Tag: maldives

MNDF dismiss High Court order to produce Judge Abdulla Mohamed

The High Court has ordered the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) to produce Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed for the hearing of the case appealed by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), following the Civil Court injunction preventing the JSC from taking action against Judge Abdulla over an ethical issue.

High Court Spokesperson Ameen Faisal told Minivan News that the High Court had ordered the MNDF to produce Judge Abdulla to the court at 4:15pm today, but said the MNDF had dismissed the order. Under the Maldivian Constitution the MNDF is answerable to the President, who serves as Commander-in-Chief.

”At 4:15pm the hearing was to be conducted but the presiding  judge decided that the case could not be conducted in the absence of Judge Abdulla and cancelled the hearing,” Ameen said.

MNDF Spokesperson Major Abdul Raheem told Minivan News that the MNDF had no comment on the matter.

The MNDF was previously ordered to produce Judge Abdulla Mohamed to dispute the legality of his detention, however the MNDF did not respond to any orders.

Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed was arrested by the MNDF on the evening of Monday, January 16, in compliance with a police request.

The judge’s whereabouts were not revealed until January 18, and the MNDF has acknowledged receipt but not replied to Supreme Court orders to release the judge.

Prosecutor General (PG) Ahmed Muizz lately joined the High and Supreme Courts in condemning MNDF’s role in the arrest as unlawful, and requesting that the judge be released.

PG Muizz ordered an investigation by the Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM), and will evaluate the situation following the commission’s findings.

Lawyers of Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed has requested the Supreme Court not to hear any case related to Judge Abdulla before the court decide on the request made by the lawyers to issue a writ to free the judge.

Former President’s Member of the JSC, Aishath Velezinee, has contended that while the government cannot keep the judge detained indefinitely without conducting an investigation, “releasing him is a threat to security.”

I have heard Vice President Mohamed Waheed Hassan calling for him to be released. Abdulla Mohamed is not under arrest – but his freedom of movement and communication would be a danger at this moment. We are at the point where we really and truly need to get to the bottom of this and act upon the constitution,” she told Minivan News.

“We talking about cleaning up the judiciary, and this is not talking outside the constitution – this is the foundation of the constitution. The constitution is build upon having three separate powers. The judiciary is perhaps the most important power. The other powers come and go, politics change, but the judiciary is the balancing act. When that is out of balance, action is necessary.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Fisheries industry at stake as activists threaten to withdraw ‘dolphin-safe’ label

The Maldives tuna industry’s dolphin-safe reputation is under threat after US-based non-profit environmental organisation, Earth Island Institute (EII), launched a campaigns with ECOCARE Maldives against a proposed dolphin lagoon.

The lagoon is an educational and recreational program proposed by famous tennis player Amir Mansoor,  involving 6-8 trained dolphins imported from the Caribbean.

EII, which issues the dolphin-safe label to 93 percent of the world’s tuna market – including 14 Maldivian companies – has said it will rescind the label from government-owned canneries should the government approve Mansoor’s program. EII claims to have already warned foreign buyers and distributors of its concerns.

Mansoor and staff accuse EII and ECOCARE of “threatening” the fishing industry, while their opponents maintain that importing dolphins will damage the Maldives’ “Always Natural” image, as well as endanger marine life. Both sides have accused the other of corrupt dealings.

Meanwhile, cannery and government officials are slowly siding with the activists, citing legal and economic reasons.

A November 3, 2011 EII press statement read, “the Maldives tuna industry has adopted a policy to ensure that no dolphins are ever killed in tuna nets.”

“That Dolphin Safe standard is respected all over the world”, Dolphin Safe program Associate Director Mark Berman told Minivan News. “If the Maldives’ government allows live dolphins to be imported into their country, the Dolphin Safe reputation of the Maldives will be jeopardised. Major tuna importing nations will not buy tuna from governments that harm dolphins.”

Senior management officials of Dolphin Lagoon Maldives claim the goal is to provide dolphins born and raised in captivity with a healthy lifestyle, while educating and entertaining the public.

