Tag: maldives

Comment: Legislature versus judiciary in the Maldives?

After three years of continuous confrontation between the executive and the judiciary, Maldivian democracy is now getting exposed to the inevitability of an issue-based confrontation between the legislature and the judiciary.

The clash may have flowed from the on-going criminal case against former President Mohammed Nasheed, but central to the emerging row could be the question of comparable supremacy of the judiciary and the legislature, an issue that has been basic to other democracies too.

In an infant multi-party democracy such as the Maldives, it will be interesting to note how the constitutional institutions take forward the cumulative concerns of nation-building in areas where other emerging democracies had handled near-similar situations with abundant caution and accompanying maturity.

The current controversy flows from President Nasheed purportedly ordering the arrest of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohammed on January 16, and holding him ‘captive’ in an island away from the national capital of Male, the latter’s place of ordinary residence. With the change ofgGovernment on February 7 now has come the criminal case against President Nasheed and a host of others serving his government at the time. However, the involvement of a judge in this case should not distract from the issue on hand.

What is material to the present situation is the summoning of the three judges of the suburban Hulhumale Court by the Parliament Subcommittee on Government Accountability, dominated by members of President Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP). The judges, first asked to appear before the committee, almost around the same time as President Nasheed was summoned to appear before the three-judge bench, stayed away once.

They have stayed away a second time, since. Media reports quoting committee sources claimed that on neither occasion did the judges assign any reason for not appearing before the committee.

In ordinary circumstances, this has the potential to trigger an all-out confrontation between parliament and the judiciary. In this case, however, circumstances may have conspired already to make it even more complex. The fact that these are possibly the only judges to have been summoned by the said parliamentary committee under the new constitutional scheme of 2008 has not gone unnoticed. Nor has the fact that they were trying President Nasheed when they were summoned by the committee. A government party member on the committee also went to town soon after it decided on the summoning of the judges that many of the non-MDP members were held up in a Parliament voting when the decision was taken. The implication was still that the government party members may not subscribe to the decision taken by their MDP counterparts, who have a majority representation on the committee.

Not much is known about the immediate causes surrounding the summoning of the judges. Prima facie, it is said that they were required to depose before the committee on matters flowing from the Report of the Commission of National Inquiry (CoNI), submitted to President Waheed Hassan Manik in August-end.

While upholding the constitutional validity of the power-transfer after President Nahseed resigned on February 7, the multi-member body with international representation had recommended the further strengthening of the ‘independent institutions’ under the constitutions. However, it is argued that any furtherance of the goal could not be achieved by parliament or any of its committee, by summoning members of the subordinate judiciary. It has to be at higher-levels, be it in terms of policy-review, execution or supervision.

Ruling Progressive Party of Maldives’ (PPM) member of the Committee, Ahmed Nihan Hassan Manik, said, without much loss of the time when the judges were first summoned, that the panel had exceeded its mandate. Pointedly, he referred to the pending criminal case against President Nasheed, and said that neither any parliamentary committee nor the full House could discuss any case pending before any court in the country. “The MDP says that they do not accept Hulhumale court’s jurisdiction. Parliament committees do not have the mandate to summon judges in relation to this accusation. I think MDP members did this because they are emotionally charged,” Nihan said on that occasion.

Cat-and-mouse or hide-and-seek game?

The Supreme Court, whose directions the three judges were believed to have sought, reportedly advised them against appearing before the parliamentary committee. The Judicial Services Commission (JSC), another ‘independent institution’ under the 2008 Constitution, was even more forceful in its defence of the judges’ decision not to appear before the committee. Citing specific provisions, the JSC said that the Majlis should stop interfering in the judiciary and should respect the separation of powers as guaranteed under the constitution.

The JSC cited Article 141 (c) of the constitution, which reads thus: “No officials performing public functions, or any other persons, shall interfere with and influence the functions of the courts.” It further referred to Article 21 (b) of the Law on the Judicial Services Commission and said that it was the sole authority for holding judges accountable to their actions. Further, the JSC has also Article 9 of the Bill on Judges as legal foundation for its arguments against judicial interference by the Majlis. The JSC may have a point, considering that ‘Institution Commissions’ such as this one were given constitutional protection only to free subordinate organs of the government from perceived interference and influence by the Executive and the rest.

MDP members on the parliamentary committee have denied any linkage between the case against President Nasheed and the summoning of the trial judges. MDP’s Parliamentary Group Deputy Leader Ali Waheed, chairing the committee, has also described the actions of the judges and the JSC as well as the Supreme Court’s encouragement of their behaviour as a “cat-and-mouse” game played by the Judiciary. “What we are witnessing is a ‘cat-and-mouse’ or a ‘hide-and-seek’ game being played between Parliament and the judiciary. If that is the case, we are going to play the cat-and-mouse chase, because we are not going to step back from our responsibilities,” Minivan News quoted him as telling a news conference after the judges failed to appear before the committee.

