Tag: maldives

Opposition anger over release of protest ‘attacker’

A 28-year-old man arrested for disrupting an opposition protest last week will be released tomorrow, sparking outrage among opposition supporters.

Mohamed Nasheed Abdulla, an activist for the ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives, was arrested after protesters accused him of charging into a crowd of demonstrators on a motorcycle on April 1 in Malé. He did not cause serious injuries.

The next day the Criminal Court transferred him to house arrest for five days, which is set to expire today.

A spokesperson for the main opposition Maldivian Democratic Party, Imthiyaz Fahmy, condemned the criminal court’s “double standards”, noting that opposition supporters arrested at protests were frequently detained for ten to 15 days in police custody.

Unlike Abdulla, the opposition supporters are also being released on condition they stay away from protests for a set period of time.

“These people who attack us, they are the dangerous people, not elected MPs,” said Fahmy, in reference to a court’s Friday decision to hold independent MP Ahmed Mahloof in police custody for an extra 15 days.

Mahloof has been held without charge since he was first arrested from a protest on March 25.

Fahmy also accused the police of failing to take action against individuals who he says continue to attack opposition protesters and vandalise speaker systems and trucks used in protests.

Several individuals the opposition say are gangsters have been caught on camera assaulting protesters and journalists and dousing protesters with crude oil and petrol. Some protesters say they have also been threatened with knives.

The police say they have arrested several people, but that only the court has the authority to detain suspects for longer.

Meanwhile, the release of protesters on condition they stay away from demonstrations for a set period has met with criticism from legal experts and the prosecutor general.

“Releasing a person suspected of a crime with conditions other than ensuring the person’s return to the court maybe unconstitutional,” the prosecutor general wrote in a letter to the chief judge of the criminal court.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court says Nasheed can still appeal

Former president Mohamed Nasheed can still appeal a 13-year terrorism conviction at the High Court despite the end of the 10-day appeal period, the court says.

However, Nasheed’s lawyers say they believe they have no legal route through which to launch an appeal, and the ex-leader’s only hope for release is a clemency procedure initiated by the president.

The legal team says Nasheed is seeking a political solution involving President Abdulla Yameen, saying he has no faith in the judicial system to treat his case fairly.

Nasheed’s conviction last month was met with outrage from the opposition, which has been holding daily protests, while his trial was heavily criticised by several international bodies.

Late appeals

High Court judges are authorized to accept a late appeal if a “reasonable justification” is given, court media official Ameen Faisal said.

These include the lower court’s failure to provide detailed reports into court proceedings on time, as had happened in Nasheed’s case.

However, a lawyer on Nasheed’s team says there is no legal avenue to file an appeal, because the Supreme Court has removed the High Court’s discretionary power to accept late appeals.

This change was made in the same January ruling that shortened a 90-day appeal period to 10 days, shortly before Nasheed’s trial.

Only President Abdulla Yameen can now resolve the impasse, Nasheed’s lawyer Ibrahim Riffath said. The president can reduce Nasheed’s sentence through special powers granted in the Clemency Act.

In January, the Supreme Court voided Article 42 of the Judicature Act which set out appeal deadlines and gave judges discretionary powers in accepting late appeals.

The 90–180 day appeal period obstructed justice, the Supreme Court said. A new 10-day appeal period was set out, but the apex court was silent on procedures for late appeals.

Riffath said the High Court must now seek the Supreme Court’s instruction before accepting an appeal.

Political solution?

In any case, Nasheed’s team on March 19 announced that the former president desired a political solution and would not seek an appeal, stating he had no faith in the judiciary.

His lawyers believe such an appeal would inevitably fail, because they do not believe the High Court judges to be independent.

Six of the nine High Court judges are to be relocated to two new High Court branches with reduced powers in the north and south. The government-controlled judicial watchdog has not yet decided which judges will be relocated, and the threat of this demotion has silenced the judges, Nasheed’s lawyers believe.

President’s spokesperson Ibrahim Muaz Ali last week suggested President Yameen could consider granting a pardon if Nasheed asked for it, saying the office had not received a letter yet.

But Riffath said the normal clemency procedures do not apply in Nasheed’s case, as the president cannot pardon offences relating to terrorism. However, the president on his own initiative could reduce sentences or postpone them indefinitely under special procedures listed in Article 29 of the Clemency Act.

Article 29 states that the president can reduce sentences depending on the age, health or special circumstances of the convict.

Yameen has so far insisted that the court process is independent from his government and that he is not personally involved.

Daily protests are ongoing across the Maldives, and opposition leaders last Thursday reiterated calls for President Yameen to initiate talks.

