Imperative no further delays in polls: UK Foreign Secretary Hague

UK Foreign Secretary William Hague has called on presidential candidates in the Maldives to respect the democratic process “and create conditions for free, fair elections.”

“I note the Supreme Court’s annulment of the first round of Presidential election results in Maldives, despite the assessment by both international and domestic monitors that proceedings were transparent, fair and credible,” said Hague, in a statement.

“The Elections Commission has now confirmed that the first round will be re-run on 19 October. It is important now that the democratic process proceeds in accordance with the Constitution. It is imperative that there are no further delays and the elections be free, fair and inclusive, and that international observers are invited,” the Foreign Secretary added.

Hague urged presidential candidate “to act in line with the interests of the people of Maldives”, and expressed hope “that the process will enable the President elect to be inaugurated by 11 November, in line with the constitutional framework.”

The Foreign Secretary said he was “worried by recent reports of intimidation, violence, arrests and arson attacks which have taken place in the past days.”

“We are deeply concerned that Transparency Maldives, as a domestic election monitoring mission, should not be subject to an unwarranted investigation and threats of dissolution. I further call on all parties to take action to create conditions which are conducive to free, fair and transparent elections,” he added.

UK Foreign Office Minister Alistair Burt has previously said the country was “extremely concerned” when the Supreme Court ordered the second round of presidential elections delayed.

“I recognise the right of the Maldivian courts to ensure legitimate allegations of electoral malpractice are investigated appropriately. However, it is vital to avoid any unnecessary disruptions to the national electoral process, and for representatives from all sides to be represented during any legal proceedings,” Burt stated, prior to the court’s annulment of the first round’s results.

Presidential election should be “fully inclusive, credible and peaceful”: Commonwealth

The Commonwealth Secretary-General’s Special Envoy to Maldives, Sir Donald McKinnon, has also “noted” the Supreme Court’s decision to annul the first round of the election.

“A Commonwealth Observer Group was present in Maldives from 31 August – 14 September and reported positively on the credibility of the electoral process,” McKinnon stated.

“I encourage all Maldivians again to ensure that the Presidential election is fully inclusive, credible and peaceful, so that the people of Maldives are free to choose their President from among those candidates already officially approved, and the inauguration can take place on November 11,” the Special Envoy urged in a statement today.

He also “acknowledged positively” the preparations being undertaken by the Elections Commission to enable a new election to be held on October 19, 2013.

The international community expressed alarm over the Maldives’ sudden suspension of the second round of presidential elections, initially scheduled for September 28. The election was later annulled by the Supreme Court in a 4:3 majority decision over allegations of electoral impropriety, despite unanimous positive assessments of the process by more than 1000 local and international election observers.

The majority verdict hinged on a secret police report alleging 5600 improper votes – evidence dismissed by the dissenting judges as the report was not shown to the Elections Commission, which was therefore unable to present a counter argument.

The judges also challenged the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case, and the rationale for annulling the entire election, rather than just the allegedly affected boxes.

The petition was filed by third-placed candidate Gasim Ibrahim who sought annulment of the first round in which he received 24.07 percent of the vote, alleging that he received at least 20,000 more before declaring that “God Willing, Gasim will be President on November 11″.

Travel advisory updated

Protests and strikes followed the suspension of the second round of elections, prompting countries including the UK, Australia, Canada and China to issue travel advisories to their nationals visiting the luxury holiday destination.

The UK updated its travel advisory yesterday, noting that “the first round of the Presidential elections will now be re-run on 19 October. There have been frequent demonstrations in the capital, Malé, and on some non-resort islands. These have led to arrests, attacks on private and commercial property, including arson, and limited violence. Further demonstrations are possible. Friday afternoons are potential flashpoints.”

Likes

(3)Dislikes

(0)

PG assures Election Commission it will be protected

The Prosecutor General’s (PG) Office has today assured the Elections Commission (EC) that it will do all it can to ensure the constitution is upheld after receiving a complaint regarding the behaviour of the security forces.

The PG issued a statement acknowledging receiving the EC’s complaint that the security forces had ‘hijacked’ the EC the evening before the scheduled second round of the presidential election.

In a statement the PG’s office assured the EC that it would take any action necessary to carry out its responsibilities as stated in Article 233(j) and Act Number 9/2008 15(j) to uphold the constitution, laws and rights of the people.

