Tag: maldives

Criminal Court extends detention period of two suspects arrested in Afrasheem’s murder case

The Criminal Court has extended the pretrial detention period of the two suspects arrested in connection with the murder of late MP and religious Scholar Dr Afrasheem Ali by another 15 days.

According to local newspapers the pair was brought to the court on Friday.

Local media has identified the two suspects as Ali Hashim ‘Smith from the island of Dhidhoo in Haa Alifu Atoll and Hassan Humam from Male’.

Minivan News understands that another boy was arrested in connection with the case, who became a suspect after the police noticed that on the night of Afrasheem’s murder he wore the same colored shirt as caught on the CCTV footage near the area where Afrasheem was murdered.

According to sources the boy had not been released yet.

Afrasheem was killed on October 1. His wife discovered the body lying on the staircase of their home.

Immediately prior to his murder Afrasheem had made his last public appearance on a live talkshow on TVM titled “Islamee Dhiriulhun” (Islamic Living).

In his last words, Afrasheem said that he was deeply saddened and asked for forgiveness from citizens if he had created a misconception in their minds due to his inability to express himself in the right manner.

Minister of Islamic Affairs Sheikh Shaheem Ali Saeed was quoted in local media as saying that the Islamic Ministry had not forced Afrasheem to offer a public apology for anything during his last television appearance and disputed that there was any religious motivation in the death of the moderate scholar.

The Maldives Police Service (MPS) has sought assistance from the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Singaporean police to analyse 200 items collected as evidence during the ongoing investigation.

Evidence gathered so far includes recordings of phone conversations, forensic samples and over 300 hours of CCTV footage, which were being analysed at the police forensic laboratory with the help of foreign experts.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Partying time may soon be over for small parties

Partying time may soon be over for a bunch of minor political parties in Maldives, if the unanimous decision of Parliament’s Committee on Independent Commissions is anything to go by.

According to the committee’s decision, political parties will require a minimum of 5,000 verifiable members to be recognised by the nation’s Election Commission as such. They would have to have double that number if they intend seeking Government funding under the law.

At present, political parties need to have 3,000 registered members for recognition under the law. The Constitution has also earmarked one percent of the nation’s GDP for election funding, to be distributed in proportion to the number of registered members of individual parties.

Though fewer than a few thousand voters are there in each of the 77 parliamentray constituencies, electioneering is a costly affair in the archipelago, thanks to the high cost of commuting between the widely-spread islands. The nation has a directly-elected Executive President of the US model, but with a 50-per cent-plus-one vote-share for election. Where none of the candidates make it in the first round, the top two move on to a second, run-off round.

All this makes the electoral campaigns costly and competitive for political parties. What’s more, political parties have to fund other elections under the new scheme, for the 77-member Parliament and the decentralised local councils and the seven newly carved-out province and island  councils, too.

Given the infancy of the new scheme, it has become necessary for the national leadership of all the parties to be seen as campaigning even for by-elections to local councils, as this would also be an occasion for presidential and parliamentary hopefuls to reach out to the electorate at that level. State funding thus helped lessen the financial pressure on individual political parties.

Media reports quoting parliamentary committee Chairman and Kulhudhuffushi-Dhekunu MP Mohamed Nasheed, said that considering the nation’s population-size only parties with 10,000 members could be considered to be politically influential. They could be given state funding, to promote ideas, he said, indicating that the discussion in the committee on this particular issue was lengthy and exhaustive.

As and when Parliament passes the committee’s proposal into legislation, parties with less than 5,000 registered members at present would be given six months to enroll more. Those enrolling with the Election Commission after the current proposal comes into force will be given three months for the purpose. “Parties that fail to have 5,000 members within this period will be abolished,” he was quoted as saying.

Three identifiable groups

Political parties in Maldives can be classified under three identifiable categories at present. At the top are the three major parties with substantial membership and parliamentary presence. Topping the list overall is the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) of former President Mohammed Nasheed, followed by his predecessor Maumoon Gayoom’s Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), and the latter’s earlier party, namely, the Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP), headed by Thasmeen Ali.

In a nation with a population less than 400,000, the MDP claims close to 50,000 members. After the vertical split, the DRP and the PPM are yet to prove their split figures, though the latter is believed to be the stronger of the two.

Then there are three other political parties with parliamentary presence, but which are not in the same league as the earlier three. Among them the People’s Alliance, founded by Gayoom’s half-brother Abdulla Yameen, has formed a common parliamentary grouping with the PPM with the latter as its leader.

