Tag: maldives

HRCM condemns post-election political unrest

Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) has released a press statement condemning the current cases of political unrest occurring in the Maldives following the first round of the presidential elections held on September 7.

“HRCM condemns the use of inhumane rhetoric which is against national interest and provokes unrest in the community, calls to cause harm to people, the damaging of peoples’ property and campaign offices of political parties,” the statement read.

“The commission also strongly condemns the acts of physical violence, the use of inappropriate language, the damaging of state property, and other acts by members of parliament which demeans the respect and dignity of the parliament in the parliamentary session held on September 23.”

“While freedom of expression and freedom of assembly are important rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the Maldives, this commission advises all persons to exercise these rights within the limits outlined in the constitution and laws. This commission also calls out on everyone to refrain from any actions which may give rise to discord or unrest,” the statement concluded.

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(1)Dislikes(0)

EC providing 473 ballot boxes for 239,868 eligible voters during presidential election runoff

The Elections Commission (EC) has announced 275 new eligible voters will be added to the registry and 4 additional ballot boxes will be needed for the presidential election’s second round runoff scheduled for Saturday (September 28), reports local media.

The addition of newly turned 18 year-old voters and the subtraction of individuals who the EC has confirmed recently died has brought the total number of registered voters nationwide to 239,868.

Additionally, three ballot boxes will be placed on resort islands in the Maldives, while a ballot box will also be stationed in Medina, near Riyadh in Saudi Arabia for Maldivian Hajj pilgrims, EC Secretary General Asim Abdul Sattar told local media. However, a ballot box will not be available on Lily Beach Resort, as it was during the first round of polling.

Thus, ballot boxes stationed in the Maldives and in various locations worldwide will total 473.

During the presidential election’s first round, held on September 7, 470 ballot boxes were needed to accommodate 239,593 eligible voters. Ultimately voter turnout totalled 88.44 percent, with 211,890 people having cast ballots.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Attempted arson at MDP campaign meeting hall in Male’

Two petrol bombs were thrown toward the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s ‘Janbu Jagaha’ meeting hall in Male’ Saturday night (September 21), reports local media.

Two people on a motorcycle threw the bombs at the meeting hall around 11pm, but the flaming projectiles landed on the pavement, an eyewitness told CNM.

However an alternative local media report stated that articles of clothing were set on fire and hurled at the MDP meeting hall.

“Over the weekend some people apparently tried to torch the Male’ campaign coordination centre on Majeedhee Magu [Male’s main thoroughfare],” MDP MP & Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor told Minivan News today.

The Maldives Police Service (MPS) told local media they are investigating the attempt to set the meeting hall on fire.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Q&A: Elections Commission Chairperson Fuwad Thowfeek

The Maldives’ Elections Commission (EC) is preparing for the presidential election’s second round run-off amidst the Jumhooree coalition’s refusal to accept its first round defeat, triggering a barrage of judicial, political, media and civil society actions against the commission.

The Jumhooree Party (JP) – in conjunction with the Attorney General (AG) and the Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) – has led a Supreme Court case to annul the election, whilst the party’s High Court case against the commission was conducted in tandem. In response to the JP’s vote fraud claims the police barricaded the EC secretariat and searched its garbage, while multiple protests and threats have targeted  the commission and its members and local media has broadcast unsubstantiated information about the commission and electoral process.

The EC has emphatically dismissed allegations of vote rigging as “baseless and unfounded”, highlighting its transparency and extensive preparations – conducted with international support – to ensure a free and fair polling process. International election observers have unanimously commended the first round of polling, calling for losing parties to accept defeat and allow the second round to proceed as scheduled.

With the September 28 run-off less than a week away, Minivan News discusses some of the challenges faced by the commission with Fuwad Thowfeek, Chairperson of the country’s first independent Elections Commission (EC).

Supreme Court case

Leah R Malone: Considering the politicised nature of the Supreme Court – as highlighted by the UN Special Rapporteur for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul – is there a risk the Supreme Court’s order to hand over the EC’s only original copy of the voter list could lead to it being tampered with? Specifically, given the lack of material evidence or witnesses presented against the EC thus far, is there a potential opportunity for names to be added to the original voter list to substantiate the JP’s claims?

Fuwad Thowfeek: Thursday (September 19) the Supreme Court ordered the Elections Commission provide the original voter list, so we’ve been making color copies. EC members sat down and discussed [the situation], the constitution and presidential election laws, as well as met with our legal team. Since it’s a Supreme Court case they can order anything be given, so it’s best to follow that order [and provide the list].