On September 27 when police were surrounding the EC building, commission President Fuwad Thowfeek told Minivan News “We will not be able to hold elections without support from the police. The police will stop any election preparation activity.”

Thowfeek said the EC members had been met by two officers “to get our assurance the preparation activities have been stopped.”

Special Operations (SO) police surrounded the EC secretariat with orders from Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz to take over the building and ballot papers.

The police barricade followed a Supreme Court order calling on the security forces to prevent anyone from disobeying a previous injunction to delay the second round of presidential elections.

The injunction was issued after the the Jumhooree Party (JP) filed a case at the Supreme Court alleging that there were major issues with the voter registration and requesting to cancel the first round of the presidential election and to delay the second round.

On October 8, the Supreme Court annulled the first round of the election and ordered the elections commission to hold the first round again before 20 October.

The EC has announced the re-vote will take place on October 19, leaving voters less than 24 hours to re-register due to the upcoming Eid holidays.

EC member Ogaru Ibrahim Waheed has today resigned, reports local media, though the reasons for his departure are not yet known.

On the evening in question, the police cordoned off the area around the EC and ordered journalists at the scene to leave. One EC official told Minivan News, on condition of anonymity, that staff were not being allowed to enter the building.

The PG’s office said that the case alleged security forces had obstructed the legal duties of an independent commission established under the constitution. It stated that the office was now discussing the matter with the EC.

Shortly after its acknowledgement that conditions were not appropriate for a free and fair polls, the EC filed a report with the police following multiple death threats received by its staff.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Civil Court upholds JSC’s “indefinite suspension” of High Court Chief Judge

Civil Court ruled yesterday (October 9) that there are no grounds to annul the the Judicial Service Commission’s (JSC) decision to suspend High Court Chief Judge Ahmed Shareef, reports local media.

Shareef filed a lawsuit at the Civil Court for a second time against the JSC on June 20, 2013, challenging his indefinite suspension by the judicial watchdog.

The initial suspension came just hours after the High Court had temporarily halted the hearings of a case lodged by former President Mohamed Nasheed against the JSC.

Nasheed had accused the judicial watch-dog of exceeding its mandate when appointing the three-member judges panel to the Hulhumale Magistrate Court currently hearing a criminal case against him.

According to the JSC Chair Justice Adam Mohamed Abdulla, the suspension of Shareef – amongst the three judges presiding over Nasheed’s case – was a “precautionary” measure while investigation of the complaint was proceeding.

JSC Chair and Supreme Court insisted at the time that the disciplinary action had no relation to the former president’s case.

On June 17, the first case submitted by Shareef – requesting the court issue an injunction halting the suspension – was dismissed by Civil Court Judge Hathif Hilmy after the claimant did not attend the hearing and failed to provide the court with a valid reason for his absence.

The Civil Court ruling stated that Shareef’s suspension did not violate Supreme Court rulings, Article 141 of the constitution, Article 38 of the Judges Act, or the JSC Act according to local media.

Additionally, the court ruling stated that it is not mandatory for the JSC to establish investigation committees in response to complaints, referring to Article 23 (a) of the JSC Act.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Parliament’s security services oversight committee summons Police Commissioner

Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz has been summoned to Parliament’s Security Services Committee for the second consecutive day, reports local media.

The Parliamentary committee, mandated in constitutional article 241, summoned Riyaz to appear at 11:ooam today over a complaint by Addu City Council. Addu City Mayor Abdullah Sodig and the Addu police-in-charge were also contacted to attend the meeting.

Riyaz was also summoned to appear at 11:15am yesterday (October 9) to provide the parliamentary committee with a status update regarding the murder investigation of former Ungoofaaru MP Dr Afrasheem Ali.

Security service committee meetings are closed to the public and media, however Sun Online has claimed that the committee “expressed frustration” over the delay of Dr Afrasheem’s murder investigation and requested Riyaz provide a date when the investigation will be concluded.

Earlier this year, Riyaz declared that police officers would only attend the 241 committee and would not appear before parliament’s Executive Oversight Committee (EOC) unless the Supreme Court orders police to do so. The Police Commissioner claimed that the decision was based on advice from Attorney General Azima Shukoor.