“The proposed lagoon is the largest in the world for the small number of dolphins that will inhabit it,” said a source involved in establishing the lagoon, who requested anonymity. The dolphins would be “taken for a ‘walk’” on a daily basis and allowed to swim away from the group if they so desired. The choice to return to the lagoon after an excursion would be voluntary, the source stated.

The program’s website contends that people are critical to conservation – ”but they will only become engaged in helping to solve the problems if they get to understand something about the problems… through knowing the dolphins.” School programs are also in the works.

“We need something new in tourism because the Chinese don’t want to pay for bars, scuba, and safari,” said Mansoor, who said he believed opposition to the project was “motivated by jealousy”.

EII and ECOCARE meanwhile maintain that “captivity is captivity.”

Dolphin safe

A letter sent from the lagoon program to EII staff claimed, “Mr Berman is deliberately using the ‘ dolphin safe ‘ label provided by his organisation to the tuna fisheries companies in the Maldives as a tool for his campaign. Confusing the real meaning of the ‘dolphin safe’ label and trying to make people believe that dolphin safe also means that the country has no dolphin program.”

According to the EII website, the companies licensed with the dolphin-safe label must meet the following criteria:

  • No intentional chasing, netting or encirclement of dolphins during an entire tuna fishing trip;
  • No use of drift gill nets to catch tuna;
  • No accidental killing or serious injury to any dolphins during net sets;
  • No mixing of dolphin-safe and dolphin-deadly tuna in individual boat wells (for accidental kill of dolphins), or in processing or storage facilities;
  • Each trip in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP) by vessels 400 gross tons and above must have an independent observer on board attesting to the compliance with points (1) through (4) above

Lagoon program officials asked EII staff, “Where is the relationship between having a dolphin lagoon, as proposed for the Maldives, and the purpose these labels are used for? Where does it say in order to have a dolphin-safe label the country can not have captive born dolphin programs? In fact, if they are related, why is the same organisation that is providing these labels to the Maldives still supporting other countries that have dolphins in captivity like Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, China Portugal, Spain, and most shocking of all, even companies in countries such as Japan, Peru and Brazil which kill dolphins for food?”

Mansoor claimed these and similar questions sent to EII have not been answered. Speaking to Minivan News, Berman pointed out that all companies licensed in the US, Japan and other listed countries are privately operated and “don’t support trade in dolphins.”

Berman added that EII has successfully campaigned against several dolphin programs in the US, including a dolphinarium in South Carolina and dolphin parks at Great America and Six Flags Amusement Park in Texas.

While EII licenses all Maldives’ tuna canneries, only government-owned companies – Felivaru, Koodoo and Maldives Industrial Fishing Corporation (MIFCO) – would be affected by a government decision, Berman said.

Point 12 of the EII licensing form states that a licensed fisheries’ “subsidiaries or affiliates worldwide do not participate in, or profit from, nor is the company connected to companies involved in, whaling operations, dolphin drive fisheries, live capture and or traffic of marine mammals for zoo and aquarium trade.”

The government – which is not itself a company- does not subscribe to an official dolphin-safe policy. However EII would consider its decision to reflect directly on tuna canneries’ dolphin-safe licenses.

“If the government allows the import of dolphins, these companies will violate the dolphin-safe policy,” Berman said, warning that “if I tell Thai Union tomorrow to stop buying tuna from Koodoo, they will cancel their orders.”

Who’s in charge?

The lagoon program has been shuttled around the ministries of Environment, Finance, Fisheries and Tourism, according to Fisheries Minister Ibrahim Didi. It has not yet been approved.

According to Didi, program management did not agree with Cabinet’s assessment of the program as 100 percent tourism, and “it was only by chance that I was at a meeting and found that the program concerned fisheries”.

On January 3, EII’s executive director David Phillips sent an email to Didi urging the government to reject the lagoon program.

Echoing EII’s claim that allowing imported dolphins would open the market for other projects, threatening the indigenous population and even inviting the ‘dark side’ of the dolphin trade – poachers – Didi said “some legal issues have been raised because the program violates Fisheries’ and Environment laws.”

The Maldives Ministry of Fisheries maintains good relations with EII and Mark Berman, State Minister Dr Hussein Rasheed said last week.