However our legal team advised us to take very accurate color copies of each page before sending the originals. We are keeping the duplicates and in case any changes are made [to the originals] we will very easily be able to recognise them. It is the best solution we have at the moment.

As of about 3:45pm or 4:00pm Friday (September 20) we sent 120 lists to the Supreme Court. 200 will be sent Saturday and the day after the remaining lists. We are sending the original documents as the copies are being made.

LRM: If the Supreme Court rules to annul the presidential election’s first round, what will the Elections Commission do?

FT: That’s a big question because according to the constitution and even elections law there is nothing said [about whether the Supreme Court can take that action]. We have to ask the Supreme Court to give a timetable or something [for the presidential election]. Other than that there’s nothing we can do.

We won’t be able to fulfill the time requirement set forth in the constitution [if the run-off isn’t held on schedule]. 120 days before the end of the current president’s term a presidential election must be held. If there is no election then the [democratic] constitution, presidential and general election law will not be satisfied.

The strangest, funniest thing is that they are still not able to identify a single person who has voted fraudulently. For example, they have not been able to show anyone who is younger than 18 has voted, but they have been claiming many underage people fraudulently voted. If there are many [that voted fraudulently] they should be able to verify and show at least one person. They are also claiming that dead people voted, and when they submitted the list of seven names to the High Court, the court gave us the list to check. So we reviewed the voter registry and voter list, found phone numbers on record for four people and when we spoke with them, the individuals verified they were indeed alive and had voted. We are sure we will be able to find the remaining three people.

The other thing is if a dead person voted, someone should be able to show that this is the person who voted under the deceased’s name. Also, the JP is claiming 50,000 fraudulent votes have been added. The strangest thing is none of these ballots have been identified. No ballot boxes were found to have more votes cast than voters registered. Only one ballot box – located on a resort island – was found to have exactly 100 percent voter turnout. The average voter turnout was 88.44 percent nationwide.

LRM: Has Attorney General Azima Shukoor been in contact with the Elections Commission?

FT: That was another surprise to us actually. She has not been in contact with us and then suddenly appeared in the Supreme Court case. The funniest thing is the AG is supposed to support government institutions, but in this case the AG is speaking against the EC. She is supporting JP without evidence or witnesses, just saying there were errors in the voters list, but is not able to cite what those specific errors are because she has not seen [or requested to see] the list.

When I heard the AG was going to participate in the Supreme Court case, I thought it would be on behalf of the EC and she would tell the court [the vote rigging allegations are] simply not possible and the court cannot give any room to cancel the first round and re-hold it. [However,] when the AG came out and spoke against the EC – just like any political party supporter of JP – we released a press statement stating that the commission regrets this action by the AG. Both the AG and the JP have not provided any evidence or witnesses to support their allegations.

The government has spent over MVR 30 million (US $1,949,310) on the first round, there is no budget remaining [to hold both rounds again]. If it’s difficult for the government to provide the additional budget for the second round, there will be so many difficulties if the [results are annulled and] voting rounds are held again.

[Prior to the Supreme Court case] we hadn’t had much contact with the office of the AG or the AG. Last year after the change of government, in March or April, the EC met with the AG and spoke about changes that were required in the election laws, but nothing has materialised so far. She told us at the time that there were so many laws requiring revision.

Before the end of the last Supreme Court session, the Chief Justice ordered the EC to submit the original copy of the voters’ list. They are probably going to check the list to see whether people below the age of 18 voted. If they want to check for that, it’s fine. We are 100 percent sure they will not find anyone below 18 who voted.

Accessing the voter list

LRM: Following the High Court order for the EC to allow JP access to the voter list – under the guidelines determined by the commission – what were the exact protocol guidelines the EC enacted during the JP representative’s visit? What other political party representatives were present?

FT: Tuesday (September 17) the High Court ordered the EC to show the voter list to political parties. We have only one original [copy of the voters list] and had to make arrangements to follow the High Court’s order to show JP [the list], so we made the arrangements for Thursday (September 19).

This was because the EC needed time to prepare, seek advice from our legal team, and to hold a discussion meeting with our members. At the same time, arrangements for other candidates to see the voter list were also made. We invited all four political parties to send representatives to see the original voter list.