The Jumhoree Party (JP), or the Republican Party, is headed by former Finance Minister Gasim Ibrahim. The Dhivehi Quamee Party (DQP), whose leader, Dr Hassan Saeed, was, amd is a Special Advisor to Presidents Nasheed and incumbent Waheed Hassan Manik, also has a limited parliamentary presence. However, neither the membership of the JP and the DQP, nor their parliamentary representation, obtained through the May 2009 elections now reflect the 15-plus and 16-plus per cent vote-shares registered by Gasim Ibrahim and Hassan Saeed in the first round of presidential polls in 2008.

The last grouping of political parties in the country comprise those that are enrolled with the Election Commission with the existing 3,000-member requirement and may or may not be active – but do not have any parliamentary representation.

Included in the list of eight parties, ironically, is the Gaumee Ihthihaadh Party (GIP) of President Waheed, and the religion-centric Adhalaath Party (AP), or the Justice Party.

While the AP is more vociferous than most political parties in the country, barring possibly the MDP, the party recorded probably less than one per cent vote-share in the presidential polls of 2008 and could not win a single seat in the parliamentary elections only a few months later. However, the AP did manage to win a little more than a handful of seats in the local council elections, conducted under a new law for regional governance, in March 2010. Interestingly, both the AP and the GIP – the later did not contest either the parliamentary elections or the local government polls – have ministerial representation in the governments of President Nasheed, and now Waheed.

The GIP, as whose founder President Waheed was the alliance partner of the MDP for the presidential polls, and became Vice-President as Candidate Nasheed’s running-mate, did not register with the Election Commssion until after it had become too late for the 2008 polls. It did not field any candidates in the later-day elections.

Both the AP and the GIP have another thing in common. Continuing as allies of the government, they saw their ministerial representatives deserting the parent party and joining the MDP, and continue in the government under their new identities.

‘Guided democracy’ or what?

At the conclusion of the 2009 parliamentary polls, as MDP leader, President Nasheed spoke about how the nation had voted for what was tantamount to a two-party system, and welcomed it as a step in the right direction.

As he had pointed out, his MDP and the undivided DRP of the time had managed to win a substantial number of the total 77 seats in the People’s Majlis, or Parliament. Post-poll, defections across the board made the MDP the single largest party in Parliament, and it remains so despite losing two seats in by-elections held after President Nasheed’s resignation on February 7.

The ‘People’s Alliance (PA), which has formed a common parliamentary group with President Gayoom’s PPM since, had come third with seven seats in the 2009 polls. Its ambiguous identity as a separate political party when its founder is said to be an aspirant for the PPM’s presidential nomination, may cause the leadership to revisit its continued existence and separate identity. Other parties had either won less than a handful of seats each, or drawn a blank like the religion-centric AP. Their performance in the 2010 local council elections too was nothing much to go by.

Opinion is however divided over the wisdom of letting the current mushrooming of political parties to continue. While the PPM and DRP, for instance, seem to be sharing the MDP’s views, though their official position is not known, other parties may have a problem accepting the current course – for reasons of their own, and also in the larger cause of democracy.

Indications are that the parliamentary committee having been represented by only those with legislative representation, those that are left out now may be considering the possibility of moving the courts against any new law regulating their continuance, if and when it came into force.

At the end of the day, democracy is all about facilitating louder voice and larger political space even for those left out of the mainstream, otherwise. Or, so goes the argument. However, democratic exception have been made in the legal sense of the term, where ‘reasonable restriction’ has been used as a valid judicial argument to delineate one from the other, ‘men from the boys’.

The question before the nation thus is this: whether, it should continue with what is inherent to the polity as a ‘coalition model’, as witnessed in the 2008 presidential polls, and beyond – though not to the same extent, or to encourage consolidation under identifiable electoral entities?

In the medium-term, consolidation may hold the key to political stability at a crucial stage in the nation’s contemporary history of democratic transition. The trickle-down politico-electoral effect of democracy, particularly in the Third World South Asian neighbourhood, points to the inevitability of splits and splinters emerging, if only over a period, institutionalising the inevitability of coalition politics of one kind or the other.

The US, where a ‘third candidate’, Independent Ross Perot, polled as high as 18.9 per cent of the popular-vote in the 1992 polls, seems to have handled it differently, since. Political commentators and leaders of the two mainline parties in the country, namely the Democrats and Republicans, called the ‘Ross Perot Effect’ an “aberration that will not be allowed to continue”. Subsequent presidential polls have proved as much, and the globally-televised public debates of presidential hopefuls, among others, are tailored to keep out ‘non-serious candidates’, thus making the world’s most powerful democracy also the ‘most guided’ of all democracies.

Apart from the judiciary, the Election Commission itself may have its views, but its relevance would be more political than legal. Technically, President Waheed too may consider returning any Bill passed by Parliament for regulating political party membership and state funding, for reconsideration.

