Tag: maldives news

President’s Special Advisor appeals to Indian PM to terminate GMR contract, warns of “rising extremism”

Special Advisor to President Mohamed Waheed and leader of the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP), Dr Hassan Saeed, has appealed to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh urging him to terminate the Maldives’ airport development contract with Indian infrastructure giant GMR.

GMR signed a 25 year concession agreement with the former administration to develop and manage Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA). Saeed’s DQP was vocally opposed to the deal while in opposition.

In a self-described “candid” letter to Singh dated September 19, obtained by Minivan News, Saeed claimed that “GMR and India ‘bashing’ is becoming popular politics”, and warned that “as a result, “the Maldives is becoming fertile ground for nationalistic and extremist politicians.”

“I want to warn you now that there is a real danger that the current situation could create the opportunity for these extremist politicians to be elected to prominent positions, including the Presidency and Parliament on an anti-GMR and anti-India platform,” Saeed informed Singh.

“That would not be in the interests of either the Maldives or India. You are well aware of the growing religious extremism in our country,” Saeed stated, in an apparent turnaround from the party’s former position.

Months prior to the downfall of Nasheed’s government in February, Saeed’s DQP published a pamphlet entitled ‘President Nasheed’s devious plot to destroy the Islamic faith of Maldivians’, which accused Nasheed of “working ceaselessly to weaken the Islamic faith of Maldivians, allow space for other religions, and make irreligious and sinful behaviour common.”

Specific allegations in the pamphlet against Nasheed’s administration included “fostering ties with Jews”, “holding discos”, “dancing”, permitting the consumption of alcohol, fraternising with “Christian priests”, characterising the Maldives as “a nest of terrorists and Maldivian scholars as terrorists”, failing to condemn comments by UN Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay opposing “Shariah punishments like flogging fornicators”, permitting senior female diplomats and party officials to wear skirts, and attending the Miss France 2011 Beauty Queen pageant on the night of the Holy Hajj.

“Nationalism and extremism in India’s backyard is not good for India or our small country,” Saeed informed Prime Minister Singh, in his letter.

Saeed went on to accuse GMR of extensive bribery, including the payment of “millions of dollars to buy MPs to get a parliamentary majority for the then ruling Maldivian Democratic Party”.

He claimed that “politicians and MPs who end up in GMR’s pocket keep silent but no one – with the exception of former President Nasheed and his key associates – have defended the indefensible GMR deal in public.”

“When politicians and legislators are unable to debate openly such important national issues and address them in an appropriate manner the public starts to look for alternative voices,” Saeed claimed.

“I fear that the only viable alternative for them appears to be nationalist and religious leaders, which could turn a bad situation ugly.”

Saeed advised Prime Minister Singh that “due to the negative connotations of the GMR issue, many positive elements of our relationship such as the vast amounts of grants and loans by India to the Maldives go unnoticed.”

Maldivian Finance Minister Abdulla Jihad in late October warned that the Maldives would be unable to pay state salaries for the rest of the year without a further US$25 million loan from the Indian government.

The US$25 million was agreed upon in September 2012 as part of a US$100 million standby credit facility signed with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in November 2011.

“Indians and the Indian government may find it difficult to understand the growing anti-Indian sentiments here in the Maldives in spite of the vast amount of aid and loans we receive from you,” Saeed informed Prime Minister Singh, and complained that all bilateral talks with India now “start with and end up on the subject of the GMR issue.”

“As a result many other crucial discussions are delayed or are tied up with GMR. Normally straightforward issues such as simplifying the Indian visa for Maldivians end up being tied into the GMR issue,” Saeed said.

Longstanding opposition

A second pamphlet produced by Saeed’s DQP while it was in opposition criticised GMR as “paving the way for the enslavement of Maldivians in our beloved land”, and warned that “Indian people are especially devious”.

“Maldivians feel our respect is taken for granted, our sovereignty infringed and that India is developing a ‘big brother’ approach to relations with us,” Saeed wrote to Singh on September 19.

“The Indian Foreign Secretary’s visit to our country in February [2012] failed to resolve the political crisis largely because India is no longer seen as a friendly and fair neighbour who could broker an honest and fair deal. It cannot help India’s international reputation to be seen as unable to resolve a crisis in its own backyard.”