In March 2011, the Supreme Court ruled both the Police and the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) should be answerable to parliament whenever requested.

The Supreme Court in the ruling stated that, according to article 99 (a) and (b) of the constitution, it was clear that parliament was obliged to supervise every action of the security services and ensure their actions are within the constitution and law.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

President condemns PPM’s bid to annul Nasheed’s candidacy, suspend printing of ballot papers

The President’s Office has “condemn[ed] efforts by individuals to stop former President Mr Mohamed Nasheed from running for Office of President of Maldives.”

“[President Waheed] believes this is not the time to engage in efforts to obstruct or bar candidates from going through the electoral process. It will not help resolve the already volatile political situation in Maldives,” the President said.

The statement follows the filing of a petition at the Supreme Court against the Elections Commission (EC), challenging the candidacy of opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) candidate and former President Nasheed.

The Supreme Court petition filed today (October 10) states as grounds for stripping Nasheed’s candidacy his “outright criticism towards Islam and imposing Islamic Sharia’ in the Maldives” and his criticism of the judiciary.

Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Council Member Ibrahim ‘Wadde’ Waheed and President of the ‘Madhanee Iththihaadh’ (Civil Alliance) Sheikh Mohamed Didi filed the case.

The parties to the case have requested the court issue an injunction to order the Elections Commission to suspend its efforts to print ballot papers.

In an about-turn, however, the PPM has officially said the party is negotiating with ‘Wadde’ Waheed to have the case withdrawn, arguing that he had not consulted with the party leadership.

“The international community is calling for an inclusive free and fair election which all candidates are allowed to contest. We know from the language used in their statements that their remarks point to one specific individual. With the filing of the case, this issue has taken international limelight,” PPM Council Member – daughter of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom – and State Foreign Minister Dunya Maumoon told the press today.

The move comes shortly after the Supreme Court annulled the first round of Presidential Elections, following a petition filed by the Jumhoree Party (JP) contesting that the entire electoral process had been flawed due to discrepancies and irregularities amounting to a “systematic failure”.

The Supreme Court – in a four to three decision – annulled the poll citing electoral irregularities, despite unanimous positive assessment of the polling by more than a thousand local and international election observers.

The majority ruling cited a confidential police report submitted to the court claiming that 5623 votes were ineligible. The report has not been made public and the legal counsel of the Elections Commission was never given the opportunity to present a counter argument.

The three judges who had dissenting views raised doubts as to the credibility of the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs, while also challenging the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over the case.

“Devious attempts”

Minivan News understands that the Supreme Court petition filed by Didi and Waheed requests that the court declare Nasheed not be allowed to contest in any election held in the country.

MDP Spokesperson Imthiyaz Fahmy – who is himself being prosecuted for criticising the courts – told Minivan News on Thursday that the petition was a “very dirty” attempt by their rivals to invalidate a candidate who had the demonstrable support of at least 45 percent of the people.

“These people are trying to finish through the court things that should be decided through the vote of the people,” said Minivan News.

“All these devious attempts tell one story. They have realised the huge defeat they have succumbed to, even before the elections. So now, their only hope it seems is to destroy the democratic values of this country, and try to contest in this election unopposed,” he added.

During a short press briefing given today after meeting the German Ambassador, Nasheed told the press that the lawsuit was not intended simply to bar him from the presidential poll, but also to ground the entire election.

“They are seeking the injunction to prevent printing of the ballot papers to delay the election as names of all candidates would be in the ballot paper,” Nasheed told the media.

The Elections Commission has previously said that no candidate would be allowed to withdraw their names even if they had decided not to contest, citing the Supreme Court’s annulment verdict which only ordered a repeat of the voting process, and not the filing of candidacy.

The former president has reiterated that, despite all efforts made to delay the elections, his MDP would go on to easily win the election.

“My opponents are advocating to bar anyone from opposing them – myself – from contesting in the presidential election. They are attempting to disallow political parties from contesting in the election, to ensure that credible elections never take place.”

“They are trying to override the highest order of the country, which is the people, and give that to the police and the military,” Nasheed said, speaking in a campaign rally on Wednesday evening in Faafu Atoll.

Nasheed’s candidacy was formally accepted by the Elections Commission in mid-July.

