Tag: Maldives Police Service

Police confiscate stashed weapons from house of Fiqh Academy Vice President

Police have confiscated a stash of weapons believed to have used in gang violence under under a staircase in the home of Vice President of the Fiqh Academy, Dr Mohamed Iyaz Abdul Latheef.

According to local media reports, the weapons confiscated included a metal rod, a Kathivalhi (a traditional heavy duty knife used to chop trees), a wig and a face mask.

Speaking to Minivan News, a police media official confirmed that they had found weapons stored at a house in Male’ but would confirm if this belonged to Dr Latheef.

“No arrests or summons have been yet made. But we are currently investigating the case,” said the official.

Speaking to Haveeru, Latheef said the stash was discovered by a tenant who lived in the same residence at around 2:15pm.

“Once we saw those things, we contacted the police. Then the police called us back and requested everyone in the house not to touch them,” Latheef said.

Latheef also told Haveeru that despite the discovery of weapon stash at his own residence, he had not received any physical threats from anybody.

The discovery comes at a time where police have begun taking extra measures in curbing gang violence following four stabbing incidents within 48 hours. Police have said 11 suspects have been taken into custody with regard to the incidents.

In a statement released earlier, police claimed that the 11 individuals, all male suspects between 17 and 27 years of age, were detained on the 9th floor of the Aroodhaage building in Male’ as part of investigations.

The attacks prompted the police to form a special task force consisting of members from the Forensics Directorate, Intelligence and Covert Policing Command, Information and Communication Directorate, Central Operations Command and Technical Police from the Divisional Operations Command of the Maldives Police Service.

Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz said members of the task force were now searching for 50 “high-profile” suspects alleged to have had involvement with gang-related activities

“They are a threat to the society. We consider everyone, who had not been punished for a crime they had committed, as a criminal at large,” he told the local media.

The Commissioner of Police previously alleged that politicians were most often responsible for encouraging gang-related activities in the capital island Male’.

The claims echoed the findings of a report into the country’s gang culture published last year by the Asia Foundation that found politicians and businessmen paid gangs to assault rivals, damage property, and in some cases have opponents killed.

Minivan News was unable to contact Dr Latheef for comment at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

State must prove ‘MC’ Hameed’s dismissal was lawful: Civil Court

The Civil Court has ruled that it is the state’s responsibility to prove that former head of police intelligence Chief Superintendent ‘MC’ Hameed’s dismissal was lawful and in accordance with the constitution.

The Police Disciplinary Board dismissed Hameed from his position over allegations he provided confidential information to an opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) report written by the former government’s Environment Minister Mohamed Aslam, and National Security Advisor Ameen Faisal.

Local media claimed the decision was made by the Disciplinary Board on allegations that the three officers had “worked for the political benefit of a certain party” using their police roles.

Hameed filed a lawsuit in the Civil Court against the Maldives Police Service (MPS) on August 25, claiming that his dismissal from the institution was unlawful.

“The [judge’s] ruling is in reference to the state’s attorney ‘holding onto witnesses’ who would provide testimony regarding my dismissal in which I was sacked unlawfully. This is not the final verdict,” Hameed told Minivan News today.

“The MPS believe they have the privilege of not falling under general employment regulations because they are a separate entity,” he added.

Speaking previously to Minivan News Hameed stated, “I have noted that the dismissal was against the constitution and the Police Act. We have noted many articles that were violated in the dismissal.”

Judge Mariyam Nihayath, presiding over the Civil Court hearing, ruled in favor of Hameed’s lawyer’s argument that it is indeed the responsibility of the state to prove Hameed’s dismissal was legal.

Nihayath explained that all citizens are guaranteed the fundamental right to employment and if that right was withheld, it must be in accordance with Article 16 of the constitution, according to local media.

Article 16 guarantees the “rights and freedoms” enumerated in the constitution for all citizens – including employment – are “subject only to such reasonable limits [as] prescribed by a law” and these limits must be “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”.

When asked about today’s Civil Court ruling, Police Spokesperson Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef instead referred to the Criminal Court case being brought against Hameed by the police.

“The case is being investigated and has been sent to the Prosecutor General’s office. You’ll have to ask them if they have enough supporting evidence,” Haneef told Minivan News.

Prosecutor General’s (PG) Office Media Official Hussain Nashid confirmed to Minivan News that the PG had received the case against Hameed “last November or December” but was “not sure” if the civil court ruling would have any bearing on the state’s criminal court case.