It would then remain to be seen if the Majlis would the stomach to revisit the Bill and return to the same conclusion, if the original conclusion itself is one of endorsing the committee’s current proposition. It may thus be too early to say which way Maldives would go, but the fact is that Maldivians have started thinking ahead in the matter – and there is an element of unanimity among the ‘big players’ for now, if one were to go by the media reports.

The writer is a Senior Fellow at Observer Research Foundation.

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)

Police commence investigation after 11 year-old child gives birth

An 11 year-old girl who on Thursday prematurely gave birth to a child is said to be in a stable condition, as police today confirmed investigations were now under way into the case.

The girl, who cannot be identified due to her age, gave birth to the child two months prematurely. The child died early morning on Friday (November 2), after being taken to Feydhoo regional hospital in Seenu Atoll for further treatment, local media has reported.

The Maldives Police Service confirmed investigations into the matter were taking place, but said further details could not be disclosed due to the age of the child and the risk she could be identified and face possible recrimination.

A police spokesperson was unable to confirm the nature of the investigation at present.

However, local newspaper Haveeru, citing what it called reliable sources, reported that the girl had allegedly been a frequent victim of sexual assault before becoming pregnant.

“She came here with her mother complaining of constipation and stomach pain. Doctors had examined her and given an injection. But when she started to complain of severe pain, upon further examination doctors found that she was pregnant. The girl admitted that she got pregnant after someone had sexually molested her,” Haveeru quoted a local health centre official as saying.

The Health Ministry has meanwhile forwarded further requests for information on the case to the Ministry of Gender, Family and Human Rights, which is mandated to deal with the matter.

Gender Minister Dhiyana Saeed was not responding to calls from Minivan News at the time of press.

Abuse statistics

Almost one in seven children of secondary school age in the Maldives have been sexually abused at some time in their lives, according to an unpublished 2009 study on violence against minors.

Rates of sexual abuse for girls are almost twice as high than for boys at 20 percent – one in five girls have been sexually abused – while the figure for boys was 11 percent. Girls are particularly at risk in the capital Male’, the report found.

In recent years, local authorities and NGOs have released a number of findings trying to detail the extent of child abuse and wider sexual assaults within society.

The state-run Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital’s (IGMH’s) Family Protection Unit reported in 2010 that the centre was notified of 42 cases of rape between 2005-2010. Most of these cases were found to involve minors.

According to the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives, 13 rape cases were reported last year alone, the majority of which most were gang rapes or assaults involving minors.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Participation of UK legal experts in Nasheed trial a “unique challenge”

A Maldivian legal expert has described the use of foreign legal experts in the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed as “unique”, pointing out that the Maldivian legal system makes it particularly difficult for such experts to contribute to proceedings.

Mohamed Shafaz Wajeeh, a practising layer in Male’ and former Director of the Legal Director at the Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) said that while foreign advisers to corporate clients was fairly common, foreign experts for a specific criminal case was not.

“From a common law/international standards perspective, I believe foreign legal involvement is very much prevalent, especially if you consider the number of foreign legal experts who would be advising corporate clients operating in the Maldives in resorts, major telecom providers etc,” Wajeeh told Minivan News.

“However, the Nasheed trial is unique in that common law/international standards perspective expertise is being brought in for stated involvement in a specific criminal court case, as part of the defense team, not merely on a corporate/commercial transactional matter in an advisory capacity,” he added.

Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) revealed earlier this month that it was to add the expertise of two UK-based lawyers to the legal team working on the Judge Abdulla Mohamed detention case.

Sir Ivan Lawrence QC and Barrister Ali Mohammed Azhar were brought in to work alongside Hisaan Hussain, Abdulla Shair. On Thursday, it was announced that Kirsty Brimelow QC – a human rights expert – would also join Nasheed’s defense team.

Azhar is an expert in Shariah law – the Maldives legal system encompasses a combination of common and Shariah legal practices.

“It is not uncommon for foreign legal experts to be involved in transactional matters in an advisory capacities, but virtually never as Shari’ah experts (in recent history),” said Wajeeh. “What’s unique is for foreign legal experts to be involved in a criminal case – in the defence team, and especially in a court case.”

Lawrence, Azhar and Brimelow will work alongside Hisaan Hussain, Abdulla Shair, Hassan Latheef and Ahmed Adbulla Afeef – although the latter two have been barred from appearing in court on technical grounds.

Afeef will not be allowed to attend the hearings in an official capacity after failing to sign the Supreme Court’s new “Regulation on Lawyers practicing law in the courts of Maldives”.

Wajeeh cited this particular regulation as “disturbing” and “dangerous” – further sign, he feels, of the need for major reform of the judicial arm of the state which he described as undeveloped and “primeval”.

Latheef cannot appear as he has been listed by the Prosecutor General (PG) as a witness to the detention of the Judge. Latheef described the inclusion of his name on this list as unnecessary and “irrelevant” as the judge’s detention was not in question.