Ali Waheed denied that they were summoning the three judges “to settle scores or for a personal vendetta or to destroy their reputations”, but within the course of executing their legal duties.

“As the chair of Parliament’s Government Oversight Committee, I shall continue to execute my duties and we believe the constitution allows us to summon anyone with regard to our concerns and we will do so. So I sincerely urge them not to hide behind a constitutional clause dictating the responsibilities of the judges,” Waheed said, maintaining that the committee’s intentions were sincere and that it was being very “respectful” and “patient”.

According to Minivan News, Ali Waheed went on to add: “These people are those who must lead by example (in upholding the law) but what we see is that neither the Anti-Corruption Commission, nor the Auditor-General, not even Parliament is being allowed to hold these people accountable. They can’t be above the law and should not even think they are,” he continued. “What we are repeatedly reassuring them is that we will not allow committee members to question them on matters not in their mandate.”

Waheed’s fellow MDP parliamentarian Ahmed Hamza argued that the judges’ decision was in contrast to principles of rule of law, which were fundamental to a democratic State. “In every democracy it is the people from whom the powers of the State are derived. Parliament represents the people, and their actions reflect the wish of the people, so all authorities must respect the decisions,” he said. Hamza, according to Minivan News, reiterated that the current system of separation of powers holds the three arms of the State accountable to one another through a system of checks-and-balances.

Hamza dismissed the claims made by pro-government parties that the committee was attempting to influence the on-going trial of President Nasheed. “We are not trying to defend Nasheed, all we are trying to do is to carry out our duties and responsibilities vested in the constitution. We will not question them about any ongoing trial, nor will we comment on their verdicts and decisions,” Minivan News quoted Hamza as saying further.

Democratic precedents

The committee’s summons for the three Judges was formally routed through Parliament Speaker Abdulla Shahid, thus conferring the authority of the Majlis. For an infant democracy, the current controversy has the potential to create a constitutional deadlock of a new kind, after President Nasheed in mid-2010 ordered the closure of the Supreme Court by the nation’s armed forces for a day. The period also witnessed a deadlock of sorts between the Executive and the Legislature, where the present-day ruling parties were in the Opposition and held a collective majority. However, the current deadlock has greater potential for inflicting deeper constitutional wounds than the rest. At the centre of the issue however would be the Executive, which prima facie has no role to play but may be called upon to resolve the issue, nonetheless, particularly if the situation were to go out of hand in the coming days and weeks.

It is not as if other democracies have not faced similar or near-similar problems. What is, however, unique to the Maldivian situation is that in the absence of political, legal and constitutional precedents of its own, the temptation for each arm of the State to assert its relative supremacy and consequent paramountcy against one another could be too tempting to test and also resist.

Elsewhere there have been many instances of the kind, though even there does not seem to be any parallel of the Maldivian kind where judges have been summoned before a parliamentary committee to comment on issues after they had assumed judicial offices.

In the US and many other western democracies, parliament and parliamentary committees have both the right and responsibility to vet prospective judges to superior courts nominated by the executive, and also vote on such nominations, where required. It is so in those countries when it comes to other senior governmental appointments, including envoys to foreign countries. The Maldives follows such a scheme, yet in the case of judges, as the 2010 controversy showed, the differences were over nominations to the JSC, not of individual judges, particularly at the subordinate levels. Incidentally, in none of the western democracy is there a known precedent of a serving member of the subordinate judiciary being summoned by a parliamentary committee. They are often left to the administrative control of the higher judiciary, which only is subject to the option of impeachment of its individual members by the legislature.

In neighbouring India, which is the world’s largest and possibly a more complex democracy at work than its western counterparts, issues involving the judiciary and the legislature are confined to two broad-spectrum spheres, other than in matters of ‘impeachment’ (which was effectively used twice since Independence, with 50 per cent success rate). In India, the judiciary and the legislature have often come into conflict over the former staying the operation of any legislative ruling in terms of actions initiated against individuals called to bar. Where a final verdict is available, the legislature concerned has often abided by the judicial verdict even in such matters.

Judicial intervention in legislative action in India otherwise has been confined mostly to the Speaker’s rulings or initiatives in matters pending before him under the anti-defection law. The law came into force in the mid-eighties, close to 40 years after independence, and opened up a new chapter on legislative jurisprudence of the kind. While holding the law, empowering the Speaker of the legislature concerned, as the final arbiter of what constituted ‘defection’ by an individual member or a group in a parent party, the higher judiciary applied a kind of checks-and-balances in the application of the rule to individual cases, based on facts and circumstances. The Supreme Court’s judgment in the ‘Manipur Assembly Speaker case’ defined and restricted the role of the Speaker under the anti-defection law. This was however followed by the Apex Court’s verdict in the ‘S R Bommai case’ (1994) which in fact sought to expand the scope and role of the legislature in deciding a government’s floor majority.