Saeed furthermore informed Prime Minister Singh that “the Indian diplomatic corps in the Maldives appears to be so passionate in protecting GMR interests that one often gets confused as to whether they are GMR employees or diplomats representing the Indian government.”

The remarks echoed controversial comments by President’s Office Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza at an anti-GMR rally on Friday – during which Riza accused Indian High Commissioner D M Mulay of protecting GMR’s interests and being “a traitor and enemy of Maldives and Maldivian people”.

Saeed claimed in his letter that “increasingly Maldivians believe that the unfair treatment of the Maldives by the Commonwealth is connected with GMR and India.”

“It appears to many Maldivians that Indian officials are using international leverage and contacts to influence Commonwealth governments and forcing the way the Maldives is governed, thus impinging on our sovereignty. Some Indian diplomats continuously remind our senior government officials that the Maldives would be removed from the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) agenda the moment the GMR issue is resolved,” Saeed claimed.

Growing tensions

For its part, GMR has downplayed its confrontation with the new government. However it admitted last month to India’s Business Standard publication that “public statements and press conferences of some government ministers and coalition party leaders are clearly aimed at arousing public sentiments against GMR and creating undue challenges for us.

“To gain political advantage, some elements of the government itself have started hampering the smooth functioning and development of the airport,” the company added.

The most recent surge of tension follows the company’s forwarding of a US$2.2 million bill to the government’s side of the contract – the Maldives Airports Company Limited (MACL).

The negative balance was the result a civil court case filed by Saeed’s DQP during the Nasheed administration, which blocked the company from levying an airport development charge (ADC) as stipulated in its concession agreement.

The Civil Court ruled in the DQP’s favour. Opting to honour the contract, the Nasheed administration instructed the company to deduct the ADC from its concession fees while it sought to appeal the matter.

The new government – which included the DQP – inherited the problem following the downfall of Nasheed’s government on February 7. In the first quarter of 2012 the government received US$525,355 of an expected US$8.7 million, after the deduction of the ADC. That was followed by a US$1.5 million bill for the second quarter, after the ADC payable eclipsed the revenue due the government.

Combined with the third quarter payment due, the government now owes the airport developer US$3.7 million.

“The net result of this is that the Maldivian government now has to pay GMR for running the airport. On this basis it is likely that the Maldivian government will end up paying about MVR 8 billion (US$519 million) to GMR for the duration of the contract,” Saeed wrote.

Saeed concluded his letter to Prime Minister Singh by suggesting that India “assist us in terminating the GMR contract as soon as possible, well before the 2013 presidential election.”

Download the complete letter (English)

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP MP Mariya Ahmed Didi calls for debate on sale of alcohol to tourists in local guest houses

Former Chairperson of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), MP Mariya Ahmed Didi, has called for debate over the sale of alcohol to tourists in local guest houses, in a bid to promote mid-market travel to local islands.

Didi made the remarks during the debate in parliament over the proposed bill calling for the blanket prohibition of pork and alcohol imports to the country, sponsored by fellow MDP MP Nazim Rashad.

During the debate, Didi raised several questions on the issue including whether alcohol should only be sold by wealthy business tycoons, such as leader of Jumhoree Party (JP) MP Gasim Ibrahim and Hussain ‘Champa’ Afeef.

“When we travel to several islands to prepare our election manifesto, and when we discuss about opening guest houses, the subject of allowing sale of alcohol in guest houses with provisions excluding sale to locals has to be discussed,” she said.

She further stated that before giving such a permit, views of the religious scholars in the country must also be sought. Didi added that it was important to know from religious perspective whether such sale could be carried out in the Maldives or whether the Maldives could consume the profits made by through sale of alcohol while remaining an Islamic country.

Didi called on parliament to accept the bill proposed by MP Nazim Rashad and have it sent to a parliamentary committee, to then seek the views of religious scholars.

Unlike many other Islamic nations such as Qatar, Dubai and Abu Dhabi where the sale of alcohol is licensed to hotels and foreign workers, the Maldives classifies alcohol as a restricted substance and bans its use and sale on ‘inhabited’ islands.