The government last week stripped Nasheed of membership of the main opposition Maldivian Democratic Party, by using its parliamentary majority to pass a law banning prisoners from political party membership.

Separately, the ruling PPM has also submitted an amendment to the law on privileges for former presidents stripping any president who resigned – as Nasheed did, although he said it was under duress – from army protection and financial privileges.

Nasheed was convicted in a trial condemned by the UN, Amnesty International and the EU, US and UK over lack of due process. Amnesty called the trial a travesty of justice, while the UN said it made a mockery of the constitution and international treaties.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MP Mahloof held for 15 days after rejecting second protest ban

Independent MP Ahmed Mahloof has been taken into police custody for 15 days after refusing to accept a conditional release from detention under which he would have been barred from protests.

Mahloof scuffled with police outside the court after the period of detention was handed down Friday evening. Police said he tried to flee while being escorted into a vehicle. He was immediately seized by officers, but said he had just been trying to speak to his wife.

Mahloof’s wife Nazra Naseem was also involved in an altercation with officers and later said they had twisted her arm, pinched her stomach and torn buttons from her top.

Mahloof is being held at the Dhoonidhoo detention centre, his lawyer said.

Formerly a member of the ruling party, Mahloof was initially arrested on 25 March at an opposition protest over the jailing of ex-president Mohamed Nasheed, and was detained under house arrest for five days.

He was handed additional house arrest for refusing a previous protest ban, then was taken to the criminal court last night for a third remand hearing, as the court order to detain him was about to expire.

The criminal court ordered that Mahloof be detained again because he refused for a second time to accept the court’s condition to stay away from gatherings of four or more people for 30 days.

“Mahloof said he would not accept the court’s terms, so he was remanded for an extra 15 days in police detention,” said Abdulla Haseen, the MP’s lawyer.

The criminal court has recently released a series of protesters on condition they stay away from demonstrations for a set period of time, but this tactic has met with criticism from legal experts and the prosecutor general.

“Releasing a person suspected of a crime with conditions other than ensuring the person’s return to the court maybe unconstitutional,” the prosecutor general wrote in a letter to the chief judge of the criminal court, obtained by Minivan News last week.

Meanwhile, the constitution says people can only be held in pre-trial detention under certain circumstances: if further interrogation is needed, if they are a danger to society, if they may influence witnesses or if they might flee.

Scuffle

Police said Mahloof had tried to run away from officers as he was being escorted into a police vehicle after Friday’s remand hearing, a claim he denies.

“Mahloof said he wanted to talk to the reporters outside because police manhandled his wife,” said his lawyer.

Eyewitness Sabra Noordeen said the MP did not try to flee but “ran to his wife” because she was shouting.

“Nazra [Mahloof’s wife] was near the police vehicle and he ran towards her. He wasn’t trying to flee though,” she said.

Speaking to Raajje TV last night, Nazra said she was molested by police as she tried to meet her husband outside the court.

“One policeman pinched my stomach and touched parts of my body that he should not have. He also tore off the buttons of the top I was wearing,” she said.

“My arm and finger were twisted so badly that I thought they were going to break it. I am sure if I hadn’t screamed he [the police officer] would have broken my fingers.”

Nazra has submitted a complaint to the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives today.

Meanwhile the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has condemned “police brutality towards Mahloof and his family”.

“Mahloof has been detained illegally for 25 days without charge. The MDP is concerned about the criminal court’s harassment of MP Mahloof and we condemn it,” the statement read.

“MDP sees the harassment towards MP Mahloof and his family as a warning to all Maldivian citizens by the government.”

Mahloof, a close associate of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, was expelled from the ruling Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) last month after he publicly criticised President Abdulla Yameen and the government.

He is now part of the opposition Alliance against Brutality, an anti-government coalition.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

UN sees increase in Maldivian jihadists overseas

A UN report has raised concerns over an increase in fighters leaving the Maldives to join terrorist organisations including al-Qaida and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

The expert report to the UN Security Council, obtained by The Associated Press, said the flow of fighters globally “is higher than it has ever been historically”, increasing from a few thousand a decade ago to over 25,000 from more than 100 nations today.

The Maldives police chief Hussein Waheed in January estimated some 50 Maldivians are fighting in foreign wars, but the main opposition Maldivian Democratic Party says the figure could be as high as 200.

Waheed’s comments came after reports of at least 13 Maldivians leaving for jihad surfaced in local media in early January. Since then, at least four more have traveled to the Middle East.

Some seven Maldivians are reported to have died in the past year during battle in Syria, according to local media.

Waheed said that police were monitoring the activities of militants and would reveal details of plans to prevent radicalisation at a later date. The MDP has said the government is doing little to counter radicalisation and prevent recruitment of would-be fighters.

