Tag: Maldives Presidential Elections 2013

PPM lobbying to re-start Nasheed’s criminal trial

The Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) has said it is lobbying the courts to resume proceedings in the criminal case against opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) presidential candidate Mohamed Nasheed.

PPM candidate Abdulla Yameen’s election agent, Abdulla Ameen yesterday (September 30) told local media that it was imperative the judiciary speed up the court cases concerning Nasheed’s criminal prosecution.

Ameen called on the EC to delay the second round of elections until the courts concluded the trial of Nasheed, expressing fears that the public may otherwise begin to question the credibility of the elections.

Nasheed was charged by the prosecutor general for his involvement in the controversial detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed, during the final days of his presidency.

The case is currently suspended after Nasheed’s legal counsel challenged the legitimacy of the appointment of the judges-panel to Hulhumale Magistrates Court, where the trial is being heard.

During a PPM rally held on Monday evening PPM MP Ahmed Shareef claimed that, once the party finished its work, the MDP would be dissolved, would cease to exist as a political party, and that Nasheed’s name would not be in the ballot paper.

The PPM MP also claimed that the 95,224 votes which Nasheed had obtained in the first round were achieved “through fraud and deception”.

“The maximum vote that man will ever get is 50,000 -60,000. That is even if they work extremely hard. [Extremely hard work such as] deceiving the people, brain washing them and misleading the youth,” Shareef told the rally.

Meanwhile, PPM running mate Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed told the rally that the Maldives would not have any stability if there is a presidential election with Nasheed competing as a candidate.

Jameel claimed that Nasheed had treated the Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed in “such an inhumane and derogatory manner” when the only wrong he had committed was to “faithfully execute his responsibilities as a judge”.

The former home minister also said that the judges who had purposefully been delaying the former president’s trial should take responsibility for the current state of the country.

Jameel previously said that the MDP leader “will not be allowed to assume power”, even if he should emerge as the clear winner in the run-off election.

Election drama

The official results of the first round of Presidential Elections – held on September 7 – showed the MDP finishing the race in front with 45.45 percent of the popular vote, while former 30 year autocrat Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s PPM trailed behind with 25.35 percent of the popular vote.

The constitution dictates that if no candidate attains the required ’50 percent plus one vote’ for a first round election victory, the winner is decided by a run-off election held 21 days after the first poll.

However, resort tycoon Gasim Ibrahim’s Jumhoree Party (JP) – who narrowly missed a place in the run-off elections after finishing the poll in the third position with 24.07 percent – filed a Supreme Court case requesting the court annul the poll, alleging voting discrepancies and irregularities.

On September 23, the Supreme Court issued an injunction indefinitely delaying the second round of the presidential election until it had finished looking into alleged discrepancies from the first round.

In addition to challenging the validity of the presidential elections, the PPM last Sunday announced its intention to file Supreme Court cases against individual opposition MPs, including Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid, in a bid to challenge their legitimacy as members of parliament.

The announcement comes at a time when the PPM and its allies have lost the parliamentary majority to the opposition MDP after the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) –  with eight MPs in parliament – decided to back the MDP in the presidential polls.

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

The MDP and its new ally the DRP now control 39 out of 77 seats in the parliament – a simple majority. The two parties last week passed a resolution ordering the EC to proceed with polls as planned, and called for the security forces to support the EC.

The resolution, however, was ignored in favour of the Supreme Court order.

However, following a second Supreme Court order – calling upon the security services up uphold the injunction – police surrounded the EC secretariat. The EC soon announced prompting the EC to announce that current conditions were not conducive to a free and fair election.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court collects details of Election Commission’s Ballot Progress Reporting System (BPRS)

The Elections Commission (EC) has said that it has submitted the ballot monitoring software, the Ballot Progress Reporting System (BPRS) used by the election officials during the first round of presidential elections to the Supreme Court, with regard to the JP’s election annulment case filed against the commission.

The BPRS System is a web based application that tallied the number of voters who had cast their vote or were in the queue to vote. However, due to difficulties of internet access in some islands, the system was not fully utilized.

During the hearings of the case, JP lawyer and running mate Dr Hassan Saeed told the court that the BPRS system had allowed voters to cast their vote more than once – one of the many arguments it had raised in support of their claim that the entire electoral process was a “systematic failure”.

Chair of Elections Commission Fuwad Thowfeek told local media that the commission had submitted all the documents that had been requested by the apex court.

According to the Elections Chief, the commission had begun to use the BPRS system since the Parliamentary by-elections held last year in the constituencies of Kaashidhoo and Thimarafushi.