The resort islands are classified as ‘uninhabited’ under Maldivian law, although technically under the Constitution no law can be enacted against a tenet of Islam, which potentially affects those relevant to the import, sale and service of haram products such as pork and alcohol.

“Clarified and addressed”

Speaking to Minivan News, Didi said that the issue of alcohol needed to be “clarified” and “addressed”.

“If this is a religious issue, that is if Islam bans sale of alcohol, it should not be sold in the Maldives as we are a 100 percent Islamic nation. If the sale is allowed, then the question to ask is whether alcohol is needed for the tourist trade to flourish,” she said.

She added that if alcohol proved to be a vital element in the tourism sector, then the sale of alcohol should be allowed for “registered places” to which a permit is given to accommodate tourists including resorts, safari boats and guest houses.

“If the objection to the sale of alcohol is on [religious] grounds, it should not be sold in places where Maldivians reside. But Maldivians do reside on resorts as employees. If we deny Maldivians the employment opportunities in the resorts, then the income from resorts will be restricted to those who own resorts, that would give way to increase in expatriate workers and foreign currency drainage,” she explained.

Didi stressed that the bill must be admitted to a parliamentary committee and “clarify” from religious scholars the position of Islam that concerns the issue at hand.

“Every island I have travelled to, most locals who I come across want tourist guest houses on their islands and employment opportunities where they can work and still go back home to spend time with their families,” She added.

The bill calling to ban the sale of pork and alcohol was proposed in October.

Presenting the bill, Nazim argued that the import of these products violates article 10(b) of the constitution which states that “no law contrary to any tenet of Islam shall be enacted in the Maldives.”

“We often hear rumours that people have alcohol at home in their fridge, available any time. We’ve heard that kids take alcohol to school to drink during their break. The issue is more serious than we think, it should not be ignored,” Nazim told the house.

Consumption of intoxicants or pork products is prohibited under Islamic law.

Previous attempts

When in charge, the MDP government announced that it was considering banning pork and alcohol products in response to the December 23 coalition’s campaign to protect Islam.

Then Press Secretary for the President, Mohamed Zuhair at the time said that trade of alcohol was not a business conducted by the government. He added that the government receives a relatively large amount of money through this trade from Goods and Services Tax (GST).

“The businessman running the trade of alcohol receives a huge amount of profit through this business as well,’’ he said. ‘’The government is now considering banning trade of alcohol and pork throughout the Maldives.’’

The decision was followed after a mass protest against the government held by the December 23 coalition, consisting of several religious NGOs and opposition political parties, called on the government to ban the sale of pork and alcohol among other demands.

After being asked in January for a consultative opinion over whether the Maldives could import pork and alcohol without violating the nation’s Shariah-based constitution, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the case on the grounds that the matter did not need to be addressed at the Supreme Court level.

The Court did note, however, that pork and alcohol have been imported under provisions of the Contraband Act and that there is a regulation in favor of the trade. As no law has declared the regulation unlawful, the import of pork and alcohol is indeed legal, the court claimed.

Meanwhile, Article 10 of the Constitution states that “No law contrary to any tenet of Islam shall be enacted in the Maldives.”

The Constitution also states that any law not struck down by the courts is valid.

Since resorts first opened in the Maldives in the 1970s, tourism has been the core of the island nation’s economy. To accommodate the industry as well as the national Islamic faith, in 1975 the Ministry of Economic Development regulated the sale of pork and alcohol to tourist establishments (Act 4/75).

While there is no regulation or set of guidelines specific to spa operations in resorts, Article 15(a2) of the Goods and Services Tax Act stipulates that spas are legally accepted in the Maldives as tourism goods, and therefore may be operated in compliance with tourism regulations.

After its formation in 2009 the Parliament had nine months to reject any legislation which did not conform with the Constitution.

Parliament did not reject the regulation on the sale of pork and alcohol in 2009, thus allowing it to stand by default.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Judicial Council decided Hulhumale’ court could not hear criminal cases, reveals Nasheed’s legal team

Members of the Judicial Council raised doubts over the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court at a meeting in late 2010 and decided that criminal cases were out of its jurisdiction, former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team have revealed.