The viewing started at 10:00am. A team from JP came and GIP, but no PPM – even in court they said they did not want to see the voter list. An MDP representative came, but he said he did not want to see it.

We asked the other two – representatives from JP and GIP – what they wanted to see. Then again they wanted more people [from their parties] to come and for the EC to make copies [of the list for them]. But we couldn’t make that arrangement because we have to be very careful with our only copy [of the list], so our own official would show it to one representative at a time. There were arguments from the political party representatives [about these guidelines].

[However,] the lawyer, Dr Hassan Saeed [JP presidential candidate Gasim Ibrahim’s running mate and head of JP’s legal team] said that now he does not need to look at the voter list anymore because he would prefer for the EC to hand it over to the Supreme Court.

(JP’s Legal Advisor Mohamed Haleem told Minivan News last week that the party would seek an additional High Court order for unrestricted access to the voter list).

LRM: With the ‘leaked’ police intelligence report – which the AG is citing in the Supreme Court – alleging there were “some opportunities for fraud” and “illegal voting”, the AG arguing for the Supreme Court to order the police to investigate the EC, and the police barricading and searching the EC’s garbage, do you think the police are politicised and acting against the EC?

FT: I don’t think anything will happen. I heard the AG demanded the PG issue an order to the police to investigate some of these allegations, but so far the commission has not been contacted by the police or the PG. But we don’t know anything about this. The AG should have met and spoke with the EC before making such a decision and then advising another institution [to take action].

LRM: What has been the outcome of the Maldives Broadcasting Commission (MBC)’s investigation into Villa TV (VTV) broadcasting programmes to incite hatred and create an uprising against the EC? Have any substantive actions been taken by MBC against VTV?

FT: We don’t know about the [outcome of the] MBC investigation. They said they will be taking actions against those broadcasting untruthful content. We know that VTV has stopped broadcasting the ‘Olhuvaalee Vote Ge Namugai’ (‘fraud in the name of the vote’) programme. But for a very long time they have been showing ‘Fasmanzaru’ (‘five horizons’), where various JP political party members or supporters just talk against the EC or against the election’s first round. Although what they have to say has no substance.

Saturday or Sunday we have to send a complaint letter to MBC. Again I have called MBC’s President Mohamed Shahyb and by phone have spoken to him about ‘Fasmanzaru’ [and the unsubstantiated claims its spreading].

LRM: How will the EC provide more timely information to media during the second round run-off to avoid the confusion created by inaccurate local media reports of polling station figures during the first round?

FT: We have not yet decided. I think we need more frequent refreshing of figures and will try to have more frequent reports from the EC on the 28th. If everything does not go well it may be difficult… we may not be able to go to the Dharubaaruge [convention centre in Male’]. We will try to have better updates through the internet, but will be focusing on communicating directly with the media.

Threats and protests

LRM: The ‘National Movement’ has announced they will raise their voices in protest if the Supreme Court doesn’t rule against the EC. They are calling for the EC to be reformed – with yourself, the Vice Chair Ahmed Fayaz, and commission member Ali Mohamed Manik resigning. Have previous JP protests and planned National Movement protests caused any problems for the EC? Why are they targeting the three of you?

FT: Even JP supporters – except the 20 or 30 people shouting on the streets – have accepted the first round results and are not causing any problems.

Thursday night around 10:30pm 20 or 30 protesters came near the EC Secretariat, shouted for 30 minutes and left. They were demanding my resignation and saying ‘thief of votes’ and that type of thing, they wanted the [first round] results cancelled and a fresh election to be held. Sometimes they ask for myself and the Vice Chair to resign, sometimes different EC members, and sometimes the entire commission.

These are a few unsatisfied people paid by somebody – who has the money – but they know they’re not shouting for any solid thing. They get on a loudspeaker [and protest] after somebody asks or pays them – they are doing it for that reason alone, not based on anything reasonable. If it was a public thing then I’d be more concerned. But this is just a few people and most are not educated. They don’t know what’s going on [with the election] or how the voting process works.

There are five members of the EC and all decisions are made by the five members. [However,] the Vice Chair Fayaz, member Manik, and I are the three members interacting the most with the public, on TV etc  – that’s why they are going against us.

LRM: What kind of threats have been made against EC members and/or staff?

FT: Some of us are getting threats from unknown people. I have received SMS messages saying ‘be careful when you come out on the street, you’ll be stabbed in the stomach’. We [commission members] have security provided by the police and we move around with them.