He also said that the software was used in all the netbook PCs in polling booths and that it showed the tally of both male and female voters separately.

Last Wednesday, the Supreme Court concluded taking statements from the parties in the case. Officials from the Supreme Court have told local media that the court had been working round the clock to reach a verdict as soon as it can.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

PPM asks court to delay run-off to allow the party time to campaign

Supreme Court judges have threatened Elections Commission (EC)’s lawyer Hussain Siraj with contempt of court during today’s hearing filed by the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) requesting the court further delay the run-off election.

Yesterday (Wednesday September 25) the PPM – which narrowly finished in second place during he first round vote – filed a lawsuit at the Supreme Court requesting the court to order the EC to delay the election – until the commission resolves all discrepancies highlighted by the Jumhooree Party (JP) in its ongoing Supreme Court case against the EC.

The run-off is constitutionally mandated to be held within 21 days from the date of the first round of elections

The JP, which came third in the first round of polls, has demanded the court annul the vote due to “systematic failure”, despite widespread positive assessments of the election by local and international election observers.

In presenting their case today (September 26), PPM lawyer Ahmed Zaneen Adam told the court that during the hearings of the JP’s election annulment case heard at the court – in which the PPM had intervened – several discrepancies were raised including a voter’s list that allegedly included names of deceased people, underage people and repeated names.

Following the hearings, the Supreme Court ordered the EC indefinitely suspend the run-off elections scheduled for Saturday.

Zaneen argued that the EC had formulated the voters list in contrast to requirements prescribed in the General Elections Act and the recent Supreme Court ruling regarding the elections, which came as the verdict of a previous case filed by Zaneen himself.

This ruling ordered all relevant authorities to ensure facilitation of a free and fair presidential election, with the EC remaining duty bound to address any possible errors regarding details on the voter registry.

The PPM lawyer contested that the new public interest litigation case was filed to protect the rights of all Maldivian people after alleging that the EC had undermined the rights of voters. He also said that the irregularities in the voter list as well as the conduct of implied that the EC was aligned to a certain political party.

Zaneen requested the court order three separate rulings, including an injunction requesting the court delay the run-off election for four weeks giving time for the PPM to campaign. However, he later changed the four weeks period to two weeks, stating that PPM was fine with two weeks as long as EC is able to correct the voter list in that time frame.

In his second request, Zaneen requested the court to issue an order on EC to seek the assistance of the security services in transportation of ballot boxes and ballot papers and to ensure the security and safety of ballot papers both while being printed and being transported.

In the third request, Zaneen requested the Supreme Court to order the commission to not to use a voter list other than a voter list that has both signature and finger print of the candidates contesting in the run-off elections.

In response to the case, the EC lawyer Hussain Siraj told the court that the orders sought by the PPM would violate the articles 110, 111, 6, 7 and 8 of the constitution.

However, when Siraj attempted to explain how the PPM’s request would invalidate the mentioned articles, Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz and other judges interrupted his speech and contended that it was not for Siraj to decide whether a request was unconstitutional but was the duty of the constitution.

Continuing his speech, the EC lawyer told the court that if the Supreme Court delays the run-off election, despite being explicitly mentioned in the constitution that a run-off election should be held within 21 days, it would mean the Supreme Court was amending a constitutional process.

Siraj argued that the constitution did not give the Supreme Court the power to legislate, which is an exclusive power given solely to parliament according to the constitution.

Siraj’s remarks led to heavy criticism from the judges, most notably from Judge Dr Ahmed Abdulla Didi and former Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed – two of the four who signed the previous injunction to indefinitely suspend the run-off election.

Interrupting Siraj’s speech, Judge Abdulla Saeed questioned the EC lawyer as to whether he believed the Supreme Court had the power of judicial review, and ordered him not to make misleading statements.

“Isn’t what we are doing [now] judicial reviewing? What else are we doing here?” Saeed questioned Siraj.

Meanwhile. Judge Dr Ahmed Abdulla Didi also said that Siraj’s speech was misleading and added that even in the US, certain Supreme Court rulings had become constitutional amendments. He told Siraj that such remarks amounted to contempt of court and warned him not to repeat them.

Judge Adam Mohamed – who is also the chair of Judicial Service Commission (JSC) – requested Siraj not speak in such a manner that implied the EC lawyer was being critical of the recent Supreme Court order to delay the elections.

Adam Mohamed claimed the Supreme Court was a place that would protect and uphold the constitution and said no one can challenge the constitutionality of a decision made by the Supreme Court.