In the press release announcing Brimelow’s inclusion in the case, appearing on Nasheed’s website, it was acknowledged that legal restrictions would also prevent any of the UK experts appearing in court.

“I imagine they would be severely restricted – if not intentionally, then due to the structure of the legal system,” said Wajeeh.

“Foreign legal experts can’t attend as lawyers, they can’t attend in Nasheed’s stead either (only lawyers may represent individuals in criminal cases),” he added.

“I’m not really sure if they can sit at the bench even. My understanding would be, if the foreign legal experts are to be allowed into the Court room at all, they would have to go in and sit in the public gallery,” he continued.

Latheef explained that Ms Brimelow was the only member of the legal team scheduled to be present in Male’ for the trial, and that the team would be applying for a permit from the Attorney General to allow her to appear in court.

“This has been done once before,” explained Latheed, “although the lawyer involved was married to a Maldivian.”

Wajeeh also noted that there were certain procedural factors which would make it difficult for UK experts to fully participate in the case, in particular the use of Dhivehi in the courts without English translation services being readily available.

“The foreign lawyers would of course be free to offer their views and opinions to the appointed defence team on drafting submissions and responses in defence of Nasheed, given the documents are efficiently translated for their use,” explained Wajeeh.

“This would mean they could play a minimal role in the formal hearing, although could potentially play a crucial role in how the defence argument takes shape.”

Nasheed’s trial continues tomorrow at 4:00pm at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, which is has been temporarily relocated to Male’ for the purpose of the case.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: An eye for an eye

In times of huge social stress, societies look for extraordinary solutions to growing social problems. The economic and social collapse in the Weimar Republic, after the First World War, helped the Nazi ideology to flourish in Germany.

In the post-coup Maldives, the issue of escalating violence and violent murders have encouraged many to look for quick fixes that may reverse this frightening trend.

The death penalty is gaining ground as a proposed solution to the current problems of the Maldives. The media reports that the government has announced its intentions to introduce a bill ‘to guide and govern the implementation of the death penalty in the country’.

But, before we resort to such drastic measures, it may be prudent to pause and consider if capital punishment would prove to be the miracle cure that the nation is looking for.

‘An eye for an eye’ or ‘a tooth for a tooth’ has a comforting simplicity. It seems an elegant equation which promises unequivocal justice. But, here’s the rub: capital punishment is an ethical quagmire and justice, in any comprehensive form, may be the last thing it is equipped to deliver.

Justice and the death penalty

The question of justice is an appropriate starting point when considering the death penalty. It is often argued that life imprisonment is not an adequate punishment for a killer, that the crime of taking a life should forfeit the killer’s own fundamental human right to live.

However, the sentencing of the death penalty works on the premise that a fair, transparent and comprehensive process of justice has preceded the verdict. This pre-requisite must surely raise alarm bells in the minds of thinking Maldivians.

The Maldives is not a just state. There is a general consensus in the country that the justice system needs drastic reshaping for it to function in a fair and just way. The long list of human rights abuses in the last 30 years through to the present time has been well documented. In the name of law and order, people are beaten, pepper sprayed, and tossed into prison with impunity. Amnesty International reports the existence of ‘a human rights crisis that has gripped the country’ since the February 7 coup.

Selective justice is the other complicating factor in considering the death penalty in the Maldives. Justice has become a political game. Trials of the regime’s political opponents are given prominence, while thousands of more vital cases pile up on the scrap-heap that is the present justice system of the country. Meanwhile crimes committed by police officers who went on a binge of destruction and violence on February 7 are tidily packed away into the background. There is a general acceptance that the agenda of the regime, in collusion with the MPS (Maldives Police Service) and MNDF (Maldives National Defence Force), is perilously political. The possibility of this regime adding the death penalty to its arsenal is a daunting thought indeed.

The judiciary in the Maldives is the embodiment of all these perversions of justice and more. Controlled by the iron grip of an authoritarian regime for over thirty years, the judiciary has not even allowed justice to be seen to be done. In a country where people boasts about having the highest ratio of doctorates per head of the population, and one of the highest literacy rates in South East Asia, the competence and qualifications of Maldive’s judges remain akin to the apothecaries of the Dark Ages.

No doubt it is easier for a government to influence the course of ‘justice’ if the judiciary is kept in a state of perpetual ignorance. But, in the process, it has lost any credibility in the eyes of Maldivians and international observers. A litany of wrong doings, including frightening ethical and moral lapses, hangs around the neck of the Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, Judge Abdulla Mohamed. Notwithstanding, the regime has seen it fit to keep him in his job.