In a press statement, Nasheed’s legal team said that minutes from a meeting of the Judicial Council were among documents submitted by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to the High Court.

The JSC entered as a third party into an appeal lodged by Nasheed at the High Court challenging a ruling by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, which had summarily dismissed procedural points raised by the former President’s lawyers.

The procedural issues included the legal status of the magistrate court.

However, before the High Court was due to issue a ruling on Nasheed’s appeal, the Supreme Court instructed the High Court to suspend proceedings as the apex court had been asked to determine the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

The Judicial Council minutes meanwhile revealed that Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz, former Chief Judge of the High Court Abdul Gani, former Chief Judge of the Juvenile Court Shuaib Hussain Zakariyya, Magistrate Mohamed Niyaz from the north judicial district and Magistrate Ali Shareef from the south judicial district “all raised questions over the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ court.”

The Judicial Council was abolished after the Supreme Court unilaterally struck down articles in the Judicature Act concerning the council.

“Presenting the case [to the council], the Chief Justice said that following the enactment of the law on courts, members of the judiciary as well as lawyers were saying that the court in Hulhumale’ could not function under the law and that the Hulhumale’ court had been stopped following the passage of the [Judicature Act in 2010],” the press release explained.

The Judicature Act states that magistrate courts should be set up in inhabited islands aside from Male’ without a division of the trial courts (Criminal Court, Civil Court, Family Court and Juvenile Court).

According to appendix two of the constitution, Hulhumale’ is a district or ward of Male’ and not a separate inhabited island. The former magistrate court at Hulhumale’ – controversially set up by the JSC before the enactment of the Judicature Act in October 2010 – should therefore have been dissolved when the Judicature Act was ratified.

Moreover, the minutes revealed that the Judicial Council had decided that criminal cases were out of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court’s jurisdiction.

The Chief Justice had said at the Judicial Council meeting that the magistrate court had been dealing with civil cases and family disputes.

The press statement noted that it was the opinion on record of all judges at the council meeting that the Hulhumale’ court could not function as a separate court following the enactment of the Judicature Act.

Supreme Court intervention

Nasheed’s legal team also expressed concern with the Supreme Court ordering the High Court to suspend hearings on the appeal.

If the Supreme Court decides to take over the procedural point raised at the High Court, “President Nasheed would lose one stage of appeal,” the legal team said.

Following the High Court granting an injunction or stay suspending the former President’s trial at the Hulhumale’ court, the magistrate court announced that it has suspended all ongoing cases.

However, the Supreme Court last week instructed the magistrate court to resume the cases and took over a case filed at the Civil Court a year ago by a lawyer, Ismail Visham, contesting the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Speaking to press yesterday after a ceremony to open new offices for the Drug Court, Chief Justice Faiz criticized the JSC as “inept” and contended that “challenges faced by the judiciary would have been resolved” if the judicial watchdog body “properly” carried out its responsibilities.

Faiz also said that the case concerning the legitimacy of the Hulhumale Magistrate Court presently before the Supreme Court had not been addressed before because the JSC had not filed the case.

“When a case was filed in Civil Court contesting the legitimacy of Hulhumale Magistrate Court, the JSC sent a letter to [the Supreme Court] arguing that the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction to look into the case. We then asked the JSC to file a case as per the procedure and they only filed the case just a few days ago,” he explained.

The Chief Justice added that the Supreme Court would be considering the case as a “high priority”.

The JSC filed the case while Nasheed’s appeal was ongoing at the High Court.

Meanwhile, MP Mariya Ahmed Didi, former President Nasheed’s spokesperson, said that the Supreme Court deciding on the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court without allowing the High Court to rule on Nasheed’s appeal would “give weight to what many are saying about the politicization of the Supreme Court.”

The former Special Majlis MP urged the highest court of appeal to allow the High Court to issue a ruling as those unhappy with the judgment could appeal at the Supreme Court.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Anti-GMR armada heads to Ibrahim Nasir International Airport for seaborne rally

The anti-GMR campaign took to the seas on Monday afternoon in an effort to increase pressure on the government to “reclaim” Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) from Indian infrastructure giant GMR.