The UN report, written by a UN panel monitoring sanctions against Al-Qaida, listed the Maldives, Finland and Trinidad and Tobago as countries from which numbers of fighters were increasing, while the highest number of foreign fighters come from Tunisia, Morocco, France and Russia.

Most fighters travel to Syria and Iraq, to fight primarily for the Islamic State and the Al-Nusra front.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Government hands discounted flats to judges, commission heads

The government has awarded luxury flats at discount prices to Supreme Court judges and four heads of independent bodies including the Anti-Corruption Commission in what it calls an attempt to “ensure their integrity”.

However, the opposition has condemned the distribution as a “government effort to enslave independent institutions”.

The government was handed 10 flats in the newly built Rehendi Residency, constructed by FW Construction in Male’. The housing ministry then offered the semi-finished apartments for MVR 1.6m (US $103,761), much lower than the market price, to the chosen individuals.

Hassan Lutfee, president of the Anti-Corruption Commission, confirmed to Minivan News he had signed a contract to buy one of the apartments at the discounted price.

A former owner of one of the apartments not awarded to the government told Haveeru he had bought his apartment for MVR 2m (US $129,000).

The government also waived the six per cent interest charged to other flat buyers on their loans, though the prosecutor general said he had requested to pay the normal rate.

According to the local media, the flats were awarded to Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed, Supreme Court judges Ahmed Abdulla Didi, Adam Mohamed Abdulla, Abdulla Areef and Ali Hameed, Criminal Court Judge Abdul Bari Yoosuf and Prosecutor General Muhthaz Muhsin.

Apartments were also allotted to Commissioner General of Taxation Yazeed Mohamed and Information Commissioner Abdul Azeez Jamal Abu-Bakr. Not all the recipients have yet signed contracts to buy the flats.

Co-chair of the Economic Council Ahmed Adeeb told a press conference on Wednesday that the apartments were awarded to “ensure the integrity of independent institutions”.

“The flats were not handed out. The recipients have to pay for them. This will result in ensured integrity of independent institutions and moreover it will strengthen the state,” he said.

However, the opposition parties accused the government of trying to “enslave” the judiciary and independent institutions.

“This clearly is corruption. The constitution clearly states that no benefits can be given to members of independent institutions without parliament’s approval,” said MP Ali Hussain of the opposition Jumhoory Party.

“The fact that the flats were given personally to the heads of the institution and not [linked to] the post is outrageous.”

Article 102 of the constitution states that members of the judiciary and independent commissions “shall be paid such salary and allowances as determined by the People’s Majlis [parliament]”. However, parliament was not involved in allotting the apartments.

Muhathaz, the prosecutor general, told Minivan News he does not think the awards involve corruption.

“In my opinion the awarding of the flats is not unconstitutional. But I personally believe that it would have been better if it was awarded to the prosecutor general and not to me,” he said.

Information Commissioner Jamal said the flats were given to help the judges and institution heads live in a secure building, and dismissed any idea of government influence.

“I assure the people that I will always act professionally and within the bounds of the constitution and the laws,” he said.

The prosecutor general receives a monthly salary and allowances of MVR 57,500 (US $3,741), while the anti-corruption commission chief receives MVR 45,000 (US $2,927). Supreme court justices are paid MVR 71,000 ($4,619) and the chief justice MVR 73,125 ($4,757). They also receive extra benefits such as insurance.

A majority of civil servants are paid less than MVR 5,000 (US $325) a month.

The Supreme Court declined to comment on the issue, while the Housing Ministry refused to give information beyond what was discussed in the Economic Council press conference.

Judge Bari and Taxation Commissioner Yazeed were unavailable for comment at the time of going to press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Adhaalath party complains of double standards on protests

The religious conservative Adhaalath party has formally complained to the Human Rights Commission about what it says are double standards in how the Elections Commission handles political party protests.

Adhaalath’s letter notes that the Elections Commission last week fined the both the main opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and the Adhaalath party for breaking political party rules and allegedly inciting violence.

However, the Adhaalath party said that at protests of the ruling Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), “Young men have been present with their faces covered, holding pipes and sticks.”

Despite these circumstances, police and the Elections Commission did not take any action against the PPM, the letter said.

The Adhaalath Party asked the Human Rights Commission to investigate discrimination between parties, and what they said was obstruction of the freedom of expression by the Elections Commission.

Police have also previously written to the Adhaalath party, saying they received complaints from the public about protests held jointly by the Adhaalath and MDP.

Police said the protests were violating the human rights of other citizens, and asked the Adhaalath to hold protests without being too loud or disrupting the peace and order of Male’ city.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)