However, in issues of the death penalty, even the world’s most advanced legal systems risk fallibility. This is why many of them reject the death penalty as a solution to societal violence. In the case of the Maldives, multiple reports, including the work of legal expert Professor Paul Robinson, have shown the legal system to be ‘systematically failing to do justice and regularly doing injustice’.

The country also lacks the trained personnel and the technology that underpins reliable criminal investigations. One of the gravest dangers of capital punishment is its potential for miscarriages of justice. With the justice system so compromised, legalising the death penalty in the Maldives would be as dangerous as giving a box of matches to a toddler in a room packed with gun powder.

The death penalty as a deterrent

The jury is still out on the question of whether the death penalty acts as a viable deterrent for murder and other violent crimes. The screeds of research and literature regarding the pros and cons of the death penalty match the strong emotional responses that the issue evokes.

However, a wealth of research indicates that the death penalty can contribute to more violence through a ‘brutalization effect’ on the public; it desensitizes people and increases the chance of the general public accepting violence as a way of solving problems. In this context, it is pertinent to note that murder rates in death-penalty states in America are consistently higher than the murder rates in non- death penalty states.

Research also suggests that there is an ‘imitation effect’ where people believe that if their leaders can legitimately kill people, through legalising capital punishment, so can they. This is extremely significant to the Maldives. The present surge of violent murders has taken place since the February 7 coup where members of the security forces participated in what many commentators described as ‘widespread brutality’.

There is a wealth of evidence to bring the culprits to justice, but nothing has been done and it would seem, can be done – if the status quo is to remain. In this atmosphere of state – condoned violence-and the moral and ethical disorientation it creates – is it any wonder that the criminal elements of the society are thriving?

Changing the paradigm

When governments are faced with harrowing internal problems, for which they have no creative answers, their first reaction is to shift the public focus away from the real issues. This is often done through the introduction of contentious topics of debate either in parliament or the media. The intention is to shift the focus from the real problems and engage the populous in heated debate which diverts the energy and attention from the real problems that the government is not equipped to cope with.

It is important, therefore, that we identify where the focus of our debate should be. Experience teaches us that ‘miracle cures’ for entrenched societal ills do not exist. It is convenient to think that capital punishment will halt the escalation of violent murders, but at the very best, it will turn out to be the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. Positive change requires more than a law. It requires more than political rhetoric. It requires more than clever manipulation to hide egregious social issues, by highlighting others.

Rather than a law legitimising the death penalty, our society needs the rule of law. The rule of law in the Maldives has been described by one cynic as ‘a cancer patient kept alive by drug.’ When the law enforcers who have promised ‘to protect and serve’ wear balaclavas to beat and brutalise people, it is not hard to surmise that Maldives, especially Male, is a ‘frontier town’ where the rule of law has been hijacked by the rule of might.

We need the leaders of the nation to show the people that they are honest, just and capable. The economic collapse of the country is not the only sign of the regime’s inability to lead. The murder of Dr Afrasheem Ali is a huge tragedy, regardless of what side of the political divide we have positioned ourselves. It is an execution style murder, accomplished with such brutality, that even the young and the able-bodied are questioning their safety; the old and the disabled having long blockaded themselves behind doors. These are all tragic, but the greater tragedy is the lack of an appropriate response by the government.

We need justice to function as a powerful and active force in the daily lives of our people. The most stable and safe societies in the world are those where the people feel the presence of a strong sense of justice. This stage of stability is not achieved overnight, nor is it arrived at by the threat of more punishment. It is the end product of enlightened and fair governance, which in turn produces a strong sense of nationhood based on shared values and aspirations. When justice falters, society collapses.

More than ever, we need to realise that a nation cannot function effectively, if its wealth is monopolised by a privileged few. Discounting a short period of time between 2008 and 2011, the state Maldives had grievously failed to address the needs of it citizenry. Research shows that a low standard of living is not as socially damaging as a huge disparity between the ‘have’ and ‘have nots’. When we view the dystopia we have created, it is important to remember that a community is only as strong as its weakest link. Social problems such as crime, violence and drug-abuse often surrounding the disfranchised and the alienated, affect the whole society. This is especially problematic in a geographically small place such as the Maldives.

The people and the society they live in are entwined in a complex web of interrelationships. Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote that, ‘Society is inside of man and man is inside society… The fish is in the water and the water is in the fish’. We need to examine the water that is inside the fish in Maldivian society. When we do so, how can we escape the gloomy conclusion that the water inside the fish is exceptionally murky? The lack of honest leadership with a view for the betterment of its people, the collapse of the justice system, the lack of personal freedom and democratic rights, as well as the abuse of human rights with impunity, have all contributed to this.

Until the water clears, the death penalty is simply another dangerous tool in the hands of the wrong people.