Despite repeated interruptions, Siraj concluded his speech requesting the Supreme Court to declare that there lay no legal and constitutional reasoning to issue the orders requested by the PPM.

In concluding today’s hearing, Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz said the Supreme Court would later schedule the date of the next hearing. It is widely expected that the court will issue a verdict in the case on Sunday, as both the EC and the PPM have told in the court that they have presented their arguments.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court continues hearing witnesses against Elections Commission

The Supreme Court continued obtaining statements from witnesses produced by the Jumhooree Party (JP) in its case against the Elections Commission (EC), seeking the annulment of the first round election over allegations of voting discrepancies and irregularities.

Shortly before the commencement of the hearings on Tuesday, the Supreme Court informed both the EC and the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) – who had also intervened in the case – that its lawyers had been ejected from the case, for acting in contempt of court.

Following the announcement, the court suspended the hearings for two hours to allow the parties to seek a replacement for the suspended lawyers. However, shortly before the two hour period elapsed, the MDP withdrew from the case citing severe discrepancies in the court.

Lawyer Hussain Siraj appeared on behalf of the Elections Commission, replacing former Attorney General Husnu Suood who promptly signed up as an MDP member.

During today’s court session, the Chief Justice announced that the hearing would continue to hear the witnesses produced by the JP in support of its allegations against the Elections Commission.

Three witnesses told the court that when they had gone to vote, EC officials present at the polling station had told them that votes had already been cast under their name but once they had complained, the officials allowed them to vote after manually entering their names into a physical voter list present at the station.

The other two witnesses claimed that they had knowledge of underage people voting in the poll. However, among the two witnesses who made the claim, one witness said that he had only heard about it, after rumours began circulating that such a thing happened.

During cross examination the EC’s lawyer Siraj asked if he had anything to substantiate his claims. The witness said he had neither personally checked whether the alleged underage voter had actually voted, or whether he was actually under the age of voting.

The second witness who testified said he had seen an underage person who had voted and told the court that he had personally gone to the person in question and said that the person had an indelible ink mark on his finger.

According to the witness, the underage voter was 17 years of age as per his National Identity Card (NIC) – one year less than the eligible age of voting which is 18 years.

After questioning the witnesses, the Supreme Court requested the Attorney General’s office submit their list of alleged underage voters.

The lawyer representing the Attorney General’s office told the court that it intended to submit the intelligence report from the police, as stated during the last hearing. However, the lawyer said that the Attorney General’s Office would not submit the report if the Supreme Court was going to share the report with other parties in the case.

Meanwhile, the JP lawyers submitted two more additional documents as evidence – one, an official document from the Maldives Police Service detailing the security services provided to the Elections Commission, and the second document a request made by Elections Complaints Bureau which had requested recount of a ballot box during the polling day. JP lawyers alleged that the EC had disregarded the request and had gone on to announce the results of the box.

In concluding today’s hearing, Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz announced that a hearing would be held tomorrow (Wednesday).

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court continues collecting statements from Jumhooree Party witnesses

The Supreme Court today (September 23) continued taking statements from witnesses produced by the Jumhoree Party (JP), in the party’s ongoing bid to annul the first round of presidential elections over allegations of discrepancies and irregularities in the voting process.

The Supreme Court commenced direct examination and cross examination of witnesses during last Sunday’s hearings, during which three witnesses produced by the JP gave their testimonies to the court.

During the hearing Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz announced that the JP had requested to produce 20 witnesses to give evidence in court to support their case.

Due to a request made by the JP’s lawyers on Sunday, the statements of all witnesses were taken with special arrangements made to ensure their anonymity. The witnesses gave their statements in a separate room and their voices were distorted to protect their identities.

The first witness produced by the JP told the court that his friend working as an election official had informed him that his younger sister – who lived in Malaysia and never went to vote –  had her name on the list in Male’ and which showed that she had voted.

During re-examination, EC Lawyer Husnu Al Suood asked the witness whether he knew which ballot box in which the alleged discrepancy occurred, but he refused to answer and told the judge that he would give the details “in writing” to the court.

When Hisaan Hussain, the lawyer from the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) which has intervened in the case, questioned the witness as to whether he was affiliated with any political party, the witness, despite initial reluctance, said that he supported the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP).

The second witness, a female, told the court that she was not able to vote in the elections because EC officials had told her that her National Identity Card (NIC) number did not match with the one that was on the commission’s database. The witness reiterated that despite turning up with an official document from the Department of National Registration, EC officials refused to allow her to vote.