As coincidence would have it, almost every Third World, South Asian democracy seems to have witnessed issues involving the judiciary and the legislature, with the executive coming to be willy-nilly involved, by extension. In Pakistan, the supremacy of the Judiciary ultimately dictated that the Legislature’s pro-confidence resolution did not have the required legal and constitutional binding, with the result, Prime Minister Yousaf RazaGilani quit on court orders. His successor, Raja Pervez Ashraf, after indicating to go Gilani’s way has obliged the Supreme Court’s directive in writing to the Swiss Government on the bank accounts of the nation’s President, Asif Ali Zardari.

In ‘revolutionary’ Nepal, the incumbent government promptly followed the Supreme Court directive on holding fresh elections to the Constituent Assembly without seeking to extend its term further. In Pakistan and Bangladesh, over the past couple of years, the respective Supreme Court have held preceding constitutional amendments passed under the military regime unconstitutional, and no section of the incumbent Legislature has contested the same. More recently in Sri Lanka, the legislature was said to be in a seeming conflict with the judiciary, but on record, senior Ministers were deployed to annul all such apprehensions.

It is in the larger context that Maldives has to view the emerging controversy involving the legislature and judiciary, which if left unaddressed, has the potential to rock the constitutional boat further.

Considering however the telescoping of the democratic process that Maldives has adopted unintentionally, as the events and consequent constitutional issues have shown, the possibility of further clarity on the overall spectrum appearing at the end of the tunnel on this core issue too cannot be ruled out. Either way, the stake-holders need to handle the issues and the attendant controversies with the knowledge, accommodation and sensitivity that they demand.

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)

Majlis committee votes to change party registration and funding requirements

The parliament’s Independent Institutions Committee has voted to change the requirements concerning registration and state funding for political parties, according to the committee’s chair and Independent MP for Kulhudhufushi South Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed.

Writing in his personal blog (Dhivehi), MP Nasheed revealed that “a clear majority” of the committee voted in favour of requiring parties to gain 5000 members before it can be officially registered, and 10,000 members before becoming eligible for state funds. The current requirement is 3000 members for both under the current regulations governing political parties.

The requirements were stipulated in the draft legislation on political parties currently being reviewed by the committee.

Nasheed expressed confidence that the committee’s decision would not be overturned on the Majlis floor when the bill is put up for a vote.

“When the law is passed, the current registered parties with less than 5,000 members would be given a six month period to reach the figure. If a party fails to reach that figure by the end of the period, the particular party would be dissolved,” Nasheed explained.

The changes would currently impact upon President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan’s own Guamee Ittihad Party (GIP) which has only 2,538 members, as well the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) with 2,199 members.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Bill submitted to ban import of pork and alcohol

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Nazim Rashad has submitted a bill to the Majlis calling for the prohibition of pork and alcohol imports to the country.

When presenting the bill, Nazim argued that the import of these products violates article 10(b) of the constitution which states that “no law contrary to any tenet of Islam shall be enacted in the Maldives.”

“We often hear rumours that people have alcohol at home in their fridge, available any time. We’ve heard that kids take alcohol to school to drink during their break. The issue is more serious than we think, it should not be ignored,” Nazim told the house.

Consumption of intoxicants or pork products are prohibited under Islamic law, although these products are available to foreign tourists in the country’s resorts.

When in charge, the MDP government announced it was considering banning pork and alcohol product in response to the December 23 coalition‘s campaign to protect Islam.

After being asked in January for a consultative opinion over whether the Maldives could import pork and alcohol without violating the nation’s Shariah-based constitution, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the case on the grounds that the matter did not need to be addressed at the Supreme Court level.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Arab spring, authoritarian winter

The democratic aspirations of many countries around the world rising against authoritarian regimes early last year was, at the time, an uprising many thought would bring progressive change to the political systems in those countries.

It came to fruition through the voice of youth; educated young individuals affronted by meager job opportunities and other socio-economic inequalities perpetrated by the oligarchic superstructures entrenched in these countries.

This was the true spirit of what came to be known as the Arab Spring. The scattered archipelago of the Maldives, in South Asia with its coastlines in the Arabian Sea had the first ever peaceful transition into democracy by a Muslim-majority country in August 2008, a precursor to the events in the Middle East last year. However, a year later the stories from Egypt, Syria, Libya and Tunisia do not resonate with the ambitions of the resistance movements seen throughout the Middle East last spring.

In Egypt, former autocratic ruler Hosni Mubarak first came to power three years after Maumoon Abdul Gayoom did in the Maldives.

Mubarak was deposed in a popular uprising backed by the military – a conclusion unfathomable to many, even in the most well-informed US diplomatic circles. Although defiant developments, these ‘Black Swan’ moments of history (as coined by Lebanese-American scholar Nassim Nicholas Taleb) have proven to be more beneficial towards Islamists and the elite, rather than the young liberal movement with political and economic grievances who initiated, organised and executed the revolts.

