maldives news – Page 687 – Minivan News

Comment: Impunity can only be matched with impunity

This article originally appeared on Ibra’s Blog. Republished with permission.

Many of my friends and colleagues, especially my ‘twitter friends’ have been inquiring me of late, about my view of President Nasheed’s decision to disregard a summons by ‘Hulhumale’ Court’.

I myself have been pondering over it as my initial reaction was that President Nasheed should not have done it. However, when I looked at the issue dispassionately and in the context of many anomalies in the Criminal Justice System of the Maldives, the case does not appear to be so simple. In fact it is rather complex, and adds to the myriad of convoluted issues we are being forced to grapple with.

It is so complex that the 140 meagre characters that twitter gives us is barely enough to expound on this particular problem. At best, it is a unique and delightful academic issue to ponder. What I write below is not meant to be a legal discourse, but more an academic and intellectual approach to analyse a social problem.

It is not helpful to consider President Nasheed’s decision to ignore the court summons just by itself to fully understand the phenomenon. One needs to consider a host of other issues to grasp the enormity of the situation.

On the face of it, anyone who is summoned by the courts should willingly do so, and anyone disobeying an order by the court should rightfully be held in contempt of court and punished for it. This is necessary for the upholding of the rule of law.

However, one needs to also consider the basic assumptions underlying these powers of the courts and the reasons for granting the courts such powers.

Among many, the following assumptions are made in relation to the courts:

The courts will not act outside the jurisdictions granted to them by law, and any ultra vires orders by courts do not constitute a valid order which falls within the concept of contempt of court
The courts will apply same procedures to all, and are bound by law to do so, and will not be selective in the application of law and procedures
The courts shall not display any bias in any way towards or against any person, and most importantly will not be seen or perceived to be biased in any way

There are many other such assumptions, but I limit this discussion to the above three assumptions.

Firstly, on the matter of jurisdictions:

There is huge contention whether Hulhumale’ Court has been granted powers by the law to try any case whatsoever. The Constitution says very clearly that trial courts will be defined and created by Law. When Parliament created courts by the Judicature Act, there was no “Hulhumale’ Court” designated as a Magistrates Court.The Supreme Court itself is still sitting on the case of the validity of the Hulhumale’ 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, i.e, orders which are not derived from law. Therefore, President Nasheed’s decision to ignore the summons has more than reasonable legal grounds.
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’ Court. JSC does not have that authority by Law.If Hulhumale’ Court is legitimate, and is a Magistrate’s court, it would be the only Magistrate Court in Male’, and per the Judicature Act, would not have any other court to tie up to in order to convene a panel of judges. If it is considered part of Kaafu Atoll, then the panel should be convened from among magistrates assigned to Magistrate Courts operating within Kaafu Atoll, and the Chief Magistrate for Kaafu Atoll should convene the panel. The panel of judges convened now was convened by the JSC, and the panel includes judges from other atolls.
The Hulhumale’ court issued a travel ban order to President Nasheed, without ever summoning him to court, and in his absence, before any charges had been presented before him. No court has the power to issue such an order under any law. The court could have issued such a bail condition after the first hearing, if there was reasonable justification to believe President Nasheed might flee the country or he might present a security risk for the community through further criminal activity.

On the basis of the above, 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

Secondly, on the matter of selective application of procedure:

Deputy Speaker of the Majlis Ahmed Nazim defied 11 summons and only appeared in court for the 12th summons. No action was taken against him.
An order for Abdulla Hameed (Gayyoom’s brother who now resides in Sri Lanka) to be brought to court was issued by the Criminal Court a long time ago. However the Court has not provided an English translation of the Court Order to be submitted to Interpol. Nor have the Police contacted Sri Lankan authorities to repatriate him under the bilateral agreement which allows that. It should be noted that Sandhaan Ahmed Didi was repatriated from Sri Lanka airport under the same agreement, without even a court order, or charges being laid against him.
There are numerous cases of prominent politicians and business tycoons disobeying court summons, and to date no one has been convicted for contempt of court for this offence. This leads to the argument that not appearing before the court on account of a summons is not an offence for which people are prosecuted even though it is a prosecutable offence. By past practice and hence precedent and customary practice, no one has to appear before the court every time a summons is issued.