Hameed also confirmed that the MPS previously filed the criminal case against him with the PG’s office, but did not know of any further developments in this regard.

“I have not yet received a summons [to appear in court], so I guess the case is still pending,” stated Hameed.

The Police Disciplinary Board also relieved Superintendent Ibrahim Adhnan of duty and announced it was demoting Superintendent ‘Lady’ Ibrahim Manik to Chief Inspector of Police, removing the disciplinary badge on his uniform, in June 2012.

Hameed, Adhnan and Manik were among only a few police senior officers who did not join the events of February 7, which saw mutinying police hand out riot gear to opposition demonstrators and launch an all-out assault on the main military headquarters.

Hameed’s arrest and detention

In June 2012, Police arrested Hameed over allegations he had contributed to the MDP’s report into the controversial transfer of power on February 7, the publication of which was derided by the government as an “act of terrorism”.

Following reports that police who cooperated with the Ameen-Aslam report were being rounded up and detained, police initially denied allegations of a “witch hunt” and issued a statement accusing the media of “circulating baseless and false reports”. However court warrants for the arrest of Hameed and Staff Sergeant Ahmed Naseer were subsequently leaked.

The Criminal Court arrest warrant stated that Hameed was accused of “misusing” or leaking information acquired through his position for “the political gain of a particular group”, and participating in the compilation of the “misleading” Ameen-Aslam [MDP] report, which undermines “the public’s respect for the security services.”

It justified his detention on the grounds that Hameed might influence witnesses and attempt to get rid of evidence as “others are suspected of involvement in the case.”

Police issued a statement that day confirming that Hameed had been arrested on charges of leaking “important information collected by the Maldives Police Services intelligence related to national security” as well as providing “untrue and false information” intended to benefit a specific [political] party, which could pose a threat to national security and create “divisions between the police and the public.”

Hameed’s actions were in violation of the Police Act, the statement insisted.

Hameed was held for five days following his arrest. The Criminal Court’s decision to detain Hameed was appealed by his family in the High Court, which ruled that there was no grounds to rule an extension of his detention was unlawful at the time.

The Criminal Court extended his detention period to five days before releasing him on the grounds that it did “not believe the detention should be extended any further,” just a few hours after the High Court upheld its decision to keep him detained.

Hameed’s lawyer Ismail Visham argued during the High Court hearing that his client had been subjected to discrimination.

Visham told the court that there were police officers accused of more serious crimes who had not been detained, alleging that in one instance, a senior colleague presently stood accused of attempting to rape a woman.

He further contended that the Criminal Court judge had extended Hameed’s detention period not based on police evidence, but on the judge’s own view. Visham contended that Hameed had therefore lost the right to respond to the accusations against him.

In response, the state attorney said that Hameed was accused not of a disciplinary matter but a criminal offence, and argued that the Criminal Court judge had declared Hameed a threat to society because police told the judge he might seek to “intimidate witnesses” and “destroy evidence”.

Following his detention, the family of Chief Superintendent Hameed expressed concern over his detention and noted that he was widely respected in the force as “a man of principle”. He has been in the service for over 17 years and has a masters in policing, intelligence and counter-terrorism.

Following the raid and extrajudicial dismantling of the MDP’s protest site at Usfasgandu on May 29, Hameed tweeted: ” Called a ‘baaghee’ [traitor] on the road twice today. Rightly so when our own actions are unjustifiable and thuggery like!”

After his dismissal, Hameed tweeted: “Ayan: Daddy, why were you fired from your job? My response: Because I did not join the bad guys.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: “Unprofessional police action” will not turn the tide of public resentment

Former Director of Police Intelligence Sabra Noordeen was arrested yesterday (March 16) upon arriving at Male’ International Airport. She was handcuffed for transportation to Dhonidhoo prison on charges of “inciting violence” against police officers on March 5 this year.

She was then taken to Male’ instead, and released “with no reason given at the time”. Her passport was confiscated. Here she shares her experience and concerns about “intimidation” of members of the public by the Maldives Police Service.

I arrived in Male’ at 9.35pm last night. I made my way to immigration and was glad to see a familiar face behind the counter, an immigration officer who I’d played football with occasionally. I handed over my passport for her to process and she scanned it through.

“I’ve been asked to stop you, it says I have to stop you,” she said to me.

“You’re joking,” I responded. With the recent political upheaval in the country.  I thought she was making fun of me.

She was in fact very serious. Another immigration officer came over, and responded to me about why I was being stopped and which watch list they were referring to. He said they had to confiscate my passport due to a court order, and that it was the Maldives Police Service’s request. He told me I could collect my bag and return to the counter.