However, “the Maldivian government is not a client to the EII and we are considering the needs of the industry and remaining aware of the market,” he said, adding that regardless of the dolphin-safe label, no dolphin has been reported injured or killed during a Maldivian tuna fishing trip.

Rasheed claimed the government would weigh the Maldives’ economic base – tourism and fisheries – against the concept of the Maldives as ‘always natural’.

“Any decision has economic complications – approval of the lagoon program will have a cost, and disapproval will have a cost. We will not compromise the liability of our tuna industry. But then again, we have to move along and encourage innovation and entrepreneurship. This is how society progresses. We must also look at the long term impacts of a decision on our economy and our image in the world. Everything has to be fair,” he explained.

Meanwhile, government canneries are sheepishly stunned.

MIFCO’s Sales and Marketing Director Adley Ismail said the fishery took pride in its dolphin-safe status, but “don’t see the relationship between the tourism industry and our practices.”

“In a sense, we are on [Berman’s] side because we don’t want the label removed,” he said, while Koodoo Fisheries’ Managing Director Abdulla Thasleem noted that without the label the premium on canned tuna would drop.

MIFCO recently entered a joint venture with Thai company Mahachai Marine Products, however Berman said that without the dolphin-safe label it would be forced to sell its shares.

Felivaru’s Head of Production Solah Mohamed put his trust in EII. “In my opinion, a dolphin park is not a good idea – it would indirectly harm the fisherman. If EII is against it we should be too because with their power, EII can do many things,” he said.

ECOCARE Chairman Mohamed Zahir said he would encourage and “pressure” the fisheries, with which Berman met on Monday, to write letters to the government opposing the lagoon.

The origins of ‘dolphin-safe‘

In the late 1980s the world’s three largest tuna companies – Starkist, Bumblebee and Chicken of the Sea – jointly boycotted tuna caught using methods threatening to dolphins, killing off 80 percent of the market between 1988 and 1990. That year, Starkist partnered with EII to promote dolphin safety monitoring in the tuna fishing industry; in late 1990 the Maldives’ only government fishery at the time, MIFCO, signed the dolphin-safe tuna fishing pact.

EII’s dolphin-safe label, one of six such labels, has become a standard adhered to by 90 percent of the tuna fishing industry world-wide. According to Berman, countries that haven’t subscribed to the label, including Mexico and Venezuela, have virtually no market access.

For this reason, however, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) ruled in September 2011 that American dolphin-safe tuna labels are “overly restrictive” in comparison to international standards and violate free trade agreements with Mexico. The US appealed the decision on January 20, 2011.

‘Always Natural?’

Maldives’ centuries-old ‘pole and line’ fishing method is both dolphin-safe and a source of national pride. Zahir argues that Mansoor’s program would violate this tradition.

“We oppose the program because it is against our culture; it would introduce the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin which is an alien species and could transmit diseases to marine life; it doesn’t support education; and it’s contrary to the Maldives’ ‘Always Natural’ brand,” he said, noting that “it would be very easy for EII to buy an ad to display all over the world that reads ‘Always Natural?’ instead.”

The veterinarian handling the dolphins slotted for import, Thomas H. Reidarson , said the dolphins would undergo standard tests as well as extensive screening “to insure that none are capable of transmitting diseases to wild dolphins with whom they might interact.” Program management added that the tourism industry – which draws increasing numbers of speed boats, sea planes, divers and waste – is threatening the Maldives’ dolphins’ natural habitat.

Zahir dismissed the claims as “an excuse to have captive dolphins” while Berman retorted that any health certificates are “likely bought”.

“We can take this to the international media, but we don’t want to give the country a bad name”, Zahir explained, adding that “the fisherman’s union has said it would be no problem to mobilise fisherman to march in the streets of Male’ if the label is withdrawn.”

Berman warned that distributors and foreign partners of the Maldives’ government fisheries have already begun looking for new sources following conversations with EII. “It’s a premium product, and the companies are acting fast to guarantee their business interests,” he said.