Nasheed and the MDP noted the politically-motivated earlier attempts to obstruct him from contesting the election, pointing to the presence of political opponents on the JSC including a rival presidential candidate.

That trial – into the detention of Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed – subsequently stalled at the high court level, after the Chief Judge Ahmed Shareef issued an injunction.

A day later the JSC suspended Shareef for what it claimed was an unrelated matter. His suspension was this week upheld by the Civil Court.

Annulment of candidacy

Should today’s PPM case be accepted by the Supreme Court, it would constitute a second attempt to bar Nasheed from contesting in a presidential election.

In October 2008 the JP’s Youth League leader Moosa Anwar filed a similar petition contending that Nasheed was not eligible to contest in the 2008 presidential election as he had been convicted for theft, which is a Hadd offence.

However, the interim Supreme Court ruled in favour of Nasheed, declaring that he was eligible to contest in the election whilst also rejecting the claim that Nasheed had been sentenced for a Hadd offence.

Earlier in March, former Human Rights Minister Dhiyana Saeed alleged that a Supreme Court judge had instructed her to file a case against Nasheed in a bid to prevent him from running for presidency in the 2013 presidential elections. Following the request, Saeed sent a letter to the Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain requesting him to investigate the matter.

Among the suggestions given by the judge, Saeed claimed at the time, were filing a case concerning Nasheed’s decision to remove eight members of parliament appointed by former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, prior to the ratification of the constitution.

Another suggestion given by the judge, Saeed alleged, was to refile the case filed by Anwar in 2008 against Nasheed.

Likes

(1)Dislikes

(1)

President awards state’s highest honour to Pakistan’s Chief of Naval Staff

Pakistan’s Chief of Naval Staff, Admiral Asif Sandila arrived in the Maldives yesterday (October 9) at the invitation of Maldives Chief of Defence Force Major General Ahmed Shiyam.

President Mohamed Waheed awarded the Admiral with the ‘Nishaan Muleege Sharafge Izzaiy’ (‘Order of Distinguished Rule of Muleege’) – one of the highest ranking honors conferred by the state – in recognition of his dedicated efforts to provide humanitarian assistance in the aftermath of the 2004 tsunami. The award was previously established in honour of Al-Sultan Mohamed Shamsuddeen.

When the tsunami hit the Maldives on December 26, 2004, Admiral Sandila was the Mission Commander of two Pakistani Naval Ships, P.N.S Tariq and P.N.S Nasr, which were on a goodwill visit to the country.

As the initial responders to the “critical situation” the Pakistani naval ships took “prompt action” conducting search and rescue operations, evacuating citizens and tourists from affected islands, conducting the initial damage assessment, and providing critical food and relief supplies to devastated islands in the aftermath tsunami, said the President’s Office.

“At the time of the worst ever natural disaster in the recent history of Maldives, Admiral Sandila proved above and beyond the call of duty to be a source of exemplary service and dedication which was symbolic of the long standing fraternal relation between the Maldives and Pakistan,” said President Waheed during this morning’s (October 10) award ceremony.

Admiral Sandila is also scheduled to meet with Minister of Defence and National Security Colonel (Rtd) Mohamed Nazim during his two day official visit and will depart from the Maldives tonight, according to local media.

Past Pakistani controversy

In November 2011, the allegedly “idolatrous” Pakistani monument erected for the SAARC summit was set on fire by a group of people in Hithadhoo, Addu City after two young men toppled the monument during an earlier protest.

The monument, which featured engraved symbols of Pakistan’s ancient civilisation and a bust of the country’s founder Mohamed Ali Jinah, had been removed by the Addu City Council the previous week but was replaced back on its plinth with a cover ahead of the unveiling ceremony.

A member of the Pakistani delegation at the unveiling ceremony explained to Minivan News that the monument represented artifacts of the ancient Indus Valley civilisation and were not specifically religious symbols.

Following the first attempt to vandalise the monument, a second member of the Pakistani delegation told Minivan News that they approached the Maldives’ Foreign Ministry over the incident but was informed by an official that it had not occurred, and was a rumour spread by the opposition.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Comment: Maldivian Democracy – Where to from here?