Based on the above, there is more than ample grounds for President Nasheed to claim that there is no need for him to appear before the Court at the Court’s convenience and his inconvenience. Further, there is a rightful claim that the court has already exercised bias against him and that it is unlikely that he will receive a fair trial. More importantly, the fundamental principal of equal application of law and procedure has been seriously compromised.

Thirdly, on the matter of bias:

Ample demonstration of bias has been made in the above paragraphs to start with
One of the three judges on the bench has wrongfully authorised detention of President Nasheed before, and can be considered as biased against him
One other judge already has cases of misconduct being investigated against him by the JSC
The third judge is reportedly a classmate of Abdulla Mohamed in the Mauhadh Dhiraasaathul Islamiyya
Thus there is a widely held perception that President Nasheed will not be accorded a fair trial. One of the Principles of Natural Justice is that not only should justice be done, but it must be seen to be done too
When over 2000 cases are waiting to be prosecuted (including murder, rape, child molestation, child abuse and other serious white collar crimes) at the Prosecutor General’s Office, one asks the question why has this case been expedited beyond normal protocol

Thus there are grounds to argue that a panel of judges who issued ultra vires restraining orders on no demonstrated reasonable grounds cannot be expected to give a fair trial or judgment.

Thus, it would appear to be a reasonable decision on the part of President Nasheed that since he is not being summoned by a legitimate court, by legitimate judges through legitimate procedures, he is unlikely to get justice; and that his appearance before the court will simply whitewash a huge injustice to him, and therefore he will not appear before the court and face the consequences and fight it in his own way.

This is just a very summary description of what I think are some relevant issues surrounding the situation.

The legitimacy of courts and their orders and decisions lie in the courts and their actions being within the framework of the law, which is applied equally to all. An ultra vires decision of the court is no different from a decision by an individual to disobey the decision of the court itself.

Hence my tweet : Impunity can only be matched with impunity.

When legal systems break down to the level we are seeing, laws are not worth the paper they are written on. Anarchy rules, which comes from a very primitive instinct within human beings : survive any which way one can.

We enact laws and try to uphold the rule of law to move away from this and live in a civilised fashion. For rule of law to be upheld, all public institutions and officials have to abide by it.

It is extremely fragile. If just one disregards the rule of law and the issue is not rectified quickly, it spreads rapidly like a cancer and destroys the whole system, paving the way for anarchy. I think we are fast approaching that point. The final signs, that of treating human life with impunity on account of difference of opinion is already here. The rest is likely to follow soon.

The outlook is appears to be rather bleak. But from a systems theory perspective, this had to happen. All vestiges which held the faulty system had to break before reformation could take place. There will be chaos. There already is. It may worsen. And then, if we are lucky, out of chaos will emerge order. But what kind of order it will be depends on which paradigm wins. At this point in time, I would tentatively suggest it may be religious extremism.

Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail of the former Chairman of the Constitutional Drafting Committee of the Special Majlis, responsible for drafting the 2008 constitution

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Contradictory findings in PIC’s report on February 8 crackdown

The Police Integrity Commission (PIC) has released the second of its three pending reports regarding police action around the contentious transfer of power in February.

The PIC states that it initiated the investigation due to allegations of police brutality when breaking up the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s demonstration on February 8, following the controversial resignation of President Mohamed Nasheed the previous day.

The PIC report on the events in Male’ on February 8 states that the investigation was carried out with a committee inclusive of all five members of the commission.

However, the report has two contradicting accounts, with President of the PIC Shahinda Ismail including her own findings in contrast to those of the other commission members.

The report states that the PIC looked into three main areas: whether police used disproportionate force in breaking up the MDP demonstration, whether individual police officers committed inhumane acts and acts of violence against citizens after breaking up the protest, and whether there were any police actions of the day which senior police officers must take responsibility for.

The investigation was carried out based on interviews, phone records, photos and video evidence.

Police acts within the law

PIC report contends that on February 8 , police acted within the boundaries of law and regulations.

It says that police acted in accordance with Article 6(4) and Article 6(8) of the Police Act and as protection from any danger that may ensue from the MDP demonstrations.

The investigation justified police action by stating that demonstrators had caused damage to property on their way to the MMA area, and that as there were large numbers of demonstrators, it may have led to unrest had the police not broken up the protest when they did.