The third witness, a police officer who was on security duty during the time of polling, told the court that he had witnessed elections officials packing up all the paperwork on the ballot counting table – including the original ballot papers – and putting them into a cardboard box, after the officials announced the provisional results of that box.

The police officer said that once the officials had packed the box, they took it away in two taxis. He said that although he had expected them to head to Dharubaaruge, the officials instead went to the secretariat of the commission located in Maafannu.

When the EC lawyer asked the witness what his duty of the day had been, the police officer told the court that he was ordered to follow the EC officials who had left in the taxi, but did not reveal who had given him this order.

When the MDP lawyer questioned the officer as to what distance had he been from the ballot box, the officer said that he was just approximately 15 feet away from the ballot box, 85 feet closer than the 100 foot distance police officers are regulated to maintain from the box.

A fourth witness, a female, told the court that when she contacted the EC to re-register for the run-off election, the EC officials had told her that she had already been registered to vote in Male even though she claimed that she had neither re-registered of voted during the first round of elections. She also contested that the EC official had told her that she had voted in Male.

Another witness told the court that when he had gone to vote, the list which the EC officials working at the ballot box were using showed his name being highlighted as if he had already voted in the election.

However, the witness claimed that following protests and complaints, the officials later allowed him to vote after manually writing down his name and details on the printed list.

During today’s hearing the court was not able to collect statements from two witnesses whose statements had to be collected through telephone.

Each of the two witnesses had appeared in their respective island’s Magistrate Courts to give their witness through telephone. However due to poor reception the court was not able to obtain their statements.

The Chief Justice said that testimonies of the two witnesses would be taken in the next hearing.

After the collection of evidences by witnesses, the JP Lawyer Dr Hassan Saeed requested the Supreme Court give it the party the opportunity to present two new documents of evidence, which included a new list of fraudulent voters and a copy of the leaked police intelligence report currently being circulated around social media.

In response to the request, the judges said that the leaked document could only be accepted after discussing the matter with the other judges. However Deputy Solicitor General Ahmed Usham – who was representing the state, which had also intervened into the case – requested the court for permission to present the original intelligence report to the court, citing that the one that had been leaked on social media had been a part of the original report.

In concluding the hearing today, Chief Justice Faiz said that during the next hearing that the court would try to obtain the statements of the two witnesses, whose statements the court was not able to collect today.

Faiz did not state the date when the next hearing would be scheduled.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court orders Elections Commission to hand over original voter list for “purpose of judges”

The Supreme Court has ordered the Elections Commission (EC) to hand over the original voter lists of all ballot boxes placed during the recent first round of Presidential Elections held on September 7.

A Supreme Court battle between the EC and Jumhooree Party (JP) ensued this week after the latter announced its decision to dismiss the outcome of the presidential poll after narrowly missing out a place in the run-off election with 24.07 percent of the vote. The party accused the EC of electoral discrepancies and irregularities that altered the results of the poll to the JP’s disadvantage.

During the third day of continuous proceedings of the case held today (September 19), the Supreme Court ordered the EC to hand over the voter lists – which had been used by the election officials at polling stations to check off the names of voters who had cast their ballot – claiming the list was required “for the purpose of the presiding judges”.

Today’s proceedings began with the seven-member judges panel giving the JP the opportunity to question the members of the EC.

Elections Commission Members Ibrahim ‘Ogaru’ Waheed, Ali Mohamed Manik and commission Chair Fuwad Thowfeek were present at the hearing along with the commission’s legal team, led by veteran lawyer and former Attorney General Husnu Al Suood.

The JP’s legal team led by running mate of JP’s Presidential Candidate Gasim Ibrahim, Dr Hassan Saeed, posed questions to EC Chair Thowfeek regarding the party’s allegations that included: possibilities of double voting, registration of people on Male Municipality Register – a special registry of people residing in the capital without owning homes – without permit, underage voters and allegations of expatriates voting in the poll.

Saeed – who is himself a former Attorney General – also posed questions regarding the security features included in the ballot paper, the failure of the EC’s Ballot Progress Reporting system (BPRS) – a web based application that tallied the number of voters who had cast their vote or were in the queue to vote – and whether Indian IT specialists who had been working in the commission had a role in developing BPRS and whether it was possible that soft copies of ballot papers were leaked.

Responding to Saeed’s questions, EC Chair Thowfeek said the commission had only registered people in Male Municipality’s Register to the current addresses they were living with the intent to allow them easy access to polling. Thowfeek maintained that it was not permanent and was only for purpose of presidential polls.