“Maldives can never have stability through elections which has opposition Maldivian Democratic Party presidential candidate Mohamed Nasheed’s name on the ballot”

“We will not hand over [power] through an election, [we] will not hand over even if he gets elected”

“Election fraud should be investigated and the election commissioner should resign”

– Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) vice presidential candidate Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed

These are not political statements. This is not political discourse. This is not democratic discourse. We call ourselves a democracy – a young democracy. But these statements are the symptoms and early warning signals of a failing democracy.

Failing democracy

There are different versions and theories on what a ‘true democracy’ is, even though I believe that term is flawed to the core. No system is perfect and a ‘true democracy’ is too ambitious an aspiration to be realistically achievable. At the same time, democracy is also not just giving everyone above 18 a right to vote and a right to represent.

Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) runs an annual survey for a ‘Democracy Index’, which rates various sovereign countries across the world on how effective they are as democracies. They rate countries on five arameters which are commonly accepted as relevant for judging the strength of democracies: 1) Electoral process and pluralism; 2) Functioning of government; 3) Political participation; 4) Democratic political culture; 5) Civil liberties. While this annual ‘Democracy Index’ typically covers around 160 – 165 countries across the world, the Maldives is not ranked. One can go through the details of this index here and build their own perspective on how well are we doing on this.

My summary view on the state of Maldivian democracy based on an assessment of these parameters is that we are a democracy on ventilator, desperately gasping for life. The statements by a vice presidential candidate highlighted above are a reflection on the sanctity of our electoral process, rather the lack of it. No only this, ours is a democracy where the Supreme Court decides on the sanctity of electoral process based on a ‘secret report’ by the police without even giving a chance to the Elections Commission, or anyone else, to see the report – let alone comment on it. At the same time, one only needs to see through the various actions of the current government to see that we clearly fail on the parameter of functioning of government, with the rampant corruption and decisions that are typically taken under the influence of one of the president’s allies or the other.

President Waheed has been sanctioning millions of dollars’ worth of favours to the people who put him in power – £5million payments to Grant Thornton to stop corruption investigations against Abdulla Yameen, and the arbitrary 99-year lease extension for Mamigili airport are just a couple of cases in point. The recent decision by Waheed’s cabinet to sell MACL shares in the course of a week, while being totally silent on the valuation or process for sale as well as the role of the Majlis or the privatization board in the same is a further example of absolute failure of governance, which is marred by corruption, in our democracy.

Civil liberties, or the lack of them, is the most significant problem for us today. None of the media houses are independent since their owners are aligned with one political party or the other – a case in point is a recent headline in a national electronic newspaper which said “Nasheed ‘doesn’t have time’ for second round presidential debate” while referring to the cancellation of MBC’s presidential debate. Brutal crackdowns on anti-government protestors are a norm of the day and tolerance for the opposition view is totally amiss from governance.

As for a democratic political culture, our country is being run by a ‘president-by-chance’ who has no popular support and who has been totally inept at maintaining public order, largely because he represents the old order and vested interests who brought him to power. It is only political participation that is the last remaining hope for the Maldivian democracy, and I am proud to say that we may be one of the best in the world on this parameter, but I fear we are starting to view our democracy in this very narrow perspective.

Constitutional void or civil disobedience or much more?

It is apparent from the discussion above that Maldivian democracy is faced with a number of challenges that threaten its very existence. What started in February 2012 was a political turmoil. Where we are at today is a constitutional void – where no one knows who has the power on which matters, and everything is a question of interpretation of the constitution. The more worrisome aspect, after this Supreme Court judgement on validity of elections, is where do we go from here?

Whether the Supreme Court had the power to cancel the second round or not is still in question – the executive was only too happy to implement its orders anyhow without regard to the powers of the constitutional institutions such as the elections commission. Whether they were right in annulling the first round, on the basis of a report the existence of which is in question, is an even bigger question. Parliamentary supremacy is a bit of an unknown concept in our democracy and anyone and everyone seems to challenge it based on their convenience – be it challenging the position of the speaker, or validity of seats of opposition MPs, or the simplest of things like not destroying the audio systems just to stop the other side from making their case.