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(1)Dislikes(0)

Indian investors concerned about government’s political interference: Business Standard

Indian companies operating in the Maldives are expressing concerns over political interference they claim is derailing their substantial investments in the country, reports India’s Business Standard publication.

Officials involved in the Apex Realty housing development project – a joint venture between developers SG18 and Indian super-conglomerate TATA – told the Standard that the government was attempting to take over the site in Male’ given to the company, with the intention of building a new Supreme Court.

After being elected in 2008, former President Mohamed Nasheed moved the Supreme Court into the opulent palace of his predecessor, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, opting for the less lavish building of Muleaage as the Presidential residence.

“A recent meeting held with the Maldivian Housing Minister is said to have ended abruptly with officials from the firm and the Indian High Commission being asked to leave,” the Standard reported.

President Mohamed Waheed’s Media Secretary, Masood Imad, confirmed to the publication that the meeting had taken place, and said the minister had given them time, even though it was “unannounced”.

“I am told that the meeting continued for about an hour. TATA Housing officials were raising issues that were not in the contract but the Minister accommodated most of the issues. Most of the issues discussed were procedural,” Masood was reported as saying.

A source involved in the deal confirmed to Minivan News that the government had offered land in Hulhumale’ to the developers as an alternative to the agreed site in Male’. However, the same source said the developers felt the change would affect the financing of the project.

Minivan News was awaiting a response from the Indian High Commission at time of press.

GMR grievance

Indian infrastructure giant GMR has also raised concerns about the new government’s handling of its concession agreement to manage and develop Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA), signed with the former administration.

The company has previously sought to downplay its issues with the government in the media, however “public statements and press conferences of some government ministers and coalition party leaders are clearly aimed at arousing public sentiments against GMR and creating undue challenges for us,” the company told the Standard.

“To gain political advantage, some elements of the government itself have started hampering the smooth functioning and development of the airport,” the company added.

Moreover, the government was passing new laws and policies that were harming its interests.

“GMR was granted required approvals and licenses to operate Arrival Duty Free on December 30, 2011. We made huge investments in development of arrival duty free area. However, the government later revoked the licence citing that earlier the licence was given in error,” the company told the Standard.

“Similarly, On April 23, 2012, the GoM (Government of Maldives) passed an amendment to Business Registration Bill to restrict any foreigner to carry on Duty Free business, cargo clearance business, and bonded warehouse business at the airport. This step is clearly directed against GMR.”

The comments follow a US$2.2 million bill handed to the government’s side of the airport contract – the Maldives Airports Company Limited (MACL) – following a third quarter in which the airport developer deducted its contractually-mandated airport development charge (ADC) from concession fees due the state.

In the first quarter of 2012 the government received US$525,355 of an expected US$8.7 million, after the deduction of the ADC. That was followed by a US$1.5 million bill for the second quarter, after the ADC payable eclipsed the revenue due the government.

Combined with the third quarter payment due, the government now owes the airport developer US$3.7 million.

The US$25 ADC, stipulated in the developer’s concession agreement signed with the Nasheed government, was to be levied on all outgoing passengers at INIA.

However, the former opposition Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) – now part of the coalition government – in late 2011 filed a successful case in the Civil Court challenging the legality of the charge on the grounds that it was a tax not approved by parliament.

Nasheed’s government instructed MACL to deduct the ADC from the concession fees due the government while it sought to appeal. However soon afterwards Nasheed resigned in controversial circumstances, handing power to his Vice President, who swiftly replaced much of the government with appointments from the former opposition.

Speaking to the Standard, Masood said that the government “will not target any investment, Indian or otherwise unduly. The assurances given by the President securing foreign investments in Maldives are valid and stand true.”

However Attorney General Azima Shukoor told media this morning that “After the necessary research, we have said that the GMR agreement causes financial loss to the state.”

She expressed confidence that the government would win the case in the Singapore court of arbitration, the next hearing of which is to be held on November 19.

“I would like to point out that the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) still hasn’t finished the complete investigation into the GMR matter. This also presents difficulties for us, she said.

“I have met with the heads of ACC and Auditor General two, three times. I can’t say anything about the investigations. But I haven’t heard back anything after I shared the information I had available with them.”

Other elements of the government have also persistently called for the airport’s nationalisation.

DQP Leader Dr Hassan Saeed, now Waheed’s Special Advisor, at the launch of a book (in Dhivehi) last month criticising the airport development, said that the “only way to reclaim the airport from GMR” was to invalidate or cancel the concession agreement.

Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel – also a DQP member – said at the launch that it was the “duty of the most capable people in the country” to step forward and help “liberate” the nation from “grave problems” during the current “difficult times”.

The religious Adhaalath Party, likewise aligned with the current government – in September called for a “national jihad” to nationalise the airport development.