The report further states that although sufficient warning had not been issued before breaking up the demonstration, police acted in line with Article 24 of the Freedom of Assembly Act as there was a small number of police officers controlling the demonstration which had a large number of participants, and any delays in breaking it up may have led to danger.

The PIC also stated that there were no incidents on February 8 that senior police needed to take responsibility for. It stated as reasons that there had been no prior knowledge of the protest being planned, that the intelligence department was not functioning at its best due to changes in management after February 7, and that after former President Nasheed’s statement in his resignation speech that his continuing to stay in power may cause harm to the citizens, there was no reason for police to expect his party to orchestrate such a demonstration against the new government.

Individual acts of brutality

The report however went on to say that individuals in the police force had committed acts of violence, inhumane acts, and used verbal abuse against demonstrators on February 8, acting against Article 54 of the Constitution of the Maldives, Article 7(a.11) of the Police Act, Articles 16(a), 16(d.2), 16(d.3), 16(d.5) of the Regulations for handling and use of weapons.

The report highlights 12 specific incidents, including video evidence and interviews proving inhumane acts of police against former President Nasheed, police brutality against MDP Chairperson Reeko Moosa Manik and member of parliament Mariya Ahmed Didi and video evidence of police beating 14 individuals with batons.

The commission states here its intention to further investigate these acts, and take legal action against the officers who were involved.

Contradicting viewpoints

President of the PIC, Shahindha Ismail, has however stated in the report that she sees acts of police on February 8 to have been against the law, and that she observed no valid reason for police to have broken up the MDP demonstrations in the manner the police did.

Ismail stated that while demonstrations were permitted in the MMA area, there was no evidence beyond that of statements by police officers to prove that any illegal acts had been committed, or that there was any intention to do so by the demonstrators.

Ismail further stated that the police broke up the protest without prior warning, acting against the orders of the officer in charge in the area, Inspector of Police Ahmed Shameem, order to ‘hold’ without advancing, and also against the advice of Maldives National Defense Force commanders. She said that the police had acted under orders from Unit Commander Seargant Mohamed Naeem.

Ismail described the acts of brutality noted in the PIC report as “targeted attacks to cause immense harm to certain people”, stating that these acts could not be seen as actions to protect anyone and should be further investigated and taken action against.

Ismail also states that Assistant Commissioner of Police Abdulla Fairoosh and then Acting Head of Police Specialist Operations Department Ahmed Shameem must be held responsible for not having carried out the responsibilities of their posts in a sufficient manner.

She also notes the accounts given to PIC investigations by Fairoosh, Shameen and Assistant Commissioner of Police Hussain Waheed, stating that providing false statements to the investigation is a criminal offence as noted in Article 62 of Chapter 3 of the Penal Code.

Ismail further states that Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz and Head of Police Professional Standards Directorate, Assistant Commissioner of Police Ali Rasheed, must be held accountable for failing to investigate the acts of police on February 8. She states that this failure is a breach of the constitution and the Police Act.

Recommendations to the Minister of Home Affairs

The PIC report presents two recommendations to the Minister of Home Affairs.

It calls on the ministry to order the police to investigate undue use of force with batons during February 8.

Noting that many officers during the February 8 had had their faces covered with hoods and helmets, the report additionally calls on the Ministry to establish a system in the police which would facilitate identification of police being investigated under similar situations.

Police Media Official Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef told Minivan News today that they are in the process of studying the PIC report.

“After studying it, if we find that any steps need to be taken, or any reforms need to be made, then we will work on that,” Haneef said.

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

Minivan News also tried contacting the Police Integrity Commission, but was unable to get a response at the time of press.

Likes

(1)Dislikes

(0)

How the romantic idyll of the Maldives is in danger: The Daily Express

“Away from the warm turquoise waters and sun-bleached beaches, the romantic idyll that has made the Maldives a popular honeymoon retreat is under threat,” writes Stuart Winter for UK-based newspaper, The Daily Express.

“The thousands of newlyweds arriving on the coral islands each year looking for peace and solitude have little notion of the simmering tensions crippling this Indian Ocean paradise’s fragile democracy.

A damning report on the archipelago’s civil rights record, along with an open letter from an eminent group of luminaries calling for free and fair elections, is damaging the lustre of one of the planet’s most tranquil holiday destinations. The murder of an Maldivian MP last week and the machinations surrounding the trial of former president Mohamed Nasheed have only added energy to the political storm gripping the island.