My wife has been scared. Two times people went near our home shouting [and protesting], but the police protected our home and stopped the people from coming too near.

LRM: Do you think the MPS can provide adequate security for EC members?

FT: Yes, the MPS is fully capable. I’m sure nobody can harm me. They have to look at a distance but can’t touch me. Of that I’m fully confident, I’m not scared. I’m confidant know what I’m doing is right and I have the support of the people and the whole international community – observers and monitors. They’ve seen the electoral process [during the first round], which they have commended, praised, and complemented. I’m very happy and am moving ahead with my duties. My work cannot be stopped by a few people. I have full confidence in myself and am moving ahead.

LRM: The JP, some of their supporters, and the National Movement have claimed the EC, its members and staff are biased toward MDP – will you clarify for the public whether there is any truth in this accusation?

FT: There’s no truth to that, it’s some kind of story that some of the opponents wanted to spread. This commission, all its members and staff, do not belong to any political party or align with any political party.

We have staff who are married to people from different political parties – PPM, MDP, DRP, etc – and police officers. Staff members’ spouses may belong to a political party, but that is their own interest and has nothing to do with the duties of our staff. I have full confidence in our staff, they are very faithful to their duties and this commission and would not do anything unjust. I’m confident in my staff and that none are aligned with the MDP.

If they [a particular politician or political party] don’t get the result they want from a particular institution, they tend to claim that institution is opposition-aligned. The MDP got the best result [Nasheed secured 45.45 percent of the vote], so this time the EC is accused of being MDP aligned. If Yameen won then the EC would be accused of being PPM aligned.

In another instance, right after the change of government [in February 2012] some said the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) was PPM aligned, because most of the decisions made were more likely to the advantage of PPM. That’s just the kind of talk that happens.

Run-off preparations

LRM: What kind of support are local and international partners providing the EC for the second round? Is anything additional needed prior to the run-off scheduled for the 28th?

FT: We are getting a lot of support from international and local partners. The Commonwealth has expressed their satisfaction with the EC’s professionalism and their continued support for the commission. They will be sending another observer team for the run-off. The EU sent different observer teams – from various countries – on the 7th and will most likely send more for the 28th. Observers from Japan, Thailand, India, UK, US, and a Pakistani Elections Commissioner were present during the first round and expressed their interest in observing the second round. They will most likely send more teams for the run-off. I think they will come before the 28th to see the place, visit other islands, and see how ready we are for the second round.

Transparency Maldives sent the observers nationwide and their report praised the electoral process. The HRCM also observed the first round and praised us on our work and confirmed everything during the election went well. The Maldivian Democracy Network also expressed their support and commended the work the EC has done.

LRM: How have EC members, staff, and their families been impacted by the controversy the commission has faced since the first round? How has this impacted run-off election preparations?

FT: Right now there is very heavy work we have left to do before the 28th. We are so busy we are working 24 hours a day and the EC staff works in shifts, half are sent home to sleep when the other half report in.

For example, in addition to the 470 ballot boxes necessary for the first round, the second round will require an additional box be placed in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and two more on tourist resorts that have applied to keep ballot boxes this round.

Everyone of us has to spend so much time in the office. We go early in the morning and stay until late at night, even on weekends, while our families are alone at home. Our families suffer, but they fully support us so we can fulfill our national duty.

It’s a very difficult job but I’m lucky to have the confidence of the people and [political party] leaders – even Gasim’s close people, President Waheed and President Nasheed know me well, and the honorable Yameen and Gayoom know and trust me. Even those who speak against me only speak for political gain or just to control their supporters.

I know what I’m doing is right and everything will be fine for elections to take place the 28th. We are fully ready for the second round. If we are able to hold on until the 28th then we will know the next president of the country.

LRM: Given the barrage of judicial, political, media and civil society actions against the EC, is the electoral environment still conducive to holding a free and fair presidential election on September 28?

FT: I think on the 28th of September the second round will go ahead as we have planned and have been working toward. There has been very little or no change [in the electoral environment] that would require we make any changes to our own program. Compared to last week, this week things have very much improved. I’m very confident things will calm down.

I’ve spoken to different people [representing political parties] and the most interesting thing is even those against us in the Supreme Court, they know there was nothing wrong with the election. Gasim’s employees, senior political party members, are trying to just give him a perspective that they did so much to cover up their failure to get Gasim the required number of votes [to proceed to the run-off]. They know the cases submitted in the High Court and Supreme Court are not going to give them any recount. Nothing will come out in their favour. They just want to go as far as they can go.