Another government-aligned party, the Jumhoree Party (JP) headed by resort tycoon, media owner and member of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) Gasim Ibrahim, has also called for the nationalisaiton of the airport.

In September Gasim urged the government in to reclaim the airport, even at a cost of US$700 million, as it was worth “a thousand times more”.

Gasim’s comments followed GMR’s decision to suspend the credit facility for his Villa Air airline, due to unpaid bills totaling MVR 17 million (US$1.1 million) for fuel, ground handling and passenger service fees.

In late September GMR sponsored the inaugural Maldives Travel Awards, held on Gasim’s Paradise Island resort.

Paradise won the title of ‘Leading Business Hotel’, while Gasim’s Villa group of companies also picked up an award for ‘Leading Domestic Airport’. Gasim himself received a ‘Lifetime Achievement’ award.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Bill on death penalty drafted, unclear on action on past sentences: AG Shakoor

Attorney General (AG) Azima Shakoor stated on Thursday that the government’s bill on implementing death penalty would be made public early in the coming week.

Speaking at a press conference in Velaanaage, Shakoor confirmed that the AG’s office had completed drafting the bill, which was now in the final stages of discussion. She confirmed that the bill would be made public on the office’s website in the coming week, stating the matter “is very much connected to public sentiments and a large number of people feel this matter needs a fast solution”.

Saying that “it was a pity” that three weeks had passed in the drafting stage, Shakoor said that unlike most other bills, the death penalty implementation bill was going through processes of in-depth research and further discussions among a high-level group appointed by the government.

According to Shakoor, the research took much longer than the state had expected, adding that the AG office had included the legal systems of Medina, Egypt and America in its research.

“I would like to point out that the death penalty is still implemented in over 50 countries across the world even today. Not all of these are even Islamic states. Nor is murder the only crime for which the sentence is given. For example, some countries sentence people to death for being caught trying to bring in narcotics to the country. We are considering all of these points and have made a comparative legal assessment,” Shakoor explained.

Other crimes besides murder which are punishable by death according to Islamic Sharia include apostasy, adultery, sodomy, rape and high treason.

“We need to conduct an academic exercise since we are trying to do this through a rather weak penal code,” Shakoor said.

“If this can be done before the penal code pending in parliament is passed, it might be best to include this as part of that code. Right now, we have drafted this with the thought that if the penal code gets passed up front, then this can be passed as a separate act on death penalty.”

Shakoor said that the bill was important as the current practice was to charge murder convicts under Article 88 of the existing penal code.

Article 88 of the Penal Code states that disobedience to order is a crime, while Article 88(c) details that if the result of violating the article leads to a death, the case should be dealt with according to Islamic Sharia.

Shakoor provided details of the drafted bill, stating it would be looking at the investigation stages, prosecution stages, sentencing and the implementation of sentences.

“The act looks into deciding on the number of judges who will sit on the sentencing panel. Furthermore it considers the rights of the family, the rights of the murder victim, the rights of the victim’s family, the final rights of the convict during sentencing,” Shakoor stated.

Responding to a question regarding how those sentenced to death prior to the bill being ratified would be dealt with, Shakoor said “it is difficult to give a straightforward answer as the final discussions on the bill have not yet been completed.”

“We too believe that answers to that must come to light through how this bill is composed. However, I believe that a solution must be provided even for past cases. So the act will be drafted to reflect that. You can see for yourselves once the bill is made public,” Shakoor replied.

“When an act is passed which explicitly spells out implementation [of the death penalty], then I believe the benefits of it must be carried to even past cases.”

Among a number of other cases, a young couple charged with the murder of lawyer Ahmed Najeeb were sentenced to death by the Criminal Court in July, a few days after the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) asked the Maldivian state to enact legislation to officially abolish the death penalty. The statement said “the state itself has admitted that capital punishment does not deter crime.”

Likes(1)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed adds third British legal expert to defense team

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has further bolstered his legal team by accepting the services of Kirsty Brimelow QC ahead of the continuation of the Judge Abdulla Mohamed detention case on Sunday.

Brimelow will join fellow UK-based legal experts Sir Ivan Lawrence QC and Barrister Ali Mohammed Azhar on  Nasheed’s defence team.

A statement appearing on Nasheed’s website describes Brimelow as a criminal law specialist with international experience who is “particularly sought after in cases with a human rights law element”.

Brimelow was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 2011 and has, among a number of high profile cases, acted as Legal Adviser to the Constitution Commission of Fiji. She is vice-chairwoman of the Bar Human Rights Committee and appears regularly on British television and radio.

Earlier this month, the Department of Judicial Administration informed local media that two of Nasheed’s lawyers, Hassan Latheef and Ahmed Adbulla Afeef had been barred from the trial.