Nasheed, the islands’ first democratically elected leader, claims he was forced to resign at gunpoint earlier this year when mutinying police and military loyal to long-standing former president Maumoon Abdul Gayoom staged an effective coup.”

MDP campaign continues despite court summons, sea blockade

The Maldivian Democratic Party’s southern campaigning continues whilst legal sparring continues in the capital Male’.

A request for the delay of former President Mohamed Nasheed’s criminal court trial has been rejected as the MDP reaches the tour’s 10th island.

Spokesperson for the Department of Judicial Administration Latheefa Qasim confirmed that the Hulhumale’ court had received the request on Friday night, which had given the southern campaign as a reason for the postponement.

“This reason is not included in the regulations so the court cannot act upon it,” said Latheefa, who explained that the trial would go ahead as scheduled – tomorrow at 4:00PM.

After Nasheed’s decision not to attend his first hearing on Monday, instead leaving Male’ in contravention of a travel ban, the police were requested to present the MDP’s presidential candidate in the court for the re-scheduled hearing.

Nasheed stands accused of illegally detaining Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January of this year.

Despite rumours that security forces had been dispatched to return Nasheed to Male’, the flotilla of ships on the MDP’s ‘Journey of Pledges’ have as yet seen no sign of any police of Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) vessels.

Police have today said that it under the current court order, Nasheed could only be brought before the Hulhumale’ court with his consent.

MDP spokesman Hamed Abdul Ghafoor did mention that the MDP had encountered some opposition from locals on Gemanafushi in Gaafu Alif atoll.

A large tree was floated across the entrance to the harbour in order to prevent the flotilla from gaining access to the island, although Ghafoor said that the log was soon moved and a warm welcome was given by many of the islanders.

“We expected trouble,” said Ghafoor. “It was a weak attempt to make news. Eventually, the protesters could not overpower our numbers.”

The MDP also reported that a boat named ‘Orchid 101’ attempted to block the harbour entrance.

Local media reported that the protest was organised by the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), speaking with the Island Council’s President Asim Mohamed.

“The people protested against Nasheed about three issues. One is that he has ignored the fact that the nation is mourning and is continuing with his tour, the second issue is that he disobeyed Court Orders, and the third is the unrest created in the island during his previous visits,” Asim told Sun Online.

Ghafoor also noted that the party had prepared an appeal to the high court regarding Nasheed’s criminal court trial.

“The National Executive Committee (NEC) said we do not accept lower courts. The president will appeal to the high court,” said Ghafoor.

“Democracy has gone wrong – summons to court represents corruption in the courts,” he added, stating that the lower courts were not recognised due to their failure to have adhered to article 285 of the 2008 constitution.

This article required that all judges not having met a level of qualifications outlined in article 149 within two years of the constitution’s ratification, be removed from the bench.

Latheefa said she was not yet aware of any high court appeal regarding the Abdulla Mohamed case.

After the party’s legal team revealed its concerns over the legality of the Hulhumale’ Magistrates Court – assembled to handle the case – its executive council released a statement announcing it would no longer recognise the authority of the judiciary.

Reform of the judiciary is one of the key recommendations made in the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) which, in August ruled that Nasheed had not been removed in a coup.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

India concerned over Maldives’ political instability, investment climate

The Indian government has expressed concern over continuing political instability in the Maldives, following the murder of Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) MP Afrasheem Ali this week.

In a statement on Thursday, India’s External Affairs Ministry said it had “consistently emphasised that peace and stability are necessary prerequisites to the firm implantation of democracy, as well as for the economic growth and prosperity of the people of Maldives.”

“We call upon all parties in Maldives to continue to work towards facilitating an early and commonly acceptable internal solution to the political impasse in the country. In this context, India urges the government of Maldives and all political parties to adhere strictly to democratic principles and the rule of law thus paving the way for the holding of free, fair and credible elections. Violence should find no place in democracies,” the Ministry stated.

India also called on the Maldivian government “to ensure a propitious climate for foreign investments, which have a direct bearing on the economic growth and development of Maldives.”

The latter remark comes after parties in the ruling coalition last month stepped up rhetoric calling for nationalisation of Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA), currently being developed and managed by Indian firm GMR in the Maldives’ single largest foreign investment.

Following the controversial transfer of power on February 7, President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan’s government has swung between issuing reassurances within diplomatic circles that Indian investments in the country would be protected, while locally stepping up nationalisation rhetoric.