When Cairo was bustling with news of elections in June this year, military and powerful businessmen still held on to power and the latter continued to monopolise the economy. In the weeks leading up to the elections, confrontations between civilians and the military regime in power turned violent. An onslaught of police brutality and violation of fundamental rights directed systematically towards pro-democracy protesters took place in all of the Arab Spring countries. Rampant instances of human rights abuse in the Maldives following the dubious transfer of power in February have been repeatedly condemned by Amnesty International, the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH), Reporters Without Borders and many other international organizations. A group of Maldivian women who were arrested earlier this year alleged that police sexually harassed them whilst they were under police custody. International bodies have called for investigation into all these accesses by the police but to no avail.

If there is a pattern to be realised, it is that the ruling elite and their grip on the leading elements of the military – formed through years of power -seem to plunder the determination of the people in these countries to have a genuine democracy.

Similarly to the Egypt, in the Maldives the power vacuum left over after the removal of former dictator Maumoon Abdul Gayoom was filled by Islamists and Gayoom loyalists.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s engagement with Egyptians has been a long and significant since its establishment in 1928. The Adhaalath Party, an Islamist party in the Maldives, has little akin to the Muslim Brotherhood in that regard. The party joined the December 23rd coalition made up of the then opposition parties. The coalition was made up of Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP); the former dictator’s neophyte attempt at multi-party politics which he later defected.

He then created the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), while his family friend, businessman-come-politician Gasim Ibrahim, created the Jumhoree Party (JP), while the Dhivehi Qaumy Party (DQP) was created by Dr Hassan Saeed and Mohamed Jameel Ahmed who held cabinet portfolios under both Gayoom and Nasheed’s administration. It was this coalition of dictator loyalists who created a religiose Maldivian ‘rally round the flag’ effect that aided the military and police backed coup.

In the case of the Middle East, the transition seemed sudden and spontaneous. The Maldives deposed the three-decade dictator through the first ever multi-party democratic elections in the country in October 2008 as prescribed in a new Constitution which came to effect in August that same year. Mohamed Nasheed came into power with a citizen-centric manifesto with development and social welfare pledges.

It could be seen as the inexorable result of slow, erratic outbursts of civil unrest that began with the death of Evan Naseem under police custody in 2003. His death caused the highly restricted yet obsequious Malé and nearby islands to be worked into a fervor unheard of under Gayoom’s autocratic rule, apart from sporadic uproars in the 1980s.

Again in 2004 Nasheed’s arrest sparked another nationwide resistance. Gayoom was forced to embark on a reform agenda due to local and international pressure, which intensified due to economic upheaval following the 2004 tsunami. Mubarak’s stronghold on the judiciary weakened and pressure for judicial reform came a year before Gayoom came under pressure to initiate judicial and constitutional reform in 2004.

Eventually in four years a democratic Constitution with separation of powers, independent institutions and a bill of rights was enacted.

The reversal of the hard-earned democratic transition however came quite precipitously when police and military mutinied. The result was a dubious power transfer believed by majority of Maldivians to be a ‘televised coup d’état’ against democratically elected government. In Egypt, Mubarak’s loyal military did the opposite by siding with majority of Egyptians last year.

In Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Syria and the Maldives the similarity is the patrimonial style of governance, however historically and culturally these countries differ greatly. Former French colony Tunisia is culturally and aesthetically more westernised than its counterparts. Libya and Syria have more potential for continued sectarian conflict. Nonetheless, the political discourses of Egypt and the Maldives are more similar compared to the dynamics of the other Arab Spring countries.

The propensity for Islamism however differs at present. The Adhaalath Party does not have any seats in the People’s Majlis, whereas Muslim Brotherhood, Al Nour and Salafists have secured a majority of Egypt’s parliament. It is difficult to tell if Islamists will benefit to a similar extent in the Maldives during next year’s parliamentary elections, but given the social and cultural rise in fundamentalism it is probable in the near future.

The military’s role in transitions and socio-economic disparities further exacerbated through patrimonial form of government are also shared themes between the two countries. Gayoom and his predecessors ruled the Maldives in a highly centralised form of government which translated into systemic inequalities between the capital Malé and the outer islands. These were the disparities the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s manifesto sought to alleviate, however many development projects and the free health care system initiated by the MDP have now been discontinued.

The first democratically elected President Nasheed of the Maldives has been on trial since August this year with civil and criminal allegations against him. His party and supporters maintain that the charges are politically motivated to stop him from contesting in next year’s elections.

Meanwhile citizens who protested the legitimacy of Mohamed Waheed’s post-‘coup’ government in February are also being prosecuted nationwide. In all countries authoritarianism is prevalent following the hopeful spring last year. The crackdown on dissent this year has been exceptionally brutal in the Middle East. It is clear that post-colonial nations have been unable to reform their police and military to serve their citizens.