Even if private canneries retain their dolphin-safe labels, Berman estimates they would be unable to meet the huge consumer demand displaced onto their operations once government canneries close their doors. “Felivaru and Koodoo have already said they would have to close without the label,” he said.

Stuck at Odds

While EII and ECOCARE are strongly opposed to the lagoon program, they have yet to have any direct dialogue.

“We don’t care who is behind it, we don’t have to go and ask why or how, we aren’t journalists who have to do a check and balance of what is right or wrong,” Zahir said. “We only respond to the government gazette.”

Correspondence obtained by Minivan News indicates that EII staff did not respond to a majority of emails from lagoon program staff, who challenged the EII’s threat. Berman explained, “our business is with the government and the fishing industry.”

“There is no common ground in a dialogue with dolphin traders. It’s like talking to an orangutan – what’s the point?” he said, adding that invitations to debate with various captive dolphin programs in the US have never received a response.

Berman and ECOCARE did attend the web launch of Dolphin Lagoon Maldives near the Tsunami Memorial on Monday night. Berman later told Minivan News that he attended the event as a “peaceful observer” but was “shoved, threatened and a bit manhandled” by protesters at the launch.

Alleging that the aggressors were “hired thugs”, Berman said the behavior was “typical of the captive dolphin industry, they resort to violence and intimidation. Our policy is if it’s too dangerous for us to work, we pull out – with the dolphin-safe label,” he added.

Mansoor, who said he did not witness the incident, was aware of an aggressive verbal exchange “but there was no physical confrontation.” He claimed the activists had been arguing their point of view with bystanders at the launch. “They came to create a scene. I gave clear instructions to my staff not to make a scene because I suspected they would want one to give us bad publicity,” he said.

According to Mansoor the Cabinet has approved his program, however he is working with the President’s Office against EII’s demands. He argued that EII’s claim about its contract “is all crap” and is being used to “threaten” the fisheries.

Correction: Previously, this article stated that dolphins would be free to leave the lagoon and are recalled from excursions by a whistle call. In fact, dolphins would be free to roam during daily excursions after which they return voluntarily.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Religious intolerance sees Maldives drop to 73rd in Press Freedom Index

The Maldives has fallen 21 places on Reporters Without Borders (RSF)’s press freedom index between 2010 and 2011.

The country is now ranked 73, level with the Seychelles and below Sierra Leone but still well above many countries in both the region and the Middle East countries, including Qatar, Oman and the UAE.

The Maldives took a giant leap in 2009 to 51 following the introduction of multiparty democracy – in 2008 it had been ranked 104.

RSF has however recently expressed concern at the rising climate of religious intolerance in the Maldives and its impact on freedom of expression.

“A climate of religious intolerance prevailed in the Maldives, where media organisations were subjected to threats by the authorities and had to deal with an Islamic Affairs Ministry bent on imposing Sharia to the detriment of free expression,” RSF stated.

In November 2011 the organisation reacted to the Islamic Ministry’s order to block the website of controversial blogger Ismail ‘Hilath’ Rasheed, stating that “the increase in acts of religious intolerance is a threat to the Maldives’ young democracy”.

“Incidents involving media workers are rare but that is only because most of them prefer to censor themselves and stay away from subjects relating to Islam. The government should not give in to the fanatical minority but must do all it can to ensure the media are free to tackle any subjects they choose,” the organisation said.

Rasheed was subsequently arrested on the evening of December 14 for his involvement in a “silent protest” calling for religious tolerance, held on Human Rights Day. The protesters had been attacked and Rasheed hospitalised after being struck with a stone.

On his release without charge three weeks later, Rasheed expressed concern for his safety.

“The majority of Maldivians are not violent people. But I am concerned about a few psychotic elements who believe they will go to heaven if they kill me – people who don’t care if they go to jail for it. Those people I am afraid of, and I will not provoke the country in the future,” he told Minivan News.

In September 2011 the government published new ‘religious unity’ regulations enforcing parliament’s religious unity act of 1994, with a penalty of 2-5 years imprisonment for violation.

Under the regulations, the media is banned from producing or publicising programs, talking about or disseminating audio deemed to “humiliate Allah or his prophets or the holy Quran or the Sunnah of the Prophet (Mohamed) or the Islamic faith.”