Thowfeek also said that it was near-impossible for anyone to cast a vote twice since the commission had a strong mechanism to check for double voting that included use of indelible ink, checks for fake National ID cards and verification of electoral lists in cases of repeated entries.

He also said that allegations of votes cast under the names of underage and deceased people during the polls – levied by both the JP and the Attorney General Azima Shukoor – were unfounded because the EC had verified the voter list with the database of Department of National Registration (DNR).

Thowfeek also said that in a bid to further verify the issue of deceased people the commission had cross-checked the voter list against registries of people who passed away collected from local councils as well as the burial house located in Male’ Cemetery.

He also said the commission had not come across cases of expatriates voting in the election, but did tell the court that former head of DNR Ahmed Firaaq had told him that the DNR under its current management had “accidentally” issued a Maldivian national ID card to a Bangladeshi expatriate, who was later caught while attempting to obtain a Maldivian passport.

Explaining the reason behind BPRS system not working as expected, Thowfeek said that failed internet connections on some islands were the major reason for its under-performance. He also confirmed to the court that the BPRS was not built by the Indian IT experts nor did they have any role in the preparations of the presidential polls.

In response to the doubts cast by Saeed on security features of the ballot papers, Thowfeek responded stating that the commission had added three security features to the ballot paper that included: a watermark seal at the back of the ballot paper, a security code that shows different codes if viewed from each side and another security code that can only be seen through a special light.

He added that the commission had tested the ballot paper prior to the commencement of polling while maintaining that the security of the ballot papers had been intact from day one.

“I am extremely confident that no one, no one can come out and show an original ballot paper. It is impossible for anyone to come up with an original ballot paper to prove that it went out of our hands,” Thowfeek told the court.

After Thowfeek’s answers, Saeed told the court that despite today being the third hearing of the case, the EC had refused to give them the original voter list.

Saeed noted that it was the EC and the DNR that had the pivotal information that the party sought to verify the claims, and unless both agencies begin cooperating with them, their claims would remain unclarified, undermining the rights of 50,000 people who had voted for the JP’s candidate.

“When I first began practicing law in 1997, I often come across people who claim they had been tortured while in custody. They would say, look my arm was broken and it had not still recovered. But whenever they went to court, the judge would demand evidence. But all they had to say is it was the police and had nothing prove their claim. Today, the JP is in such a circumstance,” Saeed told the court.

Saeed claimed that last Wednesday night he had seen a video of an expatriate lady confessing that she had voted in the presidential polls and the video showed what he claimed was an indelible ink mark on her finger.

“Honourable Chief Justice, we are talking about an expatriate gaining our citizenship. We are talking about a case where an expatriate practiced a constitutional right given to a Maldivian citizen. Tomorrow, that expatriate will get medical expenses covered under Aasandha. That expatriate can own Maldivian land [just like a Maldivian citizen],” Saeed said.

“When I called the police commissioner, he said he can only investigate after Elections Commission gives a heads up. I said I am hanging up the phone. I called the Prosecutor General. He said he couldn’t do much. Honourable Justice, this is the situation we are talking about,” Saeed added.

EC’s lawyer Suood responded to Saeed’s statement claiming that Saeed had finally confessed that their claims did not carry any weight.

Suood however reiterated that the EC were prepared to hand over the original voter list should the Supreme Court order to do so but raised concerns over the undermining of the privacy of the people in the list.

Suood repeated his argument that should the list be given to JP, it would undermine the privacy of the voters including their national ID Card numbers, their date of birth, whether they had voted or not and if they did vote, which ballot box had they voted.

While the hearing was about to conclude, several Supreme Court Judges including Judge Dr Ahmed Abdulla Didi, JSC Chair and Judge Adam Mohamed, Judge and former Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed, Judge Ali Hameed and Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz posed questions to Thowfeek, inquiring regarding the JP’s allegations and concerns.

Concluding the hearings, Chief Justice Faiz said that another hearing of the case would be scheduled, but did not specify a date.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Statements by election observers “have not much weight”, JP running mate Hassan Saeed tells Supreme Court

Former Attorney General Dr Hassan Saeed, running mate of resort tycoon and presidential candidate Gasim Ibrahim, has told the Supreme Court that positive assessments of the September 7 presidential poll by local and international election observers “do not carry much weight”.

Dr Saeed – who is now leading the Jumhooree Party (JP)’s legal bid to annul the election results in the Supreme Court – made the remarks during the second hearing of the party’s case against the Election Commission (EC) held on Wednesday.

Dr Saeed told the Supreme Court that statements made by both local and international observers that the election had proceeded smoothly and freely did not reflect the reality of the situation.