A seaborne armada of about 15 dhonis carrying flags and banners circled the airport as part of an ongoing campaign to annul the contract signed between the former government and GMR to manage and develop a new terminal at INIA.

State Home Minister Abdulla Mohamed told Haveeru that 50,000 people have signed the petition put together by a group of NGOs seeking to annul the agreement and nationalise the airport.

In response to the large number of boats circling the airport, the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) increased its seaborne presence to counter the rally, using coastguard vessels to block the entrance to the airport harbour.

MNDF Colonel Abdul Raheem told Minivan News: We had no major concern yesterday, we did not increase our military presence at the airport itself, instead we wanted to make sure that no one [from the protest] could enter the airport area from the sea.”

Adhaalath Party President Sheikh Imran Abdulla told Haveeru the protesters had no intention of disembarking at the airport and that the purpose of the rally was to “observe airport operations in the area”.

Last week Sheikh Imran gave the government a six-day ultimatum to annul the GMR agreement (by November 15).

Former Minister of Economic Development Mahmood Razee said recent actions protesting the GMR agreement, such as Monday’s rally, risked putting off future foreign investors.

“This is the largest single investment the Maldives has seen, and if GMR do leave, it means that other investors who have previously expressed interest, or who may look to invest in the future, will be put off,” he warned.

“[Annulling the agreement] will also affect tourism, as the capacity we have to accommodate tourists at the airport is already very limited.

“Any further growth cannot be accommodated with the current airport facilities, and if GMR pull out, the government does not have the money to accommodate tourism growth.”

The demonstrators are calling for the government to terminate the agreement with GMR – a 25-year concession agreement to develop and manage the airport, and overhaul the existing terminal while a new one is constructed on the other side of the island. The agreement represents the largest case of foreign investment in the Maldives.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed, whose government approved the deal in 2010, this month slammed statements over the “reclaiming” of the airport from GMR. Nasheed claimed such comments were “highly irresponsible”, stating that such words from the government could cause irreparable damage to the country.

The present government has continued to press to “re-nationalise” the airport, with the country’s Deputy Tourism Minister confirming to Indian media in September that the administration would not “rule out the possibility of cancelling the award [to GMR]”.

Several other Indian companies operating in the Maldives have expressed concern over political interference that they say is derailing their substantial investments in the country.

Officials involved in the Apex Realty housing development project – a joint venture between developers SG18 and Indian super-conglomerate TATA – told India’s Business Standard publication that the government was attempting to take over the site in Male’ given to the company, with the intention of building a new Supreme Court.

The Adhaalath Party has recently stepped up efforts to oppose the upholding of the airport deal. A number of gatherings in the capital Male’ and a petition sent to the government have all been part of the party’s efforts.

Also against the GMR deal is the government-aligned DQP, whose leader Dr Hassan Saeed serves as special advisor to President Waheed, as well as being his party’s presidential candidate.

Last month, Dr Saeed launched a book concluding that the only option for “reclaiming the airport from GMR” is to invalidate or cancel the concession agreement.

Should the GMR deal be annulled, Sheik Imran has previously predicted there would be “some unrest and damage”, but urged people to come out and support the calls for nationalisation.

According to Imran, his rejection was not based on animosity towards India, as the GMR issue was “only a disagreement between the Maldivian government and a private company”. He expressed his hope that the Indian government would not get involved in the matter.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Hoarafushi has “returned to normal” after last month’s flooding

Families displaced by last month’s flooding of Hoarafushi have been able to return home following a relief effort by the National Disaster Management Centre (NDMC).

Twenty-four inhabited islands were reported to have been affected by the heavy rain, with Hoarafushi in Haa Alif Atoll deemed by the NDMC as the most severely affected.

According to Hoarafushi Island Council Chair Ahmed Mauroof, up to 95 houses were flooded in the area, affecting an “estimated 600 people.”

The NDMC has been working to restore normality on the islands since the flooding. Disaster Management Centre Project Officer, Hisan Hassan, said: “Everyone has been returned to their homes, and I have heard from a councillor on the island that it has returned to normal now.