It was then that I contacted my family about what was happening. I had been on the same flight as three lawyers and the head of [private broadcaster] Raajje TV. I requested their assistance from the arrivals terminal, and they immediately joined me at the counter, with the immigration officer and a police officer who was on duty at the airport.

The police officer said I had to accompany him to the Tourist Police station at the airport. At the station, they only had a court order to hold my passport. As we were getting ready to leave the station, we were told that a court order for my arrest was on the way, and we were asked to sit down.

When I was given the court order for my arrest, I think I laughed. The reason for the arrest was “inciting violence against the police and obstructing police duty”, on March 5 on Majeedee Magu.

They had also managed to incorrectly state my gender as male!

This very thorough court order was issued based on the evidence of a Police eyewitness and a Police officer’s statement.

I was told that female officers from Male’ were on their way to the airport to arrest me and escort me to Dhoonidhoo detention centre. We waited for 45 minutes. Despite the ‘change in leadership’ at the MPS, it seemed there were still only two functioning speedboats in Male’ atoll.

Two female Special Operations officers arrived in blue camouflage uniforms – both were without name tags.

I was handcuffed and made to walk through the airport to the jetty where the Police vessel was yet to arrive.

My loyalty to the institution that is the Maldives Police Service is hard to get rid of.  This is despite the direction that rogue officers forcefully took the institution in with the Police-led mutiny and coup d’etat on 7, February 2012.

One of the officers told me that it was procedure to be handcuffed while on the vessel on the way to Dhoonidhoo. I protested, trying to remember the procedures I had read while working in MPS.

They did not uncuff me, even when they put on the life jacket, which resulted in the life jacket not being fitted properly.

It was placed around my shoulders with the handcuffed arms awkwardly placed in one of the sleeves. I said to her, ‘if something happens, there’s no way I’ll survive like this’.

“We’ll save you,” the female officer replied.

Needless to say, I was not reassured.  On the boat, I was told that I was now being taken to MPS HQ in Male’ instead of Dhoonidhoo and that they were apparently going to release me. There was no reason given at the time.

I was taken into the waiting room in HQ. I was uncuffed, and asked to wait until my release chit and summons for questioning were prepared.

My release chit stated, that they no longer believed I needed to be kept under arrest. My summons to appear for questioning on Monday afternoon was also handed over to me.

I asked why they felt it was necessary to arrest and handcuff me when they could have just served me the summons, without all the dramatics the next morning at my home. I was not given an answer.

I quit the Maldives Police Service on 8 February 2012 with a profound sense of sadness for the institution and the colleagues I left behind. I do not believe that everyone in the MPS was involved in the mutiny or the coup and I do not believe in blaming everyone in a Police uniform. Many will disagree with me.

However, I do believe that MPS cannot fully gain the confidence of the public they claim to ‘protect and serve’, nor guarantee free and fair Presidential elections without significant reform.

This includes the dissolution of the Special Operations (SO) unit, holding all police officers accused of committing acts of police brutality and misconduct accountable for their actions. The removal of Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz, Deputy Commissioner of Police Hussain Waheed, Assistant Commissioner of Police Abdulla Phairoosch and many other Commissioned officers who have disgraced the service is also needed right now.

Until then, unprofessional police action carried out purely for the purposes of intimidating members of the public that the political and politicised leadership of MPS feel threatened by is not going to turn the tide of public resentment against the police.

Sabra Noordeen was former Director of Police Intelligence during the Nasheed administration

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)

Parliament could force journalists to reveal sources under new Privileges Act, warn police, MJA

The Maldives Journalist Association (MJA) and Maldives Police Service have both expressed concern over the recently passed Parliamentary Privileges Act.

The bill was forced into law last week after parliamentarians voted by a majority of 41 to overrule a previous presidential veto. The Majlis had originally approved the bill and sent it for ratification on December 27, 2012.

The bill was later returned by President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik.

In a statement released on Sunday (March 10), the MJA claimed the legislation posed serious challenges for free and independent journalism.  The association therefore urged parliament to “immediately” change the extra-constitutional clauses that it said compromised the rights and freedom given to journalists by the constitution.

MJA contended that stipulations stated in Section 17(a) of the act – which concerns the summoning of parties to give witness to parliament or its committees – meant that journalists could be forced by the parliament to reveal their sources. The association contended that such a clause to provide sources would undermine Article 28 of the Maldives Constitution.