Last week, GMR’s Airports CFO Sidharth Kapur told Indian television channel CNBC that the dispute could affect the country’s investment climate.

“While we have invested both debt and equity into this project, these kind of problems naturally affect the investment climate of any region,” said Kapur.

Discussing the GMR case last week, the Maldives National Chamber of Commerce and Industries (MNCCI) assured Minivan News that investor confidence was not being harmed, though the body did describe the investment climate as “challenging”.

India meanwhile recently granted the Maldives a further US$25 million as part of a US$100 million standby credit facility agreed during last November’s official visit from Prime Minister Manmoham Singh.

The deal represents the third instalment of the credit facility, with the previous two instalments having amounted to US$50 million. The previous tranche of US$30 million was released following President Waheed’s first official visit to India in May.

The assistance comes at a time the Maldives is facing a crippling financial position.

Minister of Finance Abdulla Jihad told parliament’s Finance Committee that this year’s budget deficit is set to be double the original estimate of MVR 3 billion (US$195million).

Jihad told Parliament’s Finance Committee that state spending this year, MVR 9 billion (US$590 million), had outstripped earnings by 28 percent.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

It’s time to dial down the political rhetoric: Dhiraagu Chairman

“In the specific political context of today, moderateness is a sign of weakness. The best politician is the person who is the most intolerant and whose invective is the most extreme,” writes Dhiraagu Chairman Ibrahim Athif Shakoor in an opinion piece for Haveeru.

“The most polished speakers are those who energise the troops not through rallying them to the cause, but by getting them angry and excited against the opposition.

If you are on a talk show, and there are so many of them, the best speaker is the person who can bundle together the worst polemic. Doesn’t really matter what the topic is or on which side of the political divide the speaker is currently straddling. The trick in being invited again and to be a regular feature of the program is to be intolerant and fanatical.

If you are on the Parliament floor the way to guarantee your words will be repeatedly aired is to use extreme language and be blinkered about the complexity of the issue. If you are a speaker in a political rally make sure that all your statements are extreme. Never use the word ‘moderate”’ or even adopt the concept. It will not be accepted. Your speech will not be appreciated, and for a politician the worst possible thing, it will be ignored.

This is the political reality of today.

Unfortunately there are consequences, dire consequences of such extreme level of rhetoric and oratory. Our children are growing up in an environment of intolerance and narrow mindedness. Society as a whole is totally pervaded by prejudice and partisanship.

But more importantly words have power. Very real power. They impact and change the society. It transforms and energizes the people. It shapes and fashions the environment and defines the conduct of the society.”

Maldives agrees to repatriation of Somalian detainees

Director of Somalian state Puntland’s Counter-Piracy Directorate, Abdirasak Mohamed Dirir, has travelled to the Maldives to finalise the repatriation of 40 Somalian youths currently detained in the Maldives.

Foreign Office Spokesman Ibrahim Muaz Ali has confirmed that the director had met with Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim, Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz, and Special Advisor to the President Dr Hassan Saeed.

Muaz said that Dirir had been accompanied by officials from the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC).

Dirrir was reported as telling local Puntland paper Garowe Online that the Somalians had been informed of their impending release and were “ecstatic”.

“Our mission was to wrap up the agreement by Puntland and Maldives to free the 40 youth who are currently being held in Maldives. Thanks to God the youth will be heading home as quick as possible,” Dirir is quoted as saying.

Muaz told Minivan News that the agreement had been finalised, with Somalian authorities granted permission to land aircraft to be used for the repatriation, with the funds to be provided by the UNODC.

“We are currently preparing a timeline – hopefully it will take around two months,” said Muiz.

The detained Somalians were apprehended after their boats drifted into Maldivian waters, with some having drifted for months at sea.

Many were found in frail health conditions due to dehydration and malnourishment, and had to undergo long treatments before being transferred to Dhoonidhoo Detention Center, where they were provided temporary refuge until negotiations on repatriation were finalised.

Repatriation was delayed owing to a lack of identification documents for the Somalians and the difficulty of negotiating with the fractious African state – Puntland itself is a semi-autonomous region within Somalia.

However, earlier this year Minivan News was informed by an anonymous government official that repatriation was being delayed due to the detainees reluctance to return to the failed state.