“Some families are still expecting some aid relief, as many foods, electrical and personal items were destroyed in the floods.”

An initial figure of MVR 10 million (US$648,000) had been made available from a contingency component in the national budget to provide relief to the damaged islands.

A government spokesperson confirmed that a report on the damage has been published.

Joint efforts from the island council, the island’s youth, police, the MNDF, officials of the Maldives Transport and Contracting Company (MTCC) and staff from the nearby Manafaru resort helped to put up sandbags, move furniture and to pump water from clogged up roads.

The floods started with heavy rain in the late afternoon on Monday October 29, causing flooding of up to five feet, according to police. The rains lasted non-stop until dawn on Tuesday.

Other islands affected by the rising waters, including Haa Alif Baarah and Haa Dhall Hanimadhoo were also assisted by the MNDF Northern Area Command.

Speaking to Minivan News last month, Mauroof said: “The cost of damage caused by flooding is expected to rise to millions.

“We formed the task force because our aim is to recover from this as quickly as possible.”

The severe weather had been linked to low pressure from cyclone Nilam, over the Bay of Bengal.

Likes(2)Dislikes(1)

MDP withdraws no-confidence motion against Home Minister Jameel

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Monday withdrawn a no confidence motion submitted to parliament against Minister of Home Affairs Mohamed Jameel Ahmed.

According to parliament, MDP parliamentary group leader Ibrahim Mohamed Solih had submitted a letter stating that the group had “decided not to carry forward at this time the no confidence motion against Home Minister Dr Jameel which was submitted under Article 177(a) of the Parliament regulations.”

Solih declined to share the reasons behind the withdrawal when speaking to local media, saying instead that “perhaps the reasons may be revealed later”.

Following the submission of the motion in early October, MDP MP Imthiyaz Fahmy had said that the action had been taken over concerns regarding what he alleged was an “unprecedented increase in murders and assault” since the transfer of power. He further criticized Jameel’s failure to probe human rights abuses conducted by police on February 8.

MDP has also submitted a no confidence motion against President Mohamed Waheed Hassan, which has not yet been placed on schedule in the parliament.

Furthermore, the Public Affairs Committee has approved an amendment to the parliament regulations allowing secret ballots when conducting no confidence votes. The matter is now pending review and voting on the parliament floor, which is currently scheduled for November 19.

Home Minister Jameel was unable to speak to Minivan News this afternoon, and was later not responding to calls.

MDP Parliamentary Group leader Ibrahim Mohamed Solih was not responding to calls and deputy leader Ali Waheed’s phone was switched off at the time of press.

Likes(1)Dislikes(0)

Coalition government “abusing religion”, “spreading xenophobia”: former President Nasheed

Former President Nasheed has expressed concerns over what he alleged was the current government coalition’s deliberate spreading of xenophobia, abuse of religion for political gains and negligence in bringing MP Afrasheem’s murderer to justice.

Speaking to a gathering of an estimated 2000 attendees at Sunday’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) gathering on the occasion of Republic Day, Nasheed strongly criticised the political opposition to the contract with GMR to develop the Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA).

“With the direction Maldivian politics are going in now, we may have to face consequences where the country’s citizens become prey to powerful foreign countries,” Nasheed warned.

“For the purposes of justifying this coup, people who are passing themselves off as religious scholars are spreading hatred for foreigners among our citizens. Under the guise of religion and nationalism, they have instilled xenophobic sentiments in the hearts of a few Maldivians.”

“A few politicians, for their personal gain, have brought the Maldives to the edge of a very dangerous precipice. The political actions of people who are nearing the age of hundred to try and revive their personal pasts, to repeat what has happened in a different century, will prove to cause a loss to us citizens in the end,” Nasheed said.

He added that it was impossible to “chase the Indian High Commissioner” out of Male’ in this day and age as might have been done in the distant past, and that GMR could not be sent away either.

Nasheed once again asserted that the contract with GMR was one beneficial to the people of the Maldives, “although some businessmen may not be benefiting from it.”

At a recent meeting, Nasheed had shared figures detailing the financial benefits the GMR contract had for the Maldives, while denouncing the Dhivehi Qaumee Party’s economic criticism of the same contract.