Section 17(a) of the Parliamentary Privileges Act states: “[Parliament or a Parliamentary Committee has the power to] summon anyone to parliament or one of its committees to give witness or to hand over any information which the parliament wish to seek.”

However, Article 28 of the constitution states – “Everyone has the right to freedom of the press, and other means of communication, including the right to espouse, disseminate and publish news, information, views and ideas. No person shall be compelled to disclose the source of any information that is espoused, disseminated or published by that person.”

The MJA, in its statement, claimed that such contradictions gave “reason for doubt” on the legality of the stated article of the Parliamentary Privileges Act.

It also claimed that certain clauses of the act were too vague and ambiguous, and could leave questions as to how a person can violate the privilege of the parliament open to interpretation.

The association claimed former President Mohamed Nasheed’s administration had previously tried to limit instances where journalists faced criminal prosecutions.

However, in its most recent statement, the MJA said it questioned whether Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) had now changed its stand towards the issue.

The Parliamentary Privileges Act was passed with bipartisan support including that of the opposition MDP, which presently holds the largest number of elected officials in parliament.

Police concerns

Meanwhile, Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz in an interview given to local media also expressed concern over the act, claiming the MPs are now “technically immune from the law”.

The commissioner of police stated that the act meant police would not be allowed to arrest a parliamentarian even if he was involved in severe corruption and bribery.

Section 3(b) of the Privileges Act states: “A member of parliament should not be arrested while he is on his way to execute his parliamentary duties or while he is inside the premises of the parliament or while he is on his way from the parliament. However, the section does not obstruct arresting a member of parliament who is found committing a crime and the due legal process involving the arrest.”

In the event that an MP has to be arrested under different circumstances, police must provide a court order obtained through an application by the Prosecutor General, according to the act.

Commissioner Riyaz claimed that the act gives enormous privileges to parliamentarians – privileges that are not even given to former presidents, which he said was “very concerning” and meant there would be no equality before the law.

“The [act] says that no person should indulge in an act that obstructs the work of the parliament. I really don’t comprehend what it is trying to say. I don’t think anybody would know beforehand what the parliament may decide to do. I don’t believe that is possible,” he said.

Riyaz further stated that he had requested Attorney General Azima Shukoor find a solution through the Supreme Court concerning the sections which obstructed the execution of police duty.

“The law even does not bar judges from being taken in for questioning. But according to this act, it seems to claim that MPs cannot be arrested at all,” he said.

He further criticised the bill for including the punishment of imprisonment for the offence of violating parliamentary privilege, stating that such criminalisation did not fit with modern democratic practices and standards.

According to the act, a person found guilty of committing offences deemed disrespectful towards parliament, or that interferes with the Majlis work, would face a fine or a jail sentence of between three to six months.

It further stipulates that members of the public found guilty of disruption while attending the People’s Majlis to view proceedings would either be fined between MVR 500 (US$32) or MVR 1000 (US$65) or sentenced to jail for three to six months.

Moreover, persons found guilty of providing false information to the parliament or any of its committees would be fined an amount between MVR 3,000 (US$195) and MVR 10,000 (US$650) or sentenced to three to six months in jail.

Parliament Counsel General Fathimath Filza was not responding at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police decision to reveal Ali Waheed corruption probe “concerning”: ACC

The Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) has alleged that a decision by police to reveal the corruption probe of opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ali Waheed was an attempt to politically intimidate the parliamentarian.

Last month, the Maldives Police Service claimed that it was probing into a corruption case involving Ali Waheed – who is also the deputy parliamentary group leader of MDP – in collaboration with the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC).

In a press conference held on Sunday, President of the ACC Hassan Luthfee stated that the commission sought assistance from police in gathering forensic evidences while investigating several cases, but raised questions as to why the police had found the interest to speak about the case involving Ali Waheed in the media.

Luthfee added that the commission intends to look into the matter claiming that it had sought police assistance, but not specifically for Waheed’s case.

The president of ACC said that he believed that revealing of details of the case by police now posed difficulties for the investigation process.

Speaking to Minivan News, Luthfee said that a lot of people believed that the case had a political motive, and to prevent loss of public confidence in its investigation the ACC had agreed that neither police nor themselves would reveal details to media unless through a joint statement.

“Perhaps revealing the details to media could be a way [police] carries out certain investigations. Maybe that is an investigation technique, but if it is carried out with such a [political] motive, then it is very concerning,” he said.

Luthfee added that he was “shocked” to see police revealing the details in the media when the commission had only requested technical assistance from the police.