Latheef had been barred from the trial as the state had called him as a witness, while Afeef was was barred as he had not signed new behavioural regulations for lawyers recently issued by the Supreme Court, explained department spokesperson Latheefa Gasim.

This leaves just two of Nasheed’s lawyers able to appear in court – former President’s Office Legal Advisor Hisaan Hussain and criminal defence lawyer Abdulla Shair.

Nasheed has stated repeatedly that he feels the outcome of the trial to be pre-ordained, with his conviction designed specifically to prevent him running in next year’s presidential elections.

“On Sunday I will face an extraordinary court, established especially to hear my case,” Nasheed wrote in Britain’s Financial Times this week.

“I am to be tried for abuse of power, in particular for the arrest of a corrupt judge, who was an ally of Mr Gayoom. My conviction is a foregone conclusion. Mohamed Waheed, my former vice-president, may decide to pardon me, but only in a way that ensures I remain barred from seeking office next year,” he wrote.

The issue of Nasheed’s trial was raised in the UK House of Commons this week by Conservative MP Karen Lumley, who asked Alistair Burt – Under Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, about the fairness of Nasheed’s trial.

“We have sought and received assurances from President Waheed of the Maldives that any trial of former President Nasheed will be fair and free from political influence,” replies Burt.

“No trial date has been set. The next court hearing is on November 4 and we expect international observers to be present,” he added.

In response to Lumley’s question regarding the effect of the trial on a sustainable political outcome in the country, Burt said the following:

“The trial process is, of course, a matter for the Maldives, but there is international concern that if it results in the former President being prevented from leading his party into the elections next year, it will be seen as though the process was designed for exactly that object.”

“We urge political stability under all circumstances in the Maldives, and that will no doubt be enhanced if the former President is allowed to lead his party and take part in those elections,” continued the Under Secretary.

The statement on Nasheed’s website noted that the Attorney General’s regulations prevented any of the new additions to his legal team appearing alongside him in court.

“Article 2 (a) of the regulation states ‘a person has to either be a Maldivian citizen or be married to a Maldivian citizen and reside for most part in the Maldives’ in order to practice law in the Maldives,” read the statement.

“This restriction is a hindrance to clients who wish to have foreign legal professionals represent them in courts of the Maldives,” it said.

Nasheed’s legal team raised several procedural issues at the cases first hearing on October 9, all of which were dismissed by the court.

After challenging this ruling in the High Court, and calling for an injunction to halt the trial until the matter was resolved, it was announced last week that the High Court would hold a hearing on the matter on the morning of November 4 – the same day Nasheed’s trial in the Hulhumale’ Magistrate’s Court recommences.

“The party believes that the result of conducting both hearings on the same day will be the defence attorneys losing the opportunity to prepare for the original case at the Hulhumale Magistrate Court’,” a Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) statement read.

The party held a march around the capital island Male’ on Tuesday calling for judicial reform. Over 500 protesters marched around Male’ with banners and placards displaying messages arguing the importance of judicial independence and of holding the judiciary accountable.

Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed was originally taken into custody in January after blocking the Judicial Services Commission’s (JSC) proceedings into his alleged misconduct. A police mutiny and unrest in the capital led to Nasheed’s resignation three weeks later.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Criminal Court begins trial of Arham’s murder case

The Criminal Court has commenced the trial of four suspects charged by the Prosecutor General (PG) for their alleged involvement in the murder of 16 year-old Mohamed Arahm, who was found dead inside ‘Lorenzo Park’ earlier this year.

According to local newspapers, the state attorney raised murder charges against the four suspects.

Police have identified the accused as Mohamed Visham, 19, Mansoor Yousuf, 25, of Maavah Island in Laamu Atoll, Mohamed Sufyan, 19, of Gahdhoo in Gaafu Dhaalu Atoll, and Athif Rasheed, of Scenery View in Maafannu Ward of Male’.

On March 30, patrolling police officers discovered Arham, of Noree house in Haa Alif Atoll Hoarafushil, inside the park behind Kulliyathul Dhirasathul Islamiyya (Islamic College).

Sun Online reported that the state attorney told the Judge that on March 30 between 1:00am and 6:00am Athif, Visam and Mansoor went to the park on motorbikes with some other people.

The attorney told the judge that Visam, Sufyan and Mansoor entered the park and assaulted Arham, before leaving with Athif and some other people.

Arham was studying in grade nine at Dharumavantha School when he was killed.

The Education Ministry condemned the act and called for the investigation to be hastened, and those responsible found and penalised.

The Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) and police also condemned the killing.

Arham’s body was found with stab wounds in his neck, back and chest with blood all over his body and on the ground, as well as on the walls of the park.

His friends insisted that the assailants attacked him while he was sleeping inside the park that night.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)