The questions are many and there are no clear answers. Can the elections commission ensure a free and fair election with the high level of control that has now been given to the Maldives police? Will the Maldives’ police, who are led by a man recently reprimanded by integrity commission for his anti-Nasheed activism in the forces, really allow a free and fair election? Will any election in which Nasheed wins, despite any odds, be conceded as a free and fair election? What will deter the losers of the re-election from running to the Supreme Court again pleading some other kind of foul play and getting the elections annulled once again? Will Nasheed supporters accept a defeat calmly and with grace, without crying foul play, having received 45 percent votes in the annulled elections? Now that the sanctity of the electoral process has been undermined significantly, what is the way out of this situation?

Using undue influence over the Supreme Court to play with the electoral process is not an acceptable answer for one side of the political spectrum. Disqualifying the most popular candidate from contesting the elections or not letting him take power – even if he wins the election and possibly even a re-election – is clearly not a plausible answer for the other side. This is a stark conflict and everyone is getting involved. Even the MNDF is getting politicised and polarised, along with the customs, air traffic control, and resort employees. That this conflict will only escalate further is increasingly likely and the recent arson attack on pro-opposition Raajje TV is an early warning signal of how bad things can get, if not checked in time.

Where to from here in search of solutions?

A conflict where a large proportion of people with a political voice start looking at every action of the state with suspicion is mostly avoidable. No one likes conflict and certainly not a violent conflict. With everything that is going on in the rest of the world – in Syria, Egypt and elsewhere – no one wants a conflict in the much more peaceful Maldives. Given the polarised nature of this conflict, it is important for order to be established in the Maldives sooner rather than later. Leaving internal institutions in the Maldives to chance upon a solution after a prolonged conflict is not what is required at present and may even be counter-productive.

Clearly, the Maldives needs the international community’s support to ensure that this conflict is not prolonged and is resolved for good with this round of elections. Moreover, it is not in India’s interests to see any prolonged conflict in its backyard, for such conflicts allow an opportunity to other countries to start playing an active role where they have been largely absent till date. It is important for India to establish diplomatic supremacy once again in the Maldives.

Ever since the suspicious transfer of power in the Maldives in February 2012, Indian engagement in the Maldives has largely been reactive. It has been on the ‘back-foot’ since February 2012 with the rising anti-India voices from some quarters of the political spectrum. President Waheed went back on his word to the Indian prime minister in cancelling the GMR agreement, and the much prolonged ‘Nasheed-holed-up-inside-Indian-high-commission’ drama in February 2013 only exacerbated discord. India has reacted well to manage some of these situations, though Indian diplomacy has failed on a few fronts, particularly in failing to gauge the allegiance of the current government of President Waheed.

The current conflict in the Maldives provides a perfect opportunity for India to take charge of the situation. The re-election is an opportunity to set the Maldives in order and to define Indian diplomatic supremacy in the region. It has to play an active role in building domestic as well as international consensus on whatever is required to ensure that the re-election, now that everyone seems to have accepted it, is free and fair and actually results in a smooth and consensual transfer of power on November 11. The number of diplomatic options India has are endless, but just strongly worded statements don’t seem to be enough of a deterrent to the various political actors in the Maldives. On the other extreme, far-fetched options like an international peace-keeping force or any sort of ‘boots-on-ground’ is totally out of bounds as well. While some sort of economic sanctions are a plausible diplomatic action, these haven’t been much of a deterrent in many cases across the world.

A possible tourism-embargo will hit the various political actors involved in this conflict and would force them to tow the democratic line such that the starkly polarised domestic politics could be sorted out once and for all. This is a call that has been made by the MDP as well, and has been welcomed and criticized in equal measure by various people across the socio-political spectrum in the country. Having said that, it is such details of what and how that India has to play without becoming actively involved in the local politics and without taking political sides. India has to build international consensus on what carrots and which sticks need to be used to ensure that any dubious dealings no longer stymie Maldivian democracy.

Maldivian democracy is on life-support and it needs international help, especially from India, to help it come back to life again after the 11^th November.

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)

Observing the Supreme Court in action

The first round of the Maldives presidential elections – the second multi-party presidential elections held in the country since 2008 – came to a bitter end after the Supreme Court annulled the poll deeming it invalid, void from the outset and, as per the exact wordings of Justice Ahmed Abdulla Didi, “undermining the principle of Universal Suffrage”.

This article is based on direct observations of the proceedings of the Supreme Court case filed by the Jumhooree Party (JP) against the Elections Commission (EC), in which the presidential election was annulled.