A lot of energy has been wasted by everyone – their people, our people, the Supreme Court.

I’m very hopeful the country will be ready for the run-off. We cannot keep this second round [from happening on schedule]. Particularly for the benefit of the country, to maintain the peace and harmony of our home [nation], we have to hold the second round.

If we fail, we will likely face more and more problems as the time passes. It will be in the interest of the government, all political parties, and all thoughtful citizens of the country to hold the run-off. Anybody trying to obstruct the election is unpatriotic.

Likes(1)Dislikes(0)

Jumhooree Party submits three witness statements to Sunday’s Supreme Court hearing

The Supreme Court panel of seven judges has heard three witness statements submitted by the Jumhooree Coalition during Sunday’s hearing, in the party’s ongoing bid to annul the first round of polling in which it narrowly missed a place in the run-off.

The court stated that the identities of all three witnesses were to be protected and therefore only their voices – altered to make identification difficult – were heard in the court room.

The first witness – a male voice – stated that upon going to the polling station on September 7, election officials informed him that he had already cast his vote, and that his name had been marked as such on the voters registry.

He then claimed that after discussion with the election officials at the said booth, he had been allowed to cast his vote, despite the list showing he had previously voted.

The second witness – female – said that she had been unable to cast her vote as the elections officials at the polling station she had attended had said her name was not on the voters list.

When the JP’s lawyer and presidential running mate Dr Hassan Saeed asked the witness if she had registered to vote, and why or why not, she responded that she had not and that it was because she had figured “I too will need to go where everyone else at home went”.

Hassan then asked “You are saying it is because you intended to vote from the area of your permanent address?”, prompting a “yes” from the witness.

Hassan then asked if she had taken a valid national identity card which had all the text on it clearly visible, and if the elections officials had checked it.

The witness said that she had taken one, but alleged officials had not looked at it.

Questions were also asked of the second witness by Judge Adam Mohamed.

Adam Mohamed asked if the elections officials had offered her any reassurance that she would later be allowed to vote, to which she replied in the negative.

The judge then asked if the officials had then just asked her to go home, to which the witness replied that she had of her own accord gone home, as her name was not on the voters’ list.

The third and final witness in the hearing was a man who claimed to have worked as a senior election official in charge of a ballot box. The location of the box was not revealed, to protect his identity.

Dr Saeed asked him about the time voting started and if the netbook and Ballot Progress Reporting System (BPRS) queue system provided by the Elections Commission was working.

The witness said that voting started at approximately 7:30am. He said that although the netbook was in perfect working condition, as was the BPRS, the officials at the station had some trouble working it as they did not understand how. He said they then had started the voting process using the hard copy of the voters’ list as instructed during their training.

He stated that they had already released 10 queue numbers for voting before they were able to get the BPRS queue system working.

According to the witness, he had instructed another official to start entering these 10 numbers at about 10:00am when the queues had calmed down, during which process they discovered that five of the 10 people appeared on the system as having already voted.

He however assured that no person whose name was not on the voting list had cast a vote at the station he had been watching over.

The Elections Commission’s lawyer, former Attorney General Husnu Suood, asked the witness if these five persons were people who had come from another island, which the witness confirmed as true.

He then asked if it was possible to say they had cast their votes on another island and then come to the witnesses’ island in an attempt to cast their vote.

The witness stated that this was impossible, as they had been among the first in queue when voting began.

Dr Saeed again questioned the witness, asking if the official knew the island of origin of the five alleged double-voters, and how much time it would have taken them to travel to their permanent residences on a speed boat from the official’s island.

The official said the people came from an island outside his atoll, and that it would take at least an hour and a half to reach there, even by speedboat.

Dr Saeed then asked if there was any other island with ballot boxes and which was the closest.

The witness said the closest one was 10 minutes away by speedboat, and that he believed that “in times as technologically advanced as this, it is possible that these five persons had removed the ink mark indicating having voted and gone to a nearby polling centre and recast a vote.”

Husnu Suood at this point intervened, asking the judges to make the witness’s statements be based on facts, and not inclusive of opinions.

The judge overruled the objection, stating that witness statements were an account of what they believed to have happened.