“Creating rifts was a common strategy during the long 30 year old regime [Former President Maumoon Abdul Gayyoom’s administration]. Some Maldivian politicians see creating a rift to then take political advantage from it to be a strategic and inventive skill. Baaghee (“Traitor”) Waheed may possibly have read in some book that creating rifts would be beneficial, but Maldivians will get no benefits through setting up India and China against each other and creating problems between them,” Nasheed stated.

Nasheed stated that the country’s foreign policy needed to be clearly laid out, with the aims and objectives clearly defined.

“Stop hiding Afrasheem’s murderer” : Nasheed to CP Riyaz

Nasheed expressed disappointment that the police had to date failed to uncover details in the case of PPM MP Afrasheem Ali who was found brutally murdered in early October.

“There seems to be none among us who is even concerned about it anymore,” said Nasheed. “On the first couple of days, we were very vocal about giving money to Dr Afrasheem’s widow from state funds, but we have not taken any steps to bring the murderer to justice.”

“This government has been negligent in the case of Dr Afrasheem’s death,” said Nasheed. “We assure you that an MDP government will bring his murderer to justice.”

The former president further alleged that the police had failed to find any relevant information about the case, saying “Baaghee [‘traitor’] police claim they have uncovered a lot in their investigations; that it was indeed Afrasheem who had been killed, his identity card number, that he was a member of parliament, his wife’s name, who his friends and relatives are… these traitor police claim to know all the details, except what concerns the actual case of the murder.”

Stating it was a direct message to the Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz, Nasheed said: “Stop hiding Afrasheem’s murderer. You know who Afrasheem’s murderer is. Please send the related details to the judicial institutions and courts of the Maldives. Ensure Afrasheem’s murderer is brought to justice immediately.”

“A republican government is one that belongs to the people”

“The current people in government came to power through a coup. What we see today is a violent, illegitimate, coup government kept in power through the force of pepper spray and batons of a few police officers and MNDF soldiers,” Nasheed said.

He further stated that it was a national obligation of all Maldivian citizens to bring down the coup government and establish a democratic government voted in by the people.

“It is because of that coup that today the country’s economy is being destroyed for the benefit of a handful of businessmen,” Nasheed said.

“This coup government has broken up the social protection programme that we established in our democratic government. Their intention is to create dependency and keep us citizens forever at the mercy of these traitors or some rich businessmen. We need to bring an end to this coup government for the sake of the country’s development.”

Nasheed ended his speech by calling on the Speaker of the Majlis to assume leadership of the country and to hold presidential elections within two months. As a final word, he led the crowd of supporters to chant “Elections Now!”

Likes(1)Dislikes(0)

Challenges faced by judiciary would be resolved if JSC carried out its duties properly: Chief Justice

Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain has accused the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) of being inept, stating that challenges faced by the country’s judiciary would have been resolved had the judicial watchdog undertaken its duties “properly”.

The Chief Justice made the remark speaking to media after concluding a ceremony held on Monday to open a new building for the Drug Court.

Hussain acknowledged that he could not say that every piece of work carried out by JSC was not done properly since he was not a member of the JSC himself.

“The JSC is an institution formed under the constitution to serve the judiciary. They have a huge responsibility to deal with issues surrounding the judges, so if the JSC carries out its responsibilities, I would say the challenges faced by the judiciary would have been resolved through that institution,” the Chief Justice said.

Hussain also said that he had on several forums highlighted that changes need to be brought to the current mechanism of JSC,noting that the local judicial watchdog had “differences” compared to similar institutions in other countries.

“But still, I believe even under the current mechanism of JSC, and without needing to bring modifications to it, some changes can still be brought to the works it carries out,” he added.

During the media briefing, the Chief justice also spoke about the ongoing case of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, the legitimacy of which is being contested in the courts by the former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team.

He said that the case concerning the legitimacy of the Hulhumale Magistrate Court currently in Supreme Court had not been addressed, because the JSC had not filed the case.

