a consequence of Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed obstructing police work, the country’s internal security was threatened and police were unable to maintain public order and safety,” he said.

MNDF therefore exercised authority under chapter nine of the constitution and the Armed Forces Act of 2008 to take the judge into custody, he said.

He noted that Article 243 of the constitution charges the military “to defend and protect the Republic and its people”, while article two of the Armed Forces Act states that it must “protect the lawfully elected government of the Republic of the Maldives from any unlawful action that may in any way diminish its stature.”

Moreover, he added, the Armed Forces Act authorises the military to assist law enforcement agencies upon request, during which it would be given “all lawful powers accorded to police.”

“I assure citizens that at this critical moment the country is faced with, the armed forces will do everything it must to restore national interest and defend the lawful government,” he said in conclusion.

Afeef meanwhile listed 14 cases of obstruction of police duty by Judge Abdulla, including withholding warrants for up to four days, ordering police to conduct unlawful investigations and disregarding decisions by higher courts.

Afeef accused the judge of “deliberately” holding up cases involving opposition figures, and barring media from corruption trials.

Afeef said the judge also ordered the release of suspects detained for serious crimes “without a single hearing”, and maintained “suspicious ties” with family members of convicts sentenced for dangerous crimes.

The judge also released a murder suspect “in the name of holding ministers accountable”, who went on to kill another victim.

Afeef also alleged that the judge actively undermined cases against drug trafficking suspects and had allowed them opportunity to “fabricate false evidence after hearings had concluded”.

Judge Abdulla “hijacked the whole court” by deciding that he alone could issue search warrants, Afeef continued, and has arbitrarily suspended court officers.

The chief judge “twisted and interpreted laws so they could not be enforced against certain politicians” and stood accused of “accepting bribes to release convicts.”

Prosectutor General Ahmed Muizz has meanwhile maintained that the MNDF acted illegally, telling local media that he would comply with an order from the Criminal Court to prosecute the Chief of Defence Forces for contempt of court, as well as those officers responsible for arresting the judge.

Muizz has also asked the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) to investigate the case, stating that he would decide who to charge based on their conclusions.

“The military arrested Abdulla Gazi in violation of the Judges Act. Action will be taken against those involved,” he said.

The first case against Abdulla Mohamed was brought to the President’s Office in 2005 by then Attorney General Dr Hassan Saeed, now the leader of the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP).

That complaint referred to the judge allegedly demanding that the underage victim of a sexual assault reenact her attack in the courtroom. The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) subsequently dropped the inquiry.

However in an open letter to parliament in March 2011, President’s member on the JSC and outspoken whistle-blower Aishath Velezinee claimed that the politically-manipulated JSC was protecting the judge despite the existence of “reasonable proof to show that Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed was systematically committing the atrocity of setting free dangerous criminals and declaring them innocent with complete disregard to the evidence [presented at court].”

The JSC formed a complaints committee to investigate the cases against Judge Abdulla in December 2009, which met 44 times but failed to present an update report every thirty days as required by article 29(b) of the Judicial Service Commission Act and had not presented a single report as of March 2011.

Opposition Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP) MP Dr Afrashim Ali spoke in defence of the judge and insisted the complaints could not be investigated, but declined to provide reasons in writing to the commission.

Despite Judge Abdulla having been sentenced for a criminal offence, Speaker Abdulla Shahid pushed for his reappointment and later “bequeathed the Criminal Court to Abdulla Mohamed until 2026” under the Judges Act, which was passed hastily during the constitutional crisis period in July-August 2010.

Former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) has meanwhile called for the immediate release of the judge, accusing the government of disregard for judicial and constitutional law.

Interim Deputy President of PPM, Abdul Raheem, told local media that the government was seeking the declaration “of a state of emergency”.

“Recent actions suggest [the government] is capable of anything,” he said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC President deserts emergency meeting, refuses to adopt House Rules

The Chair of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) deserted an emergency meeting of the JSC Thursday night, refusing to meet members’ demands for adoption of the Commission’s House Rules as a matter of high priority.

The JSC’s deadline for adopting House Rules, as stipulated in Article 40 of the Judicial Service Commission Act, expired ten months ago on 26 January of this year.