In Egypt the military might have done what was popular amongst its citizens but in no way does it discount their self-interest. Security forces continue to make political decisions as they were trained to do during the colonial era. The Arab Spring that started at the end of 2010 and bloomed to full glory in 2011 may have brought with it much hope, but since the ousting of their respective symbolic autocrats, neither the system of government nor the politicised police and military have democratised. This failure is making possible the resurgence of authoritarianism and an increasingly Islamist future for the region just as it has done in the Maldives.

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)

Maldives celebrates Eid-Al Adha

Government offices, schools and most private offices are to be closed on Thursday to celebrate greater Eid: Eid al Adha, with the Maldives joining other Muslims all over the world to honour the Prophet Ibrahim’s willingness to sacrifice his son to show his obedience to God.

Male’ City Council has announced that 15 mosques in Male’ including Hulhumale’ and Villingili will conduct the Eid prayer on Friday morning. The Eid prayer is a special prayer which requires reciting the Takbeer, and delivering of two sermons – one before the prayer and one after.

The Eid al-Adha prayer is performed any time after the sun completely rises up to just before the entering of Zuhr time, on the 10th of the Dhul Hijjah month.

In Islamic tradition, it is highly encouraged to wear the best dress possible when attending the Eid prayer, and the streets of Male’ are full of people shopping to buy new dresses to wear for the Eid prayer.

Unlike many of the islands far from Male’, few activities will be held in the capital other than TV programmes, as many people take advantage of the public holiday and depart the city.

However, the outer islands celebrate Eid the way it was celebrated by Maldivians ages ago. Cultural dances, local Boduberu, Maali and Vedhuma Dhiun are some of the activities that most of the islands will never miss.

The Transport Authority has decided that Male’ will be a traffic free zone between 4:00pm and 10:00pm on Eid ul-Adha to make it more comfortable for families going out.

The Male’ west harbour area is left with few little boats as the fishing vessels have shortened their trips to make sail to their to their own islands – as they always do during Eid, so that they can take part in the cultural and religious festivities that will be held on the local islands.

The Eid Al Adha is a major religious festival for it is related to the Hajj pilgrimage, the holy Zam Zam Well and the ‘Kaaba’. According to the Quran, Prophets Ibrahim and Ismail laid the foundation of the ‘Kaaba’ the ‘Cube or the ‘Primordial House’.

The story of Ibrahim’s willingness to sacrifice Ismail

The story of how Ibrahim acted when he was asked to sacrifice his only son at the time Ismail is mentioned as follows:

“O my Lord! Grant me a righteous (son)!” So We gave him the good news of a boy, possessing forbearance. And when (his son) was old enough to walk and work with him, (Ibrahim) said: O my dear son, I see in vision that I offer you in sacrifice: Now see what is your view!” (The son) said: “O my father! Do what you are commanded; if Allah wills, you will find me one practising patience and steadfastness!” So when they both submitted and he threw him down upon his forehead, We called out to him saying: O Ibraheem! You have indeed fulfilled the vision; surely thus do We reward those who do good. Most surely this was a manifest trial. And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice. And We perpetuated (praise) to him among the later generations. “Peace and salutation to Ibrahim!” Thus indeed do We reward those who do right. Surely he was one of Our believing servants.

As Ibrahim was preparing for his return journey back to Canaan, leaving his wife Hajar and little Ismail in the middle of a dry, rocky and uninhabited area, which is now Saudi Arabia, Hajar asked him, “Did Allah (God) order you to leave us here? Or are you leaving us here to die.” Ibrahim turned around to face his wife. He was so sad that he couldn’t say anything. He pointed to the sky showing that God commanded him to do so. Hajar then said, “Then Allah will not waste us; you can go”.

Ibrahim left a large quantity of food and water with Hajar and Ishmael, but the food quickly ran out, and after a few days the two began to feel the pangs of hunger and dehydration.

Hajar ran up and down between two hills called Al-Safa and Al-Marwah seven times, in her desperate quest for water. Exhausted, she finally collapsed beside her baby Ishmael and prayed to God for deliverance. A spring of water gushed forth from the earth at the feet of baby Ishmael. Other accounts have the angel Gabriel (Jibrail) striking the earth and causing the spring to flow in abundance. With this secure water supply, known as the Zam Zam Well, they were not only able to provide for their own needs, but were also able to trade water with passing nomads for food and supplies.

Years later, Ibrahim was instructed by God to return from Canaan to build a place of worship adjacent to Hagar’s well (the Zam Zam Well). Ibrahim and Ishmael constructed a stone and mortar structure —known as the Kaaba— which was to be the gathering place for all who wished to strengthen their faith in God. As the years passed, Ishmael was blessed with Prophethood and gave the nomads of the desert his message of submission to God. After many centuries, Mecca became a thriving desert city and a major center for trade, thanks to its reliable water source, the well of Zamzam.

One of the main trials of Ibrahim’s life was to face the command of God to devote his dearest possession, his only son. Upon hearing this command, he prepared to submit to God’s will. During this preparation, Satan  tempted Ibrahim and his family by trying to dissuade them from carrying out God’s commandment, and Ibrahim drove Satan away by throwing pebbles at him. In commemoration of their rejection of Satan, stones are thrown at symbolic pillars signifying Satan during the Hajj rites.