“Yes, I even agree that the voting process went very smoothly. But those foreign observers don’t know the depth of the issues. Their words do not carry much weight. Some of the elections which have been observed by the international observers, some people have died, but yet they have reported the election went smoothly,” Saeed told the court.

He also claimed the JP – which narrowly missed a place in the run-off with 24.07 percent of the vote – had sufficient evidence and witnesses who would testify in court that electoral discrepancies and irregularities had taken place.

Dr Saeed also declared that Attorney General (AG) Azima Shukoor’s acknowledgement of electoral discrepancies during the first round of presidential elections gives weight to the party’s allegations  of electoral fraud.

During the first hearing of the case, Attorney General Shukoor told the court the AG’s Office had also found discrepancies in the voter list, including underage people listed as eligible for voting, and the mixing up of voter information – including gender, address, and date of birth.

Addressing the seven-member Supreme Court bench, Saeed also alleged the EC was not following a High Court order issued Tuesday (September 17) to allow viewing of the original voter list at the commission. Saeed claimed that despite repeated requests – both verbal and written – the commission was yet to give any response.

The High Court ruled that it was a right of all presidential candidates and their affiliated political parties to view the original voter list and ordered the EC to allow this to take place at the commission in presence of its officials.

Instead, Saeed claimed, the EC lawyers had dismissed as baseless and unfounded JP’s evidence suggesting electoral fraud, without giving the party the chance to verify it evidences against the commission’s data. This action by the EC, the former Attorney General contested, disregarded the doctrine of ‘Clean Hand’.

The ‘Clean Hand’ doctrine is a rule of law that a person coming to court with a lawsuit or petition for a court order must be free from unfair conduct (have “clean hands” or not have done anything wrong) in regard to the subject matter of his/her claim.

During the hearing, Saeed also criticised the EC’s Ballot Progress Reporting System (BPRS) – a web based application that tallied the number of voters who had cast their vote or are in the queue to vote – contesting that it had several weaknesses and loopholes.

He claimed that the entire application was built without due consultation with the National Center for Information Technology (NCIT) – a government agency responsible for management of IT systems within government institutions. Instead, Saeed claimed the system had been built and designed by Indian IT specialists.

Saeed also noted that the EC members had previously acknowledged that the BPRS were having problems and yet, at the same time the EC had claimed that there was no possibility of double voting. This, Saeed contested, did not make any sense, and he alleged there was a difference between the number shown by the BPRS that had voted and the EC’s figures obtained through manual counting. He challenged why the commission had not shifted to the manual system when the electronic mechanism collapsed.

In response to the arguments raised by the EC lawyers during Tuesday’s hearing, Saeed said the country would not go into a constitutional void even if a new president failed to take the oath of the office on November 11 – the date on which the term of incumbent President Mohamed Waheed Hassan expires.

Reflecting on the delay in electing the new parliament in 2009, Saeed claimed that no one had challenged the legitimacy of the parliament even when it had been elected months after the date mentioned in the constitution.

“We need to ensure that the person who is elected by the popular vote of the people takes the oath as the president. Not someone who has found their way to it by deception and cheating. Right now, we are no longer sure whether it is the person who the people voted is taking the office,” Saeed told the court.

Saeed also requested the court issue an order to the police to investigate the party’s allegations of electoral fraud.

EC’s counter argument

EC Lawyer and former Attorney General Husnu Al Suood responded to Saeed’s arguments claiming the Attorney General’s acknowledgment of issues during the voting process did not substantiate the JP’s baseless allegations.

He repeated his arguments claiming that the JP has till to this day, failed to produce any substantial evidence to support their claims, let alone annul the elections.

Suood also claimed that the General Elections Act – the parent legislation on general election procedures and issues – did not envision the annulment of an entire election, but rather only allows the annulment of the results of ballot boxes in which discrepancies were proven in court.

He claimed that factors that could lead to annulment of the results of a ballot box were criminal offences such as bribery and illegal influencing of voting, and therefore any claim of electoral discrepancies must be proved by the standard of proof required for criminal offences: beyond reasonable doubt.

Suood also reiterated that the JP’s claim that its evidence was based on information obtained from the party’s own hotline and private investigations lacked any value as evidence, and that it was not sufficient to annul elections.

He also criticised the request made by the Attorney General Azima Shukoor to order the Elections Commission to suspend holding the run-off elections until the issues had been resolved, describing it as a request for an indefinite order that could put the entire state in a state of limbo.

Suood also claimed that if the Supreme Court went on to issue such an order as requested by the Attorney General, it would lead to the suspension of the entire constitution.