“The commission do not have the resources needed to carry out certain types of corruption investigations, including cases involving bribery. That is why we had requested assistance from the police. But before providing any assistance, they revealed it to the media. I was shocked to hear about it from the media the next morning,” he said.

Police Media Official Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef was not responding to calls at time of press.

Luthfee earlier confirmed that the commission sought technical assistance from police in investigating the case concerning the Thoddoo MP.

“We have earlier received complaints regarding the MP taking bribes following his defection from Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) to the MDP. There were also claims that he had utilised the money he received as bribes to buy a house. We are investigating the matter,” Luthfee said at the time.

He added that the ACC had occasionally requested technical assistance from police in investigating corruption cases and that this case was no different.

Meanwhile, Ali Waheed in a press statement released earlier alleged that the case was a politically motivated attempt to intimidate him after Parliament’s Executive Oversight Committee (EOC) – on which Waheed sits as the chair – alleged flaws in the report by the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) concerning the February 2012 transfer of power.

“I have been receiving threats from the government who have said that I and my family will be arrested if I do not resign from the MDP and as the chairman of the EOC. The threats were repeated after parliament Speaker Abdulla Shahid’s brother was arrested,” he alleged at the time.

Waheed further claimed that he had nothing to hide from the authorities and added that neither the ACC nor the police had asked him to come in for questioning, which he claimed “proved that there were no discrepancies”.

However, ACC President Luthfee responded to Waheed’s claim that he would be called in for questioning when “the time comes”.

“The government cannot manipulate me. I have the remote that controls me, not them,” said Waheed, concluding his statement.

Following Waheed’s high profile defection from then opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) to then ruling MDP in May 2011, several opposition MPs alleged that Waheed had sold himself to the then ruling MDP and former President Nasheed, a claim dismissed by Waheed.

Following the coverage, Waheed alleged that local journalists had politicised a private real estate dealing, in which he had won a fair bid for a beach house in Hulhumale’ and paid an upfront sum of MVR 1 million.

Waheed won the beachfront house for Rf4.6 million (US$300,000), bidding MVR 3020 (US$195) per square foot. His wife also reportedly won a house.

“The house will become my property only after I finish the rest of the payment within five years,” Waheed said in a press statement released at the time. “However, the story of this business transaction was spun in the media, with [outlets] writing ‘Ali Waheed and his wife have bought two houses in Hulhumale’ for Rf 9.4 million’ (US$600,000)’ in their headlines.’’

Local newspaper Haveeru claimed that the case involved Ali Waheed’s mother purchasing land in Male’ during October 2011. Haveeru alleged the net total of the sale stood at MVR 7.938 million (US$514,000), and suggested Waheed’s involvement in the transaction. However, it reported that the extent of Waheed’s involvement remained “unclear”.

Ali Waheed’s mother Zuhuraa had at the time claimed the money for the sale came from her husband’s savings, but some local media outlets have reported that the sale was funded by the construction giant TEP Construction Private limited.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Certain parliamentary committees trying to discredit police: Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz

Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz has claimed “certain” parliamentary select committees are purposefully attempting to discredit the police institution and tarnish its public image.

Riyaz made the remarks during a ceremony today to open a police station on Fenfushi in Alifu Atoll.

The commissioner said that some parliament members were attempting to harass specific police officers of different ranks in the name of “holding the police accountable”. He further said that such practices are not accepted in modern democratic states.

“Some parliamentary committees are very clearly trying to discredit the [police] institution. That is not something I will accept,” he said.

Riyaz said it was the parliament’s ‘241 Committee’ to which the police should be accountable.

“The constitution clearly states that the police should be accountable to parliament’s ‘241 committee’.  I have discussed this with several legal practitioners. They also say that police should be accountable to the said committee. Last week, we have requested advice from the attorney general on this issue,” he said.

Riyaz’s comments come at a time where Parliament’s Executive Oversight Committee (EOC) – which has an opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) majority – has again sent a notice requesting the commissioner appear before the committee.

Previously, he was summoned before the EOC over a leaked video showing the death of a bystander after police attempted to stop a speeding motorcycle suspected of being driven by thieves to flee a crime scene.

Commissioner Riyaz also contended that the police were working independently and “without any political influence” stating that he had never seen a police institution as independent as his in the last two governments.

“I have been in this field for almost 24 years. During my time, I have never seen a more independent police institution than the current one, where police are allowed to carry out their operations independently and free from political influence,” he said.