“When a case was filed in Civil Court contesting the legitimacy of Hulhumale Magistrate Court, the  JSC sent a letter to [Supreme Court] arguing that the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction to look into the case. We then asked the JSC to file a case as per the procedure and they only filed the case just a few days ago,” he explained.

Following the filing of the case, the Supreme Court took over the case from the Civil Court.

The Chief Justice added that the Supreme Court will be considering the case as a “high priority” case.

Spokesperson for the Department of Judicial Administration (DJA), Latheefa Gasim, was not responding to calls at time of press.

Court saga

Earlier in October, former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team’s challenged the legitimacy of the Hulhumale Magistrate Court, and its summoning of Nasheed in connection to the detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court.

The High Court at the time stated that the case had previously been looked at by the Supreme Court, there the court could not proceed with the case.

However earlier this month the High Court granted an injunction temporarily suspending the trial of former President after his legal team appealed a ruling on procedural points by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court in the trial.

During the hearing, JSC lawyer Abdul Fahthah stated that the JSC had lodged a case at the Supreme Court the same morning, asking the court to look into the matter of the legality of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Following the proceedings of the case, Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court announced that it had suspended all ongoing cases following an injunction issued by the High Court on Sunday, including Nasheed’s trial.

The Hulhumale Magistrate Court said in its announcement that it had suspended proceedings on cases involving marriage, divorce, guardianship, family matters, property lawsuits, civil cases, criminal cases involving extension of detention periods as well as other matters that could be affected by the questions raised over its legal status.

Two days later, the Supreme Court ordered High Court to halt its proceedings on the appeal by Nasheed’s legal team, and ordered the Hulhumale Magistrate Court to resume its proceedings.

Question of legitimacy

Writing in his personal blog on the issue, lawyer and Independent MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed explained that a magistrate court could not legally be established at Hulhumale’.

The Judicature Act states that magistrate courts should be set up in inhabited islands aside from Male’ without a division of the trial courts (Criminal Court, Civil Court, Family Court and Juvenile Court).

According to appendix two of the constitution, Hulhumale’ is a district or ward of Male’ and not a separate inhabited island. The former magistrate court at Hulhumale’ – controversially set up by the JSC before the enactment of the Judicature Act in October 2010 – should therefore have been dissolved when the Judicature Act was ratified, he argued.

Former Chairman of the Constitutional Drafting Committee of the Special Majlis, Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail, has also published an article on his personal blog stating the reasons why the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court cannot be considered a legal entity.

“When Parliament created courts by the Judicature Act, there was no ‘Hulhumale’ Court’ designated as a Magistrates Court,” he wrote.

“The Supreme Court itself is still sitting on the case of the validity of the [Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court]. It was created by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), without authority derived from law. Therefore the validity of any orders or judgments issued by this court is questionable, and the Constitution says no one has to obey any unlawful orders, ie, orders which are not derived from law,” he explained.

He also cast doubts on the legitimacy of the JSC’s decision to appoint a panel of judges to look into the case.

“The Judicature Act does make some provision for Superior Courts (Criminal Court, Civil Court, Family Court and Juvenile Court only) to appoint a panel of judges for some cases. Such panel has to be decided by the entire bench or Chief Judge of THAT court. In this case, a panel of judges from other courts was appointed by the JSC to [Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court]. The JSC does not have that authority by Law,” he contended.

“There is more than ample grounds to contend that the summons was issued by an unlawful panel of judges, sitting in an unlawful court, which had already issued an unconstitutional restraining order which was ultra vires,” he added.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Audit Office’s state budget increased by MVR 14 million

The Audit Office’s state budget has been increased by MVR 14 million, following approval by Parliament’s Public Finance Committee.

This year the Audit Office was approved a budget of MVR 57.8 million by the committee, as opposed to last year’s budget of MVR 44.5 million.

According to a member of the committee, the budget of MVR 57.8 million, as proposed by the Audit Office, was passed after thorough assessment by the Sub-Committee, and due to the importance of the work carried out by the Audit Office.

Auditor General Niyaz Ibrahim said that the budget had to be increased to facilitate the recruitment of 43 additional employees to the office.

From the MVR 57.8 million, MVR 54 million has been assigned as recurrent expenditure and MVR3.8 million as capital expenditure.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)