Likes(1)Dislikes(0)

Hulhumale Magistrate Court judges boycott parliament committee summons

The three judges presiding over the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed have boycotted a second summons by parliament’s Government Oversight Committee.

This is the second occasion where the judges from Hulhumale Magistrate Court have refused to be present at the committee, with the first summons ignored on October 9, the day the first hearings of Nasheed’s trial took place.

Local media reported that the committee meeting was held behind closed doors, after the judges informed parliament that their “last minute” decision to boycott the hearing was due to “administrative reasons”.

The committee’s decision to summon the judges to parliament has led to criticism from both the Supreme Court and the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), with both claiming that holding judges accountable was the sole responsibility of the JSC.

Meanwhile, political parties aligned to the current government of President Mohamed Waheed Hassan claimed that the decision by the committee – in which the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has a majority –  was an attempt to influence Nasheed’s trial. Nasheed’s party maintains that the charges against him are a politically-motivated attempt to prevent him from contesting the next election, through the use of judges originally appointed by, and still loyal to, former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

The party also contests the legitimacy of this particular magistrate court.

“Cat and mouse”

Following today’s second snub by the judges, the MDPs Deputy Parliamentary Group (PG) Leader MP Ali Waheed condemned their decision.

He went on to describe the actions of the judges and the JSC as well as the Supreme Court’s encouragement of their behaviour as a “cat and mouse” game played by the judiciary.

“What we are witnessing is a ‘cat and mouse’ or a ‘hide and seek’ game being played between parliament and judiciary. If that is the case, we are going to play the cat and mouse chase, because we are not going to step back from our responsibilities,” he said.

Speaking in a press conference on Wednesday afternoon, the Thoddu Constitutency MP said the committee was not summoning the judges “to settle scores or for a personal vendetta or to destroy their reputations”, but within the course of executing their legal duties.

“As the chair of Parliament’s Government Oversight Committee, I shall continue to execute my duties and we believe the constitution allows us to summon anyone with regard to our concerns and we will do so. So I sincerely urge [the judges] to not hide behind a constitutional clause dictating the responsibilities of the judges,” Waheed said, maintaining that the committee’s intentions were sincere and that it was being very “respectful” and “patient”.

“These people are those who must lead by example [in upholding the law] but what we see is that neither the Anti-Corruption Commission, the Auditor General or even the parliament is being allowed to hold these people accountable. They can’t be above the law and should not even think they are,” he continued. “What we are repeatedly reassuring them is that we will not allow committee members to question them on matters not in their mandate.”

Meanwhile, Waheed’s fellow MDP parliamentarian Ahmed Hamza argued that the judges’ decision was in contrast to principles of rule of law, which were fundamental for a democratic state.

“In every democracy it is the people from whom the powers of the state are derived. The parliament represents the people, and their actions reflect the wish of the people, so all authorities must respect the decisions,” he said.

He reiterated that the current system of separation of powers in place is one that holds the three powers of the state accountable to each other through a system of checks and balances.

“The parliament will hold the government and the judiciary accountable and the judiciary has the power to invalidate legislation and regulations if they are in conflict with the constitution,” he added.

Hamza dismissed the claims made by pro-government parties that the committee was attempting to influence the ongoing trial of Nasheed.

“We are not trying to defend Nasheed, all we are trying to do is to carry out our duties and responsibilities vested in the constitution. We will not question them about any ongoing trial, nor will we comment on their verdicts and decisions,” Hamza added.

Quality of judiciary

Meanwhile, the current Home Minister Mohamed Jameel Ahmed has also admitted that despite having some “bright minds” the overall “quality of services delivered by the judiciary remained disappointingly gloomy”.

“Our judiciary has some bright minds, but that does not exempt it from scrutiny; the judiciary in the Maldives, with the exception of few courts and judges, the judiciary as a whole has earned a deservedly bad reputation for its inconsistent judgments, lack of leadership, lack of competency and being out of touch with modern laws and views of the society,” he said in an article written for local newspaper Haveeru.

Former President’s Member on the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), Aishath Velezinee, in her book The Failed Silent Coup: in Defeat They Reached for the Gun claimed that the controversial transfer of power on February 7 signified the return of the previous politically controlled judiciary, which was to some extent held at bay during Nasheed’s three years.

“The judiciary we have today is under the control of a few,” she wrote.

“This was an end reached by using the Judicial Service Commission as a means. Most members of the Judicial Service Commission betrayed the Constitution, the country, and the people. They broke their oath. There is no room for free and fair hearings. And most judges do not even know how to hold such a hearing,” Velezinee wrote, arguing that the JSC was politically compromised and reappointed Gayoom’s bench at the conclusion of the constitutional interim period in 2010, despite the requirement that they be vetted for their ethical and professional quality.