“We are not aligned towards the JP” – Attorney General Azima Shukoor

Speaking during the hearing, Attorney General Azima Shukoor told the court that the State was not taking sides in the legal dispute between the JP and the EC, while maintaining that it had not admitted to any claims made by the JP.

However, the Attorney General repeated her claims that the AG’s Office had come across discrepancies in the voter registry published by the EC prior to the election.

“There were names of underage people in the list. There were names repeated in the list. Unless these issues are not resolved before holding the second round of the elections, rights of many voters will be undermined,” Shukoor told the court.

She also claimed that the State should and would be concerned when a group of 50,000 people came up to it seeking justice.

“What is happening here is that one party is claiming that there were discrepancies in the voting process while the other party is simply questioning the authenticity of the claim,” Shukoor said.

“How can those allegations be verified unless the Elections Commission allows access to the information of the voting? Here, we are speaking about one party who has the information but is refusing to share it in order to verify the claims,” Shukoor claimed.

She also questioned the panel of judges as to whether the EC should go on to hold the second round of elections with the allegations and claims unanswered.

However, the Attorney General claimed that she still had faith in the Elections Commission’s ability to resolve the issues, but said this could only be done if the commission gave up its “defensive approach” and showed openness to look into the claims.

Shukoor also said the Attorney General’s decision to intervene in the case was only to bring the issues it had found to the notice of the judges and to seek a remedy to them, and that the government did not wish to take a stand on whether the election should be annulled or not.

Meanwhile, the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s lawyers told the court that the party had accepted the outcome of the results and had not come up with any discrepancies during the elections that would affect the outcome.

The party also echoed similar sentiments as that of the EC’s lawyer Suood, claiming that the JP’s evidence could not be considered as admissible evidence by the courts.

The next hearing will be held on Thursday morning (September 19) at 11:00am.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court hears Jumhooree Party’s case requesting election annulment

The Supreme Court has held the first hearing of the case filed by the Jumhooree Party (JP) against the Elections Commission (EC), requesting the apex court annul the presidential election held earlier this month.

Following a third place finish in the poll, JP leader and resort tycoon Gasim Ibrahim announced his belief that he “should have finished the race in first place”, denouncing the results released by the EC.

During the first hearing the legal team of the JP, led by Gasim’s running mate and former Attorney General Dr Hassan Saeed, produced 13 reasons for the court to annul the elections. The party was also joined today by Attorney General Azima Shukoor and representatives of the second-placed Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), who criticised the EC in court.

Among the reasons given by Dr Saeed were: the inclusion of 669 deceased people in the voter registry, 102 repeated names, and the inclusion of 1,818 fake people whose national identity card numbers were not in Department of National Registration (DNR) database.

Dr Hassan also produced the names of voters allegedly omitted from the voter list, cases of double voting and of EC officials not using police assistance when transporting ballot boxes.

Prior to the hearing scheduled today (September 17), Dr Saeed told local media that in its petition filed at the Supreme Court, the JP would also request that the court order the security services to oversee the entire electoral process of a fresh presidential election.

The JP, in light of the evidence produced, requested the court declare the voter list and voter registry to have been compiled in contrast to the requirements of the law, and to therefore annul the presidential polls.

The party also requested that the court issue an injunction ordering the Elections Commission to stop work towards the scheduled run-off elections expected to happen on September 28.

EC response and High Court hearing

In response to the claims, Elections Commission’s lawyer and former Attorney General Husnu Al Suood claimed that JP’s evidence lacked any substance or basis, and questioned the authenticity of the documents produced to the court.

“The ultimate question we are facing here is, has the Jumhooree Party produced sufficient evidence which is enough to annul a presidential election?” Suood asked the seven-member panel of judges.

Suood – citing cases from other countries, including the famous 2000 US Supreme Court case Bush v. Al Gore regarding its presidential elections – contested that a constitutional void could follow any delay of the electoral process.

Attorney General Azima Shukoor – representing the state – told the court that the Attorney General’s Office had also found discrepancies in the voter registry, including underage people listed as eligible for voting, and the mixing up of voter information – including gender, address, and date of birth.

Although the Attorney General did not explicitly support annulment of the election, she too along with PPM and JP spoke against the commission’s arguments.

Azima requested that the Supreme Court order the Prosecutor General’s Office to take action against those found responsible for electoral fraud and other discrepancies.

Meanwhile, PPM lawyer Adam Zaneen unexpectedly also requested the court to annul the election based on the discrepancies highlighted by the JP.