The last question was posed by Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) lawyer Ahmed Zaneen Adam, who asked if the EC had asked officials to make voters remain in the polling area for 30 seconds after the ink mark was drawn on their fingers.

The witness responded that they had been told so, and had worked under these instructions.

Judges then told Zaneen that he could not question the witness beyond the scope of his statement.

Although the judges panel stated that all parties would be given an opportunity to speak after the witness statements, the court session ended directly after the statements were delivered.

Another hearing in the case began today (Monday September 23) at 11:00am and was ongoing at time of press.

Likes(1)Dislikes(0)

AG’s election intervention constitutional, yet morally questionable: senior legal source

Attorney General (AG) Azima Shukoor’s intervention in a Supreme Court case against the Elections Commission (EC) is constitutional, despite questions over the “moral grounds” for her involvement, a senior legal expert with experience working in government has said.

AG Azima last week intervened in a Supreme Court case filed by the Jumhooree Party (JP) seeking the annulment of the September 7 presidential election.

While the AG herself is not reported to be seeking an annulment of the first round of voting, she has asked the country’s apex court to order the prosecutor general and the police to investigate alleged electoral fraud after noting “serious issues”.

With no constitutional clause requiring the the AG’s involvement in the case, the intervention was made at the personal discretion of Azima, according to the confidential legal source.

The first round of voting has been met with unanimous confidence from local NGOs and international election observers over the credibility of the polls, amidst calls for the the second round of voting to proceed as scheduled.

The run-off vote is presently scheduled to be contested on September 28, between former President Mohamed Nasheed of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and second placed candidate Abdulla Yameen of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM).

“Public interest”

The source – who has served in a senior legal capacity under the last two governments – maintained that the AG was entitled to enter a case she personally deemed to be in the “public interest”.

However, with Azima representing the government, whose incumbent President Dr Mohamed Waheed secured five per cent of the vote in the first round of polls, the legal source said some of his peers were questioning the AG’s mandate to seemingly take sides in the JP’s case.

“Having spoken with other lawyers, how would the AG, who represents a candidate with only five percent of the public vote, decide what is in the public interest [in regards to the election case]? The AG can decide what is in the public interest, but I do not believe she has sufficient moral grounds to do so [with this case],” the source argued.

The same source added that the AG’s role in the ongoing Supreme Court case was complicated by the Maldives’ present lack of general rules or legislation regulating issues such as conflict of interest and similar ethical issues within the court system.

“Problem with the AG is that she is currently the authority on ethics of other lawyers and when to reprimand them,” the legal figure added. “We also lack a legal and judicial culture to really appreciate the idea of professional ethics.”

“No comment”

Rather than appearing to back the grievances of the JP, the senior legal figure said the correct procedure for the AG would have been to provide ‘”no comment” to the court when asked about the capability of the EC.

The source pointed to previous conduct of the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) in a case, where the institution had been asked to defend the Maldives Police Service against allegations of arresting people outside of correct procedure.

With the High Court requesting the PGO to answer for police in the case, state prosecutors – concerned the MPS may be at fault – opted to provide a ‘no comment’ on the matter.

The legal source claimed that such a move – based on best practices from across the international community – allowed the courts to infer that police had acted outside of regulations without the PGO taking a side on the matter.

The legal figure also said that, although the AG was permitted to take a side in the case, she should not vocally back a specific party.

AG denies taking sides

Speaking during a Supreme Court hearing on September 18, Attorney General Azima told the court that the state was not taking sides in the legal dispute.

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) decided on Friday (September 20) are currently pursuing a no-confidence motion against Azima, as well as for a change the composition of the Supreme Court bench.

The MDP had  previously accused the Azima of advocating against “the interests of a state institution or the state and in favour of the Jumhooree Party’s self-interest.”

The AG, however, repeated her claims that the her 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 resolved before holding the second round of the elections, rights of many voters will be undermined,” Shukoor told the court.

AG Azima and Deputy AG Ahmed Usham were not responding to requests for information at time of press.

Likes(1)Dislikes(0)

MBC cancels presidential debate between run-off candidates

The Maldives Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) has announced that it has cancelled the scheduled presidential debate between the two candidates competing in the run-off election of the presidential election, which had originally been scheduled to take place next Monday night.

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s candidate Mohamed Nasheed will face Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) candidate Abdulla Yameen in the run-off vote on September 28.