The official reported that, when asked by a delegation representing the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) if they wished to return home, all of the Somalians said no.

The anonymous official observed that the Maldives could not resort to the option of forced repatriation as Somalia is recognised as a unsafe state.

Maldives has not ratified the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol citing “financial and technical capacity constraints” but the convention prohibits all states, regardless of whether they have acceded it, from returning a “refugee to a territory where his or her life or freedom is threatened”.

“So the project is now a big failure,” he concluded, adding that the Maldives can face “increasing pressures from the international community if it continue with the forced repatriation.”

March saw the first recorded hijacking of a vessel by Somali pirates in Maldivian waters.

The Maldives is situated at a strategic intersection of sea trade routes, and a significant amount of global maritime traffic passes through or near the country’s northern atolls.

The Maldives’ government first expressed concern over the growing piracy threat in 2010 after small vessels containing Somali nationals began washing up on local islands.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Court extends detention of Afrasheem murder suspects, MDP raises concerns of ‘politically motivated’ arrests

Additional reporting by Ahmed Nazeer.

The Criminal Court has opted to extend the detention period of four suspects accused of involvement in the murder of Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Dr Afrasheem Ali, as parliament’s ’241′ Security Services Committee today meets to discuss politician safety.

Authorities today confirmed that the four suspects, which the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has alleged include two “front-line activists”, would be kept in custody for an extra 15 days as the investigation into the murder of the MP continued.

The high profile murder has been met with growing speculation from politicians over potential political or religious motives, yet police have so far provided no details on the nature of the murder, despite allegations and counter claims appearing in the media.

The MDP yesterday expressed concern that the “brutal murder of a respected and elected member of the Parliament” was potentially being used to frame political opponents. The party has therefore called for “calm and restraint”, while also slamming the President’s Office for issuing statement claimed to connect the attack to former President Mohamed Nasheed. Along with condemning the murder, Nasheed this week praised Dr Afrasheem for his moderate views on the country’s Islamic identity.

According to a BBC report earlier this week, the President Office’s Media Secretary “sent out a text describing MP Afrasheem as the ‘strongest critic’ of Nasheed.”

Rules and regulations

Despite the allegations, Director of the Department of Judicial Administration Ahmed Maajid told Minivan News today that the extension of the suspects’ detention period was in accordance with rules linked to ongoing police investigations.

“Under this regulation, the police must produce anyone arrested on suspicion of criminal activity before a judge within 24 hours. The judge may order for the detention to be extended for a period of up to 15 days if the police can convince the court that a suspect needs to be detained for investigation,” he said. “In reviewing this order, the judge would consider such factors as the nature of the crime and the possibility of the suspect tampering with evidence if released for example.”

At the time of press, Maajid was unable to confirm the identity of the judge who had granted the detention extension, adding that such details could not be granted without receiving a written notice from the media. He added that the judge’s ruling had been consistent with similar investigations.

Police Spokesperson Sun-Inspector Hassan Haneef meanwhile confirmed there had been no further developments within its investigation, beyond the detention of four suspects for questioning in the case.

The Maldives police service have not so far given the identities of the suspects being detained as part of ongoing investigations.

However, the MDP yesterday released a statement claiming lawyers representing party activists Mariyam Naaifa and Ali Hashim had confirmed they had been detained as part of an investigation into the murder.

“The MDP has strongly condemned the gruesome murder of the member of parliament and scholar Dr Afrasheem Ali in the early hours of October 2, 2012,” the party claimed. “While the country is going through a difficult time following the murder of Dr. Afrasheem Ali, the MDP is deeply shocked and disturbed by the manner in which Maldives Police Services (MPS) is conducting their investigation into the incident.”

Aside from the detention of two party activists, the party added that its protest camp at the contested ‘Usfasgandu’ protest area in male’ had been searched by police officers using metal detectors yesterday. The party has alleged that officers on the scene had confirmed the search was related to the murder of MP Afrasheem.

Speaking to Minivan News today, MDP Spokesperson and MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor alleged that public faith in the police’s ability to conduct impartial investigations was low.

“People have lived with it their whole lives. They have been indoctrinated into silence,” he claimed.

Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party MP (DRP) Ali Azim told Minivan News that the ’241′ Security Services Committee was today summoning Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz to get an update on the progress of the ongoing investigation into MP Afrasheem’s murder.