Speaking to Minivan News, EOC member MP Ahmed Easa dismissed Riyaz’s claims, stating that police had already lost the public’s respect and the confidence once held in the institution, and that there was “no point Riyaz talking about it now.”

“The police lost credibility among the public the day they came out on the streets, toppled an elected democratic government and brutalised the people they were supposed to defend and uphold,” Easa said.

According to the Kendhikulhudhoo MP, the police, especially Special Operations (SO) officers, had become a “mob gang” instead of a respectable police force.

“The SO police now come out on the streets with the sole intention to torture people. They possess dangerous objects which could seriously harm a civilian. We have got video footage to support this claim,” he said.

Easa suggested that parliament’s Privileges Committee look into Riyaz’s “defamatory” comments against parliament and take prompt action on the matter.

He also contended that the EOC had the mandate to summon any individual from the executive branch for questioning, and that this was very clearly mentioned in the parliament’s regulations and the constitution.

“If he does not believe what has been clearly set out in the laws of this country, that means he is no longer fit to be the commissioner of police. He should be listening to the attorney general, not just a bunch of lawyers who tells him things the way he wishes to hear,” Easa said.

Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz, Parliament’s Counsel General Fathimath Filza and Parliamentary Speaker Abdulla Shahid were not responding to calls at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Defence Minister Nazim rejects allegations of police misconduct on Feb 8

Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim has rejected accusations that police officers committed criminal or “inhumane” acts against members of the public on February 8, 2012, instead blaming opposition party supporters for violence on the day.

Nazim was reported by newspaper Haveeru as claiming that police and military figures should not be held accountable for injuries sustained by members of the public during protests held over a three-day period between February 6 and February 8, 2012.

On February 7 last year, then President Mohamed Nasheed resigned from office. He subsequently alleged he had been forced to do so under “duress” on the back of a mutiny by sections of the police and military.

Speaking to private broadcaster DhiFM this week, Nazim rejected claims by the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) that some officers should be prosecuted for criminal behaviour due to how they dealt with protesters at the time the government changed.

Parliament’s Executive Oversight Committee (EOC) was told by the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) on Thursday that certain police officers should be prosecuted for alleged “unlawful actions” they committed in the build up to, and following, last year’s power transfer.

Parliament’s EOC is currently reviewing the report produced by the Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CNI), which looked into the events leading up to February 7, as well as its aftermath.

The CNI report, which was published in August last year, concluded there had been no coup, no duress and no mutiny during the controversial transfer of power that saw President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik sworn into office.  The report did however call for investigations into “acts of police brutality”.

The CNI findings were also welcomed at the time by the US State Department and the United Nations, but have continued to be branded a “whitewash” by the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

Opposition “offence”

Nazim told DhiFM broadcast that injuries received by members of the public during protests held on February 8, 2012, were a result of confrontations with police.

He maintained that the “truth” of the day, which he claimed had been wiped from public memory, was that supporters of the opposition MDP had carried out an “offence” by committing acts of violence that served to reverse national development by 20 years in certain cases.

Police stations and court houses in six southern atolls were torched during February 8 last year after police violently cracked down in the capital Male’ on a Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) march where thousands took to the streets in support of former President Nasheed.

In August last year, terrorism charges were pressed against over 40 people accused of setting the Seenu Gan police station on fire on February 8, including Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Mohamed Rasheed and Addu City Councillor Ahmed Mirzadh.

According to local media, Nazim alleged this week that senior figures in the MDP had requested that the archives and history of islands across the country be set on fire along with courts houses and police stations.

While the defence minister added that police had taken part in unspecified, “unprecedented acts” during the transfer of power, he said that law enforcement and security officials were not at fault for violence during and after the transfer of power, and that former President Nasheed should take full responsibility.

Injuries sustained by members of the public between February 6 and February 8 last year were a result of confronting police officers, Nazim said, and had not been sustained “from being at home”. He maintained that a probe into the clashes was ongoing.

Defence Minister Nazim was not responding to calls from Minivan News at the time of press. Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz’s phone was also switched off.

Prosecution calls

PIC Vice President Haala Hameed said earlier this week that the actions of some police officers during the controversial transfer of power amounted to crimes and should be prosecuted by the PG.

She claimed that the PIC had identified 29 cases of police misconduct, out of which cases concerning six police officers had been sent to the PG for prosecution. Furthermore, the PIC revealed that it had urged Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed to suspend the officers immediately.

Hameed said the commission had failed to identify the police officers in five of the remaining cases, while 11 other cases lacked supporting evidence. She also said the PIC was still investigating seven cases of police misconduct during the transfer of power.