After succumbing to a disappointing third place finish at the poll despite a heavily financed presidential campaign, JP Leader Gasim Ibrahim and his party sought to annul the poll, citing “massive” electoral fraud amounting to a “systematic failure”, that would have otherwise put him at the forefront of the race to become the sixth president of the country.

Among the list of allegations upon which the party founded its case were the presence of deceased and underaged voters, and repeated or erroneous entries. This, they argued, paved way for their opponents, primarily the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) to cast ineligible votes that impacted the “true outcome” of the poll.

To add weight to their claims, the party produced lists of entries in the voter registry which it claimed to be invalid – the source of which remains subject to doubt, with the party’s claims to have obtained the information through its private investigations, party call-centres, and hearsay statements from anonymous witnesses.

Following the submission of the evidence and inspection of the original voting list used by Elections Commission (EC) officials, the Supreme Court tasked a ‘Technical Team’ of police officers to compare the voter list against the allegations by the JP.

The Supreme Court, using the findings of the police’s ‘technical team of experts’ – who claimed the existence of some 5,623 instances of electoral fraud – annulled the elections in a four to three decision, contending that instances of electoral fraud highlighted by the police sufficed to prove a loss of legitimacy in the election.

The majority ruling was formed by Supreme Court Justices Adam Mohamed, Dr Ahmed Abdulla Didi, Ali Hameed and Abdulla Saeed. Meanwhile, the Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain, Justices Abdulla Areef and Muthasim Adnan had dissenting views in which they argued that there lacked sufficient grounds to annul the poll.

Controversy surrounding Justices

It is first worth highlighting the controversies that surround the four Justices who formed the majority ruling.

Justice Ali Hameed – who was formerly a High Court Judge prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court – is currently under both police and Judicial Service Commission (JSC) investigation for the sex scandal in which leaked CCTV footage allegedly taken during a stay in Sri Lanka depicted him fornicating with multiple European and Sri Lankan prostitutes. The videos went viral in both local media and on social networks, subjecting the judge to heavy public criticism. Meanwhile. a corruption case against Justice Hameed was forwarded to the prosecutor general on July 2013 for abuse of state funds.
Justice Dr Ahmed Abdulla Didi was formerly a member of the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) – whose leader Dr Hassan Saeed represented the Jumhoree Party (JP) in the case. Didi contested the 2009 parliamentary elections as a DQP candidate. Moreover, Justice Didi’s eligibility had been contested after it had been argued that he did not satisfy the requirements as prescribed by the law to sit in the Supreme Court, as he lacked the required seven years experience practicing law.
Justice Adam Mohamed – who is also the Chair of the judicial watchdog the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) – stands accused by fellow commission member Shuaib Abdul Rahman of dictatorial conduct in the commission including an instance where he, as the chair of the JSC, outright refused to table a no-confidence motion levied against himself. He has also been subjected to criticism for the JSC’s delay in looking into Justice Ali Hameed’s sex-tape scandal and the controversial suspension of the Chief Judge of High Court over one year ago.
Justice Abdulla Saeed – who was the interim Chief Justice prior to mid 2010 – stands accused of making politicised statements, contrary to the law. Recently, opposition-aligned Raajje TV – which was destroyed in an arson attack this week – aired an alleged audio clip in which Justice Saeed described the opposition MDP candidate Mohamed Nasheed and his supporters as suffering from “yellow fever”, and that “by no means should Nasheed be allowed to become president”.

It worth noting that these four justices have joined hands to form the majority ruling in several controversial Supreme Court cases, most notably the overriding of a parliamentary removal in the sexual harassment case of former Chair of Civil Service Commission (CSC) Mohamed Fahmy Hassan and the legitimizing of the controversially formed Hulhumale Magistrate Court – which is currently hearing the criminal trial of Nasheed.

Eviction of the Elections Commission’s lawyer

Back to the election annulment case. One of the most telling observations during the hearings was the attitude shown by these four justices – most notably Justice Dr Ahmed Abdulla Didi and Justice Abdulla Saeed – towards the attorney representing the EC, Hussain Siraj, during the hearing in which concluding statements from the parties were heard.

Siraj was forced to appear as the senior counsel for the EC after the former Attorney General and President of the Maldives Bar Association, Husnu Al Suood, was ejected from the case for publicly challenging the constitutional legitimacy of the Supreme Court’s mid-trial order to suspend efforts by the EC to hold the run-off election.