Azim, a member of the security committee, claimed ahead of today’s meeting that it would be used to try and establish whether there was evidence to suggest the attack was politically or religiously motivated.

Aside from the ongoing murder investigation, media regulator the Maldives Broadcasting Commission (MBC) was also being summoned today over concerns about the media’s role in spreading “hatred” about MPs in the country.

While accepting that the constitution called for the allowance of freedom of speech within the media, Azim claimed that there were limits, alleging that the national press were not being held sufficiently accountable for their work.

“The media has been accusing MPs of wasting taxpayers’ money; of suggesting not enough work is being done and saying that no laws are being passed,” he said. “I don’t think these accusations should be there. A few TV, radio and online media services has been accusing MPs of these things.”

Azim said he accepted that media had a role to hold MPs accountable for their work, but questioned the accountability in turn being required of the country’s journalists.

The MP stressed that the outcome of today’s meeting, which was still ongoing at the time of press, remained confidential and that he would be unable to elaborate further on its outcome.

“Free speech”

Speaking to Minivan News today, Maldives Journalist Association (MJA) President Ahmed ‘Hiriga’ Zahir said that he had not been given any information surrounding the MBC being summoned before the security committee.

Hiriga said that the MJA would await the outcome of the MBC’s meeting before making any official comment on the matter, but added that local media should continue to be able to practice free speech as long as it was accurate.

“I think there are a number of issues that we need to address in the Maldives media right now regarding ethics,” he said. “But our stand has always been that we stand against efforts to undermine the work of journalists and the right to a free media here in the Maldives.”

Hiriga added that while the media had “no right to lie” to members of the pubic, it was nonetheless vital to ensure freedom of the speech was being upheld in the Maldives.

“If some media for instance want to support the government or a certain political side, we have no issue with that, but the information provided must be accurate.”

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

MDP’s ‘Journey of Pledges’ reaches Nilandhoo with no sign of security forces

The Maldivian Democratic Party’s (MDP) ‘Journey of Pledges’ has today reached Nilandhoo in Ghaafu Alif Atoll with no sign of the security forces.

Local media yesterday reported that boats had been sent to return former President Mohamed Nasheed to Male’ to face trial .

Party spokesman Hamed Abdul Ghafoor said that the five boat flotilla had received a warm welcome from the island’s 1000-strong population as well as the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) dominated council.

“We don’t see the [political] tension here,” said Ghafoor. “Everyone is in high spirits.”

When asked about the reports in local media that the coastguard had been deployed from Male’ yesterday, Ghafoor said that the party had not received any official word from the authorities.

“As far as we had heard, boats left from Male’ at 4:00pm and should have arrived in Villingili by midnight,” he said.

“There were also rumours that a platoon was leaving from Addu but we haven’t heard anything from the police yet,” he added.

Yesterday the police declined to comment and the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) denied that any officials had been sent to retrieve Nasheed.

The day after Nasheed left for the Southern atolls, in contravention of a travel ban, the courts instructed police to produce Nasheed at a rescheduled hearing in the Abdulla Mohamed detention case this coming Sunday.

Security forces made no attempt to prevent Nasheed from leaving Male’ on Monday.

Judicial Administration Department Director Ahmed Maajid told Minivan News yesterday that, despite the order, the former president was “not to be detained”.

In the event of Nasheed being taken back to the capital, Ghafoor was uncertain as to whether the trip, scheduled to visit over 30 islands in 14 days, would continue.

“The trip is very much driven by a charismatic leader. It may fizzle out if the government acted aggressively like that,” said Ghafoor.

“We are not fighters – it would be silly to have a fighting force confront us on the high seas. But you can’t put anything past them,” he continued.

Maldivian law does include provision for trial in absentia if the defendant in a criminal case is not produced by the police.

However, MDP lawyer Hassan Latheef said that this would be very unusual and, to his knowledge, does not have any precedence in Maldivian case law.

Nasheed has requested in writing that his MNDF security detail – provided under the Former President’s Act – not accompany him on the tour.

The MNDF released a statement today detailing this, saying that it could not take any responsibility for harm that might befall the former president whilst not under its protection.

It was also stated that the defence ministry had asked the Majlis for advice on how it should act in such circumstances.

Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz has been summoned to the Majlis’ 241 security committee to discuss the protection provided to politicians following the murder of MP Afrasheem Ali on Monday evening.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)