“These are not disciplinary issues, but crimes. Aside from sending cases to the prosecutor general, we also recommended the Home Minister suspend these officers, because of the delays in prosecution. We believe these officers should not be serving in the police,” she said.

Prosecutor General Ahmed Muiz disputed Hameed’s claims at the time, suggesting that the actions of police officers did not amount to crimes but were “disciplinary issues”.

“I am not deterred or afraid of carrying out my duty. I am not influenced by anybody. By the will of God, I will continue to carry out my duty. I would have sent cases to court if there had been sufficient evidence needed for a successful prosecution,” Muiz said.

The PIC has said that it had investigated officers involved in alleged abuse as criminal cases rather than as disciplinary matters.

Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed responded in local media at the time that cases involving police officers whom the had PIC recommended be dismissed had been sent to the police disciplinary board.

Jameel said the Police Act and the regulations made under the act were very clear as to how a police officer could be dismissed or disciplined. He claimed that he would uphold the law and would not violate the Police Act.

“The PIC is an institution formed under the Police Act. I can’t simply remove a police officer simply based on a recommendation by the commission. That is why I sent the cases to police disciplinary board as soon as I got the [PIC]’s letter,” he told Haveeru.

Jameel also said it would be an unfair dismissal if the court acquitted a police officer who had been dismissed prior a verdict being reached.

Dr Jameel was not responding to calls from Minivan News at time of press.

International pressure for a thorough investigation into allegations of police abuse has continued.

The UK government earlier this week called for the government and other parties to work towards institutional reform in areas such as the judiciary, as well as “to fully investigate all allegations of police brutality, as recommended in the CoNI report.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“What police officers did on February 6, 7 and 8 were crimes”: Police Integrity Commission

Members of the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) have told Parliament’s Executive Oversight Committee (EOC) that unlawful actions committed by police officers on February 6, 7 and 8 last year were criminal activities that needed to be prosecuted.

Parliament’s EOC is currently reviewing the report produced by the Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CNI), which looked into the controversial transfer of power that took place on February 7, 2012.

The committee is also assessing the progress of institutions in following the recommendations stated in the CNI report. The committee on Wednesday evening summoned the PIC along with members of the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) and Prosecutor General (PG) Ahmed Muiz.

Speaking to the committee, PIC Vice President Haala Hameed said that actions of police officers during the period of the controversial transfer of power amounted to crimes and should be prosecuted by the PG.

She claimed that the PIC had identified 29 cases of police misconduct, out of which cases concerning six police officers had been sent to the PG for prosecution. Furthermore, the PIC revealed that it had urged Home Minister Mohamed Jameel to suspend the officers immediately.

Hameed said the commission had failed to identify the police officers in five of the remaining cases while 11 other cases lacked supporting evidence. She also said the PIC was still investigating seven cases of police misconduct during the transfer of power.

“These are not disciplinary issues, but crimes. Aside from sending cases to the Prosecutor General, we also recommended the Home Minister suspend these officers, because of the delays in prosecution. We believe these officers should not be serving in the police,” Hameed said.

However, PG Muiz disputed Hameed’s claims, suggesting that the actions of police officers did not amount to crimes but were “disciplinary issues”.

“I am not deterred or afraid of carrying out my duty. I am not influenced by anybody. By the will of God, I will continue to carry out my duty. I would have sent cases to court if there had been sufficient evidence needed for a successful prosecution,” Muiz said.

“We did not investigate those cases as a disciplinary matter. Those are criminal cases. We investigated a crime,” Hameed responded.

When a committee member asked about the police officer Ali Ahmed – who was promoted twice after the PIC recommended he be dismissed from the police force and prosecuted, Hameed said Home Minister Jameel had given a “deaf ear” to the commission’s repeated requests.

Former Chair of the PIC Shahinda Ismail earlier revealed that officers the PIC had recommended for suspension were in instead receiving promotions.

“It is really upsetting for me, a huge concern, that the police leadership is permitting a trend whereby unlawful officers are acting with impunity. This can only lead to further violence,” Shahinda said at the time.

Meanwhile local newspaper Haveeru quoted Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed as saying that the cases of police officers which the PIC recommended be dismissed had been sent to the police disciplinary board.

Jameel said that the Police Act and the regulations made under the act were very clear as to how a police officer could be dismissed or disciplinary action be taken.  He claimed that he would uphold the law and would not violate the Police Act.