More recently several journalists with the Maldives National Broadcasting Corporation (MNBC) were beaten, threatened and tasered after protesters from the opposition and ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) clashed outside the station. Both sides blamed each other for the attacks, while MNBC said it would no longer cover the ongoing protests on scene.

The government meanwhile claimed that its commitment to media freedom is “absolute and unwavering.”

“President Nasheed’s administration never has and never will do anything to undermine the independence, integrity or professionalism of the media,” said President Mohamed Nasheed’s Press Secretary, Mohamed Zuhair.

Zuhair’s comments followed allegations that Communications Minister Adhil Saleem had intimidated journalists by threatening to withdraw broadcasting licenses, which Zuhair claimed was “merely” a reaction to “certain TV news channels acting unprofessionally when airing footage of recent protests.”

Despite the fall, the Maldives was still ranked significantly higher than many other countries in the region.

Sri Lanka fell to 163, continuing a steady decline over the last decade (it was ranked 51 in 2002).

“The stranglehold of the Rajapakse clan [has] forced the last few opposition journalists to flee the country,” RSF said in a statement on the release of the 2011 Index.

“Any that stayed behind were regularly subjected to harassment and threats. Attacks were less common but impunity and official censorship of independent news sites put an end to pluralism and contributed more than ever to self-censorship by almost all media outlets.”

Bangladesh fared poorly (129) – “despite genuine media pluralism, the law allows the government to maintain excessive control over the media and the Internet” – while Nepal (109) showed modest improvement with a drop off in violence between the government and Maoist rebels.

India’s position fell (131) after the government unveiled the “Information Technology Rules 2011, which have dangerous implications for online freedom of expression. Foreign reporters saw their visa requests turned down or were pressured to provide positive coverage.”

Pakistan (151st) meanwhile remained the world’s deadliest country for journalists for the second year running.

Finland, Norway, Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland were ranked as having the greatest press freedom, while North Korea and Eritrea fared the worst.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Maldives battling heroin epidemic: Sydney Morning Herald

Beyond the idyllic white-sand beaches and cerulean seas of the Maldives is a country facing a spiralling drug epidemic, writes Ben Doherty for the Sydney Morning Herald.

For several years, the country has been flooded with cheap, low-grade heroin – ”brown sugar” as it is known on the streets of Male – smuggled into the country in boats from the Afghanistan-Pakistan region.
The exact number of drug users in the far-flung Indian Ocean archipelago is hard to know. In a conservative Muslim society where drinking alcohol is illegal, discussion of a drug habit is taboo.

Some reports suggest there are 30,000 regular drug users in the country. Two years ago, the United Nations Development Program estimated 40 per cent of Maldivian youth were using hard drugs.

”This is a small community here. Every family here has been affected by the drugs problem in some way. All of us suffer,” Fatimanth Afiya, the chairperson of the Society for Women Against Drugs, says.
”Heroin is the big problem. It is cheap, and it is easy to get.”

The ready availability of drugs is compounded by social factors in the Maldives. Despite having the highest gross domestic product per capita in South Asia (thanks largely to its tourism industry), the Maldives has a burgeoning young population it cannot employ.

Forty-four per cent of the country’s population is aged under 14 and 62 per cent under 25. Across the archipelago, a quarter of all young men and half of all women have no work.

The economic pull of the capital means families often live in cramped accommodation in Male and children spend most of their time out on the street.

Gangs are common. Prison is the other great incubator. Research by Women Against Drugs and other non-government organisations suggests 80 per cent of prisoners are incarcerated for drugs offences and punitive drug laws mean people are sentenced to extraordinary terms. Young offenders are regularly ordered to serve decades of jail time.

Possession of anything more than one gram of heroin is considered trafficking and attracts a 25-year sentence.

Amaty (not his real name), a young Maldivian drug user who grew up on another island but came to Male with his family, told the Herald he had quit before, a ”lot of times”, but never for very long.

”It’s just all around, drugs are everywhere here. You want to stop, but your friends take drugs. And the people are here who will sell [them] to you. Male is small, man, where you can go? You know everybody, and everybody can find you.”