Without House Rules, the Commission’s work has no set standards of procedure according to which to carry out its responsibilities, allowing for Commission business to be conducted on an ad hoc basis, and according to the discretion of the Chair himself.

JSC is the independent body Constitutionally mandated with oversight of the country’s judiciary. It is responsible for maintaining the standards, principles, ethics and discipline of members of the judiciary.

Chair of the JSC Supreme Court Justice Adam Abdulla convened Thursday’s emergency meeting, which he later deserted, to discuss the impending departure of three Chief Judges who are travelling abroad to finesse their English Language skills.

The JSC is required to appoint substitute Chief Judges to replace any that leave their post on a temporary or permanent basis.

Four members of the JSC, however, refused to discuss the substitutes’ appointments unless Justice Abdulla acceded to their requests to put House Rules adoption at the top of the Commission’s agenda when it meets later today.

Justice Abdulla refused the demand of the dissenting members who included the Attorney General Ali Sawad, JSC Lawyer Ahmed Rasheed, Member of the General Public, and President’s Member Aishath Velezinee. He chose to abandon the meeting instead.

Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdullah Didi, one of the three judges scheduled to travel to India yesterday to brush up their English Language skills, joined Justice Abdulla in the walkout.

In a leaked audio recording of Thursday’s meeting listened to by Minivan, Chief Judge Didi is heard urging Justice Abdulla to leave saying, “Let’s go. Nothing can be done in this place. Let’s leave, Adam”.

The two men then walked out of the meeting. Both the matter of the House Rules and the matter of appointing substitute judges to stand in for those taking English lessons remain yet to be addressed.

Minivan has learned this morning that Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed remained in Male’, foregoing the English language training after the JSC’s failure to appoint his substitute.

The two jurisdictions without a magistrate, however, could remain a legal limbo until the JSC appoints substitutes.

Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed is one of the six judges under official investigation by the JSC for alleged misconduct

So far the Investigating Committee of the JSC appointed to look into allegations against Judge Didi has spent over a Rf100,000 solely on reimbursing its members for their attendance. The Investigating Committee, too, is yet to adopt any House Rules.

Before deserting the meeting Justice Abdulla told the dissenting members of the Commission that nobody had the authority to impose conditions on him, as stated in a press release issued by the JSC on Thursday night.

JSC regulations state that any matter which the Commission, or any member of the Commission, wishes to include in the agenda of its meeting should be duly included in the agenda.

When contacted by the media subsequent to the JSC press release, Justice Abdulla said he walked out because he could not tolerate what he described as “the vulgar behaviour of Velezinee”.

Justice Abdullah did not mention that three members of the JSC other than Velezinee, including the Attorney General, had joined together in demanding the adoption of House Rules as a matter of urgency.

Placing the blame squarely on Velezinee’s behaviour, he told the media she had “belittled the importance of the meeting” and accused her of being a disruptive force in the Commission’s work.

“Yes, I do try and disrupt the ‘work’ that they do”, Velezinee said. “They are not carrying out the responsibilities as required by the Constitution. It is my duty, and the obligation of every member of the JSC, to ensure that the JSC performs its proper functions.”

Velezinee said certain members of the JSC appear to have a false perception of the Commission as “a welfare organisation for members of the judiciary with the oversight to ensure their individual and collective well being”.

Justice Abdulla’s claims that Velezinee’s behaviour forced him to leave the proceedings contradict the press release by JSC, and also the proceedings as heard in the leaked audiotape.

When referred to the the JSC press release, which had been issued after his desertion and of which he was not aware until contacted by the media, Justice Abdulla told Haveeru that it was not a valid document as it had been issued without a required approval of the majority.

After the recent controversy over Article 285 of the Constitution and the re-assembling of JSC at the end of August, however, JSC had approved three senior Secretariat staff as media spokespersons with the authority to brief the media.

Dismissing Justice Abdulla’s claims as a frequently used strategy of “character assassination to deflect attention from the JSC’s sustained negligence of its Constitutional responsibilities”, Velezinee listed a variety of issues deliberately left out of the JSC agenda.