Subsequently, the attorneys representing the opposition MDP – who had intervened into the case – were ejected on similar grounds, prompting the party to withdraw from the case altogether claiming that “justice had been denied”.

During the hearing in question, Siraj attempted argue that the injunction issued by the Supreme Court would contradict the constitutional provision prescribed under Article 111(a), which explicitly states that a run-off election must be held within 21 days of the first election should no presidential candidate obtain more than fifty percent of the vote.

The Supreme Court Justices Abdulla Saeed and Ahmed Abdulla Didi responded harshly, while Justice Abdulla Saeed questioned the capacity of Siraj to comprehend what the Supreme Court was doing with regard to judicial review.

Meanwhile, Justice Ahmed Abdulla Didi stated that no one could speak on the legality of a decision made by the Supreme Court and that such an action could amount to contempt of court.

It was also observed that the Justices repeatedly disallowed Siraj from contesting the constitutionality of JP’s requests, while no such restrictions were placed on the JP’s legal counsel Dr Hassan Saeed when he made similar claims.

EC not given opportunity to respond to police report

As mentioned before, one of the fundamental documents upon which the Supreme Court’s judgement was based upon was the report produced by the technical team from the Maldives Police Service, who had cross-referenced the JP’s allegations against the voter list used by Elections Commission officials.

The existence of such a report by police was not formally announced until the justices starting using it as a reference point – despite it playing a pivotal role in forming the majority ruling of the Supreme Court.

As a result, the Elections Commission’s legal counsel was never given the opportunity to challenge or examine the findings of the police report, let alone produce a counter argument.

This was even mentioned in the dissenting view of Justice Muthasim Adnan. He stated:

“…Among the evidences produced [by the parties] included evidence that I do not consider as evidence, and a confidential report to which the parties to the case were not given the opportunity to respond to.”

However in precedents set forth by the Supreme Court, and given that it stands as the final authority to decide on all legal matters, there lies no way as to contest the court’s decisions.

Likes

(1)Dislikes

(0)

Comment: Capital punishment inhumane, cruel and fails to prevent crime

The following is a joint declaration by Secretary General of the Council of Europe Thorbjørn Jagland and European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton, on the European and World Day against the Death Penalty, 10 October 2013.

Today, on the occasion of the European and World Day against the Death Penalty, the Council of Europe and the European Union reiterate their strong opposition to the use of capital punishment. They continue to underline, whenever and wherever possible, the inhumane and cruel nature of this unnecessary punishment and its failure to prevent crime.

Although we are encouraged by the growing momentum towards abolition of the death penalty worldwide, the resumption of executions and breaches of decades of moratoria in different parts of the world clearly mark the necessity to pursue our long-standing action against the death penalty, in Europe and worldwide.

Voices in favour of the death penalty within some parts of society, including in our continent, show that there is a continuous need to spell out why the death penalty runs contrary to the right to life and to human dignity.

Based on the fact that no execution has taken place on their territory for the past fifteen years, the European Union and the Council of Europe share the common overarching objective to consolidate the abolition within and beyond its borders. Protocols Nos 6 and 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights as well as Article 2 (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as today binding on the European Union, call for the death penalty to be abolished. In this context, we urge all European States which have not yet abolished the death penalty de jure in all circumstances, to do so by ratifying the relevant protocols to the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Council of Europe and the European Union regret the continuous use of death penalty in Belarus, the only country in Europe still applying it. We urge the authorities of Belarus to examine and explore all possibilities available in order to introduce a moratorium on executions as a first step towards abolition.

We welcome the extraordinary efforts of the cross-regional alliance that successfully led and guided the adoption, with an unprecedented number of votes, in December 2012, of the UN General Assembly Resolution on a Moratorium on the use of death penalty.

We would like to stress the symbolic and substantial importance of the 5th World Congress held in Madrid on 12-15 June 2013 and warmly congratulate the organisers, the four European countries which acted as main sponsors and the other European countries which contributed to the event. The extensive and diverse participation to this Congress clearly shows the worldwide tendency against the death penalty. The Council of Europe and the European Union will continue to work closely with all interlocutors, governmental and civil society, with a view to developing synergies towards universal abolition.

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)