“The PIC is an institution formed under the Police Act. I can’t simply remove a police officer simply based on a recommendation by the commission. That is why I sent the cases to police disciplinary board as soon as I got the [PIC]’s letter,” he told Haveeru.

Jameel also said that it would be an unfair dismissal if the court acquitted a police officer who had been dismissed prior a verdict being reached.

However, Hameed during the committee meeting, claimed there was sufficient evidence needed for successful prosecution of those officers which it had recommended be dismissed.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Opposition condemns “arbitrary arrest” of 15 protesters during anti-government demonstration

Police on Friday have arrested 15 Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) activists at the party’s protest site ‘Usfasgandu’, during an anti-government demonstration.

Police said the demonstrators were arrested on charges of “breaking the police barricades” and “obstructing police duty”.

The police had previously cordoned off the party’s protest site  after the High Court ordered police to repossess the area until it delivered a verdict in an ownership dispute between Male’ City Council (MCC) and the Housing Ministry.

Over a thousand MDP demonstrators took to the streets of Male’ on Friday, calling for President Mohamed Waheed Hassan to immediately step down along with other government figures including Defense Minister Mohamed Nazim and Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz.

The demonstration was led by senior figures of the party including former Chairperson MP Mariya Ahmed Didi and several ministers of the former government, who repeated the call for a caretaker-administration prior to scheduled presidential elections on September 9.

“The Maldives Police Service on strictest terms condemn the act of obstruction of police duty while this service was executing the order of High Court to cordon off the area,” read the police statement. Police said that out of the 15 arrested, two had been female protesters.

Speaking to Minivan News, police media official sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef said police had only arrested protesters who broke through police lines.

“We only arrested the people who broke the police line and entered the area. We did not target any political figures nor did we see which party the arrested individuals belonged to,” he said.

The arrested demonstrators were presented to court this afternoon, which extended the detention period of the protesters by five days.

Minivan News understands that among those currently in police custody include Male’ City Councilor Mohamed Falah and MDP Youth Wing President Aminath Shauna.

A protester who was present at the time disputed police allegations that demonstrators broke through police lines.

“We were just standing behind the barricades when they came in, we didn’t even move or run. We just stayed there, we didn’t even call them ‘baaghee’ (traitor) but we kept on telling them they should give a proper reason for arresting a person, they just can’t take people for no reason,” the protester told Minivan News.

Demonstrators kept questioning the police as to why they were making the arrests when none of them had crossed the police line.

“We kept on asking what the [the arrested protesters] had done. After taking in a few protesters, they came towards us and took Shauna. They came towards her and said she had to come with them whether she liked it or not. Two to three of us were holding her when they took her,” she added.

Meanwhile, the MDP in a statement called for immediate release of its members claiming the activists were arrested for their “illustrious work to defend freedom of assembly and freedom of expression” in the country.

“The MDP condemns in the strongest terms the police swoop into the rally as a politically motivated and premeditated illegal incursion to arrest a specific target list of highly dedicated party workers.

“Eyewitness reports have established that today’s foray also was characterised by high-handedness and needless force typical to the Police Special Operations squads in the clutches of a usurper police commissioner and usurper government,” read the statement.

The party also condemned “false reporting” of the incident by some local media outlets, who claimed that protesters “had breached police lines”, which the party alleged were “outright lies”.

Speaking to Minivan News, MDP Spokesperson MP Imthiyaz Fahmy suggested the arrests were a result of lack of a mechanism to hold the police officers accountable for arbitrary arrests.

“There is absolutely no way to hold the police accountable,” he said. “They know that everything will be settled once they take the protester to court. The Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) and the Police Integrity Commission (PIC)’s failure to hold the officers accountable means they can take full advantage of their impunity.”

Fahmy also dismissed claims made by police that those arrested had broken police lines.

“While I was there a group of police barged into the protest and randomly arrested a few people after looking at their faces. We did not break the police line. That is an outright lie,” he added.

If police can be held accountable for their actions, Fahmy said such arrests would not take place and freedom to carry out peaceful political activities would not be compromised.

After weeks of quiet in Male’, the MDP resumed their protests against the government on January 22,  led by former President Mohamed Nasheed.

Nasheed during the demonstration called on parliament to create an interim, caretaker administration “which can lead the country towards a genuinely free and fair presidential election in which all candidates are able to freely compete.”

MDP Spokesperson MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor told Minivan News at the time that the party planned to hold more assemblies and protests in next coming months around Male’.

“The MDP have been off the streets some time, we have taken a break. Now we are back. We have too many options and ideas opening up and people need to know what’s going on,” Ghafoor said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)