The opposition, and poll-leading MDP, disputed the PPM’s argument, echoing Suood’s assertion that the JP had not produced substantial evidence – even that required to prove by balance of probabilities – to substantiate claims of electoral fraud.

The MDP also contended that annulling the election would undermine the rights of 95,000 voters who had backed the its candidate.

The Chief Justice concluded by saying that another hearing of the case would be held Wednesday (September 18), though he did not state a time.

Earlier in the week, the JP filed a similar lawsuit against the EC at the High Court, requesting the court order the EC to hand over the original voting lists placed at the ballot boxes during voting.

After a hearing today, the High Court  ordered the EC to facilitate, in such a way that will remove the complainant’s doubts, the viewing of the voters list at the commission for Gasim Ibrahim himself or “a sufficient number” of his representatives.

The High Court panel stated that the ruling was based on the fact that candidates contesting in elections have the right to ascertain that all matters relating to elections are conducted freely and fairly, in a transparent manner, while the EC has a legal obligation to ensure and demonstrate the same.

Outside the courtroom, the EC has meanwhile emphatically rejected the JP’s allegations of misconduct, pointing to unanimous praise for the first round’s registration, voting and counting processes by local and international election observers.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court accepts filing of Jumhooree Party’s case requesting annulment of presidential elections

The Supreme Court has given permission to resort tycoon Gasim Ibrahim’s Jumhooree Party (JP) to file a case requesting the court annul the first round of the presidential election, after the JP alleged irregularities in voting after placing third and narrowly missing the run-off.

The JP has also reportedly requested an injunction to delay the second round of voting, currently scheduled for September 28.

An official from the Supreme Court was quoted in local media confirming that the seven-member judges’ bench of the Supreme Court had decided to grant permission for the case to be filed and had informed the petitioners.

The official also told the local media that the court would schedule the hearings as soon as the original lawsuit was filed in the court.

According to the procedures of the Supreme Court, if a party wishes to file a lawsuit, they must first seek the permission of the judges.

The Supreme Court procedures also dictate that, once the permit to file the lawsuit is issued, it must be filed at the court within a period of three working days.

Following a third place finish during the presidential polls, the Gasim announced that he believed he “should have finished the race in first place”, and denounced the results released by the Elections Commission (EC).

The EC, however, has dismissed the allegations, pointing to near unanimous agreement among local and international election observers that the elections were free, fair and credible, and that the minor issues noted would not have had an impact on the final results.

Speaking to Minivan News earlier, JP Policy Secretary Mohamed Ajmal said that the party would attempt to prove via the courts that the first round had been “rigged”.

The JP also filed a similar suit in the High Court earlier this week requesting the court order the EC to hand over the original voting lists placed at the ballot boxes during voting.

During the first hearing of the High Court case held yesterday (September 15), attorneys from the JP produced three documents allegedly showing fraudulently registered voters that included names which had been repeated, lists of deceased people found in the voter list, and a list of voters who had been “unlawfully registered” to houses in Male from the Male’ Municipality Register – a special registry of people belonging to Male but not having their own houses in Male’.

However, the legal team of the EC led by veteran lawyer and former Attorney General Husnu Al Suood, in response to the claims, dismissed the authenticity of the documents submitted by the JP in the court.

During the hearing of the case, in which both the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) intervened – Suood went on to describe the whole lawsuit as a “fishing expedition”, with the JP hoping to file another lawsuit based on any evidence they collected from the current case.

If the Supreme Court goes on to decide the case in favour of the Jumhoree Party (JP), it would mean fresh elections with all four candidates, Gasim Ibrahim from JP, former President Mohamed Nasheed from opposition MDP and the incumbent President Mohamed Waheed Hassan.

The final results of the first round of the presidential election showed the MDP finishing the race on top with 45.45 percent of the popular vote or 95,224 votes.

The PPM came second with 53,099 votes – 42,125 votes less than the MDP – while the Jumhooree Coalition led by resort tycoon Gasim Ibrahim came third with 50,422 votes and incumbent President Mohamed Waheed Hassan finishing the race at the bottom with just 10,750 votes – 5.13 percent.

With the results showing no candidate being able to secure the required ’50 percent plus one vote’ to secure a first round election victory, means the winner is to be decided through a run-off election contested by the two top candidates in the first round of elections.

However, if the Supreme Court decides to invalidate the elections, it would mean cancellation of the run-off election scheduled for September 28.

It could also mean that the nation might head into a constitutional void, should the electoral process be dragged past November 11 – the date on which incumbent President Waheed’s term expires.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)