“For democracy and rule of law to be established in the Maldives, and for the right to govern them to be returned to the people, they must have an elected leader. And the judiciary, currently being held hostage, must be freed. Article 285 of the Constitution must be fully upheld, judges reappointed, and an independent judiciary established,” she added.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“The word coalition is not meaningful in the Maldives”: DRP Deputy Leader

Deputy Leader of the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), Dr Abdulla Mausoom, has dismissed reports in local media that the party’s alliance with the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) is being reconsidered.

“I think the media report is the opinion of one person,” said Mausoom.

Mausoom was responding to quotes from the Secretary General of the DQP, Abdulla Ameen, suggesting that a failure to strengthen the party’s ties since its initial agreement in February 2011 had made the coalition redundant.

“The coalition was formed to make the then government more accountable to its people. The other reason was to create an environment for the opposition parties to work together,” Ameen told Haveeru.

“But former President Mohamed Nasheed’s government fell in a way that we had not even expected. Now we have to function in a different manner altogether. So the circumstance under which the coalition was formed has changed drastically,” he added.

Ameen went on to say that the issue was one which would have to be discussed by the parties’ respective councils – he was not responding to calls at the time of press.

Mausoom, however, was keen to point out that the nature of the agreement with the DQP was more akin to an election strategy than a traditional coalition.

“The word coalition is not very meaningful in the Maldives,” he said. “Nasheed used a coalition to get into power and that fell apart.”

“We has an understanding – rather than a coalition per se – that Qaumee party would support DRP’s presidential candidate in 2013,” he explained.

Mausoom went on to suggest that legislation would be needed to enforce coalition arrangements before they could become a serious feature of Maldivian politics.

This view reiterates a point previously expressed by the DRP, who view the current alliance of political parties in support of President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan as a national-unity government rather than a coalition.

A no-confidence motion, seemingly backed by politicians from within the pro-government group, against President Waheed is currently awaiting inclusion on the Majlis agenda.

Ameen went on to argue that the two parties differ significantly on major issues, in particular the development of Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) by the Indian company GMR.

Both parties appear to oppose the deal, though DRP leaders have been more vocal about the need to take the issue through the courts and to protect investor confidence in the country.

The DQP, however, released inflammatory literature likening the airport’s development to colonisation. The party’s leader, Dr Hassan Saeed, has this week released a book arguing for the unilateral invalidation of the agreement.

Hassan, also Special Advisor to President Waheed, compared cancelling the deal to “taking bitter medicine to cure a disease” or “amputating an organ to stop the spread of cancer.”

The DRP has stated its intention to provide voters with an alternative to the divisive and personality based politics offered by the other parties.

Vilufushi MP Riyaz Rasheed – the DQP’s sole MP -in June threatened to walk away from the party should it continue to its ties with the DRP, after the abstention of a DRP MP allowed the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) to pass a motion to debate police brutality in the Majlis.

The firebrand MP was reported by one local media outlet to have resigned from the party last week before telling another that the supposed resignation letter was simply one outlining current issues of concern he had about the party.

The DRP currently holds 13 seats in the Majlis and has 26,798 registered members, making it the second largest party in the country. The DQP has one seat and 2,199 members.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Eight men charged with VTV vandalism sentenced for seven years

The Criminal Court has sentenced eight men charged with the vandalism of private TV station Villa TV (VTV) to seven years imprisonment.

The court ruled that the witnesses produced by the state told the court they saw the eight men throw stones at VTV security personnel and Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) officials outside the building and that the testimony was enough to find the accused guilty of the crime.

The judge also said the court was produced with video footage and pictures of the events that day.

The Prosecutor General (PG) had pressed charges against Ismail Hammaadh of Maduvvari in Raa Atoll, Ahmed Hameeed and Hussein Hameed of Alifushi in Raa Atoll, Ahmed Naeem of Henveiru Ladhumaageaage, Hussein Shifau Jameel of Maafannu Nooruzeyru, Aanim Hassan of Ferishoo in North Ali Atoll, Ahmed Muheen of Galolhu Haalam and Mohamed Hameed for vandalising VTV.

The attack on the television station occurred during protests against the re-opening of the People’s Majlis on March 19. The building, as well as the soldiers guarding its entrance on Sosun Magu, came under attack as police tear gas forced the protesters south, past the building from the police barricades nearer to the Majlis building.

President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik delivered his opening address to parliament amid widespread anti-government demonstrations, after the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) took to the street to prevent him from giving the speech. Violent clashes between police and protesters sparked major unrest in the capital Male’.

Villa TV is owned by resort tycoon, Jumhoree Party (JP) leader and MP Gasim ‘Buruma’ Ibrahim, who is in a coalition with Dr Waheed’s government. Gasim is also a member of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), the body charged with oversight of the judiciary.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Annulling GMR agreement “only option for reclaiming airport”: Dr Hassan Saeed

The only option for “reclaiming the airport from GMR” is to invalidate or cancel the concession agreement with the Indian infrastructure giant, argues Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) Leader and Special Advisor to the President, Dr Hassan Saeed, in a new book (Dhivehi) released on Monday.