“Adopting the House Rules and other regulations required of the Commission under the JSC Act, appointing Justices to the High Court, and appointing a Secretary General to JSC”, she said, are vitally important issues that are yet to receive any attention.

Velezinee said that without House Rules the JSC has not been able to perform some of its chief responsibilities such as preventing impunity among judges and building public confidence in the judiciary.

The Complaints Commission of the JSC, mandated to examine complaints against members of the Judiciary, for instance, has met only once in the last five months despite having over a hundred complaints awaiting its examination.

To date JSC has not settled a single complaint it has received regarding the conduct of a judge.

Minivan has also learnt that Judge Abdulla ignored requests by the US Embassy and Commonwealth delegations to meet with the Commission, and failed to inform Commission members of such requests.

The 10-member JSC voted Justice Abdulla as Chair with five votes, while waiting to decide whether or not to investigate his involvement in the High Court Declaration of 21 January 2010.

The Declaration removed High Court Chief Justice Abdul Ghani from JSC accusing him of misconduct and installed Justice Abdulla as head of JSC.

Meanwhile, Justice Abdulla moved up to the Supreme Court, vacating the High Court seat in the JSC. To the seat was returned Chief Justice Abdul Ghani, who had been removed from the JSC by the High Court Declaration only months previously.

The allegations of misconduct against Chief Justice Abdul Ghani have not come to the fore since his re-instalment at the JSC.

A report of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) is due out soon, revealing the findings of its visit to the Maldives last month. The ICJ delegation was lead by former UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Dr Leandor Despuoy.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Court refuses whistleblower’s evidence in JSC professional negligence case

The Civil Court has refused to hear additional evidence offered by a member of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) who alleges that the JSC is withholding information in the ongoing professional negligence case against it.

The Civil Court decision was based on the grounds that any information obtained by a member of the JSC in their official capacity cannot be used for any other purpose than that of executing their official duties.

JSC member Aishath Velezinee applied for leave to enter the proceedings as a third party, saying that the JSC had not made full disclosure in its submissions to the court on the professional negligence case brought against it by Treasure Island Limited earlier this month.

“Aishath Velezinee applied to enter the proceedings in her capacity as a member of the JSC and the additional information she has offered was also obtained as a member of the JSC”, Judge Nihayath said.

Referring to the JSC Code of Conduct, Judge Nihayath said, this meant Velezinee could not share the additional information with the court.

To do so would be to breach the JSC code of conduct, Judge Nihayath said, as it would mean that Velezinee was revealing the information for a purpose other than the execution of her official duties.

In reply, Velezinee said that by sharing the information with the court she would be executing her responsibilities to the nation and to the State. The duty of the JSC, she said, is to serve the people.

Judge Nihayath granted Velezinee the right to appeal, were she dissatisfied with the ruling.

Treasure Island Limited is suing the JSC for failing to execute its responsibilities by neglecting to investigate three complaints it made to the JSC in 2009, alleging professional misconduct by two judges – Judge Ali Naseer and former Interim Supreme Court Justice Mujthaz Fahmy.

At the time Treasure Island made the complaints to the JSC, Justice Fahmy was the Commission’s deputy chair. He later went on to become its Commissioner before being replaced by Judge Adam Mohamed Abdulla in early September this year.

The cases in which Treasure Island alleges misconduct by the judges involve some prominent figures of the tourism industry, including the Ministry of Tourism, and a sum of money amounting to over a million US dollars.

The JSC denied the allegations of professional negligence at the first hearing on 7 October 2010, saying that the complaints made by Treasure Island Limited against the two judges were outside of its constitutional mandate.

The JSC is an independent institution with the Constitutional mandate to oversee the judiciary, investigate complaints against it, and taking disciplinary action if required.

The JSC also told Judge Nihayath at the hearing that it had the power, granted by the Constitution, to ignore any complaints that it deemed were neither valid nor genuine. The complaints made by Treasure Island Limited fell into this category, it said.

The JSC has not investigated any of the 118 complaints submitted to it this year, and the commission’s complaints committee has not met for five months.

Treasure Island refused the offer of an out of court settlement by the JSC at the hearing, saying it would prefer the court itself to make a decision on the matter.

The hearing is now scheduled for 26 October next.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)