Former President Nasheed won 45.45 percent of the popular vote or 95,224 votes while PPM Candidate Yameen came second with 53,099 votes.  The Jumhooree Party (JP) leader Gasim Ibrahim secured 50,422 votes to finish the race in third position while incumbent President Mohamed Waheed finished at the bottom with 10,750 votes – 5.13 percent of the popular vote.

In a press statement released on Sunday, the state broadcaster announced that the debate had to be called off after Nasheed’s office had informed them that it was very difficult for the former president to give time for the debate while campaigning.

The statement also said that the PPM had informed the MBC that Yameen was prepared to take part in the debate.

“Therefore, it is with great sadness to announce that the MBC and the Maldives National University will not be able to hold a presidential debate between two candidates who are contesting in the run-off elections,” read the statement.

According to the MBC, the debate had been fashioned to ask questions on areas such as the economy and health care, and the candidates would be given the opportunity to explain their policies on each subject.

MDP Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor told Minivan News that the MBC had informed the parties that there was to be a debate with just two days’s notice. Such a short period of time, Ghafoor said, was not adequate for the party prepare for such a serious debate.

“For a large democratic political party such as ours, we simply cannot go over there and speak anything. It requires preparation, committee meetings within the party. We don’t want to go there unprepared,” Ghafoor told Minivan News.

He added that even for the previous debates, two of the party’s permanent committees had jointly worked in preparation for the debate.

“This is what happens when [debate organisers] seriously lack the understanding of how things work in a democratic culture. They should be more organised than this,” he said.

The MBC successfully hosted two national debates – one, with all presidential candidates and the other with all the running mates.

During each debate, moderator Heena Waleed posed questions to the participants on areas concerning education, health and economy, development and social protection. The MBC claimed that the questions were based on a survey done by the Maldives National University (MNU) on citizens’ concerns.

The run-off is scheduled for September 28, though subject to an ongoing Supreme Court case filed by the JP against the Elections Commission requesting the court to annul the first round in which the party placed third.

Likes(1)Dislikes(0)

Prosecution calls for for retrial of Deputy Speaker’s corruption case

The High Court has concluded hearings into a case in which Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP and Deputy Speaker of Parliament Ahmed Nazim stands accused of defrauding the now defunct Atolls Ministry, a scam worth US$260,000 (MVR 3,446,950).

The case was first filed at the Criminal Court which ruled that Nazim’s actions were not sufficient to criminalise him. The case was appealed in the High Court by the Prosecutor General.

The Prosecutor General’s lawyers today told the High Court that Nazim used the staff of his Namira firm as tools in the scam, after the staff told the investigation that they did not know of the existence of the unregistered companies used by Nazim.

According to media outlets present at the hearing the PG’s lawyers requested the High Court order the Criminal Court to cancel the previous verdict and conduct a retrial.

Nazim’s lawyers meanwhile said it was unfair that the state was charging only Nazim in the case, despite the allegations that the staff had acted as accomplices. Nazim’s lawyers also accused the state of trying to defame Nazim.

The judges presiding over the case concluded the hearing announcing that this would be the last hearing unless the court needed any clarification.

At a press conference in August 2009, Chief Inspector Ismail Atheef said police had uncovered evidence that implicated Nazim in fraudulent transactions worth over US$260,000 (MVR 3,446,950).

Police exhibited numerous quotations, agreements, tender documents, receipts, bank statements and forged cheques they stated proved that Nazim had received over US$400,000 in the case.

A hard disk seized during a raid of Nazim’s office in May the same year allegedly contained copies of forged documents and bogus letterheads.

Fraud charges were also filed against Atolls Minister Abdullah Hameed (half brother of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom) and Eydhafushi MP Ahmed “Redwave” Saleem, former director of finance at the ministry who were implicated in the same case.

Police further alleged that MP Saleem actively assisted from the atoll ministry while Nazim’s wife Zeenath Abdullah had abused her position as a manager of the Bank of Maldives’ Villingili branch to deposit proceeds of the fraudulent conspiracy.

Police said Hameed played a key role in the fraud by handing out bids without public announcements, making advance payments using cheques against the state asset and finance regulations, approving bid documents for unregistered companies and discriminatory treatment of bid applicants.

During the original trial held at the Criminal Court the then-employees of Namira testified under oath that they were instructed by Nazim to bid for the projects – however, the presiding judge concluded from their testimonies that they were responsible for the procurement fraud and therefore dismissed the testimonies against Nazim on all counts.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)