The book, titled: “Loss and challenges of the long-term leasing of Male’ international airport to GMR” was launched at a ceremony on Monday at the government-aligned private broadcaster DhiTV by Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed, deputy leader of the DQP.

The booklet covers various issues surrounding the concession agreement awarding management and development of the international airport to a consortium of GMR Infrastructure Limited and Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad (MAHB), alleged purported national security threats, economic and financial damages and undue advantages for the consortium.

Speaking at the book launching ceremony, Home Minister Jameel said 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”.

Jameel claimed the former DQP presidential candidate’s book would reveal a number of facts that the Maldivian people were unaware of before the signing of the agreement.

The Home Minister added that he hoped ongoing efforts by the coalition of parties supporting the current government would yield results.

Dr Hassan Saeed was not responding to calls by Minivan News at time of press.

In his book, Saeed laid out three choices for the government: continuing the agreement in its current form, resolving disputes through dialogue or invalidating the agreement.

The DQP leader contended that cancelling the agreement and nationalising the airport would be the beneficial course of action for the nation.

“There is little hope that GMR would implement changes brought to the agreement through dialogue,” Saeed wrote. “GMR will change what is written in the agreement in black and white any time it pleases. For example, although the agreement states that 27 percent of from oil revenue must be paid to the state, it has been changed. GMR knows very well the skill to change the minds of the government of the day and its senior officials.”

Saeed further claimed that the concession agreement posed dangers to national security, in addition to being contrary to public interest and violating the constitution, the Public Finance Act and the Companies Act.

If the airport was not nationalised in the near future, since all parties in the ruling coalition opposed the deal, Saeed argued that the presidential election in 2013 would become “a referendum” on annulling the agreement.

Saeed claimed that GMR would donate large sums of money to parties in favour of keeping the agreement in place.

Conceding that cancelling the agreement would strain relations with India, Saeed contended that the move would be beneficial in the long-term to both countries.

Saeed compared cancelling the deal to “taking bitter medicine to cure a disease” or “amputating an organ to stop the spread of cancer.”

The book also likened GMR to the Indian Borah traders expelled from the Maldives by former President Ibrahim Nasir.

IFC role

Meanwhile, in June this year, a delegation from the International Finance Corporation (IFC) – a member of the World Bank group and the largest global institution focused on the private sector in developing countries – met with senior government officials to address concerns over the concession agreement.

On the bidding process, which was organised by the IFC and “evaluated based on the payment of an upfront fee as well as annual concession fees as a percentage of gross revenues to the government”, a document by the organisation explained that, “Each bidder was required to demonstrate that it had the requisite experience in developing, designing, constructing, operating, and financing airports of a similar size.

“The technical solutions proposed by the bidders were also expected to consider the specific conditions on Hulhulé Island,  including its physical and environmental constraints, and the coordination required between conventional aviation activities, seaplanes, and motor boats.

“The cornerstone of the project was the construction of a new passenger terminal expected to meet LEED silver criteria and to be carbonneutral—i.e., to minimize energy consumption and carbon emissions through the use of energy-efficiency and renewable-energy technologies, and minimize water consumption. The bidders were also asked to make specific, predefined improvements to the existing airport infrastructure, and to manage all core airport services, including the provision of fuel—a historically established role at Malé airport.”

However, in early September, the government accused the IFC of negligence during the bidding process for INIA – allegations there were rejected by the organisation amidst continued calls from government-aligned parties to renationalise the airport.

Both the government and GMR are presently involved in an arbitration case in Singapore over the airport development.

Previous publications

In August, Dr Hassan Saeed released a book in English entitled, “Democracy betrayed: behind the mask of the island President”.

Speaking to local media at the book’s launch at the studios of private broadcaster Villa Television (VTV), DQP Secretary General Abdullah Ameen said the book detailed reasons why former President Nasheed had to resign on February 7.

Ameen added that the reasons mentioned in the book included the controversial detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed and allegations that Nasheed wished to “destroy the values of Islam” in the country.

In the months leading up to the controversial transfer of power on February 7, the DQP published a pamphlet titled ‘President Nasheed’s devious plot to destroy the Islamic faith of Maldivians’.

In an interview with UK’s the Guardian newspaper recently, Saeed said the charges were justified. “You look at his behaviour, his actions, you have to come to that conclusion,” Saeed said.

The Nasheed administration had slammed the publication at the time for containing “extremist, bigoted and hate-filled rhetoric”. The pamphlet and religious-based allegations also led to successive attempts by the Nasheed administration to arrest two senior members of the party and sparked a debate on freedom of expression and hate speech in the Maldives.

Saeed was also a co-author of the book Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam, which discussed the issue of apostasy in Islam and stirred controversy during the 2008 presidential election.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)