Read more

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Foreign Minister to file defamation case over DQP’s claims he voted to form State of Israel

Foreign Minister Ahmed Naseem has announced he will file a defamation case against the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP), after it published a pamphlet alleging among other claims that he had secretly voted for the formation of the state of Israel.

“I was not even born then,” Naseem said today. “But the Maldivian public do not know this – many of them don’t know when the state of Israel was created.”

Naseem said people were now shouting at him in the street calling him a “Jew-lover” and making threatening telephone calls following publication of the pamphlet.

The Maldives co-sponsored a resolution to grant Palestine full membership to UNESCO, but the delegation returned before voting.

The resolution was adopted with 107 countries voting in favour, 14 voting against and 52 abstaining, signaling a significant symbolic victory for Palestine’s bid for statehood ahead of a similar vote at the UN General Assembly in New York.

However in the chapter of the contentious pamphlet headed “Helping the Jews instead of aiding the poor people of Palestine”, the DQP states that: “Nasheed’s current Foreign Minister ‘Kerafa’ Naseem is a person who voted on behalf of the Maldives at the UN to [recognise] Israel as an independent nation. Naseem’s action was contrary to both the order and view of the government at the time.”

The party further accused the government of efforts to “familiarise Maldivians with Jews and Israel, and show their virtue and induce love and empathy in Maldivian hearts. Nasheed’s government has brought in teams under different names such as doctors and agriculturists and begun the actual work of acquainting Maldivians with Jews.”

Police interrogated and briefly detained leaders of the DQP on January 12, after the President’s Office requested an investigation into “slanderous” statements alleging the government was working under the influence of “Jews” and “Christian priests” to weaken Islam in the Maldives and incite religious hatred.

DQP council members including former Justice Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed and ‘Sandhaanu’ Ahmed Ibrahim Didi were summoned for questioning, while party leader and former Attorney General, Dr Hassan Saeed, accompanied the pair as their lead lawyer.

The Criminal Court’s decision not to extend the detention of the pair eventually led the government to accuse Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed of corruption and political favouritism, and in the absence of activity from the judicial watchdog, order his detention on Girifushi until the judicial crisis was resolved. The move has sparked more than a week of opposition-led protests.

Naseem said today that the international community had not expressed concern about the contents of the DQP pamphlet – “I think they see it as totally ridiculous. No one has spoken to us about it, and I don’t think it’s relevant,” he said.

“The DQP doesn’t have even 2000 members in its party. The leaders are the same people who passed sentences against people with no trial or legal representation [under the former government],” Naseem alleged. With the detention of the chief judge, “Now, suddenly, they have discovered democracy.”

ICC

A group of lawyers have meanwhile forwarded the chief judge’s case to the International Ciminal Court, contesting the conditions of the judge’s arrest and his detention at Girifushi.

One of the lawyers, Maumoon Hameed, said the case was submitted “as the continued detention of Judge Mohamed is in clear violation of the International Convention on the Protection of all Persons against Enforced Disappearance.”

Naseem responded by welcoming the submission of a case alleging human rights violation to the ICC: “Our aim is for all Maldivians to have access to the highest court in the international criminal legal system so as to achieve remedy and redress for grave crimes against humanity,” Naseem said, although he said he suspected the lawyers had misconstrued the definition of “crimes against humanity” as defined in the Rome Statute.”

“It’s a good sign in a democracy when locals use the international legal system. This is a proud moment for the government,” Naseem said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC appeals Civil Court injunction against investigation of Abdulla Mohamed

The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has said that all complaints filed against  judges are now being investigated, after it appealed the Civil Court’s injunction preventing the commission from taking action against Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed at the High Court on Tuesday.

Former President’s Member on the JSC, Aishath Velezinee, on Tuesday told Minivan News that if the judicial watchdog “can be overruled by a judge sitting in some court somewhere, then it’s dysfunctional. But that’s what has been happening.”

In a press statement issued this week, JSC – which is mandated to appoint and investigate complaints against judges – refuted allegations that it was defunct, claiming it has been “working hard” to finish investigating complaints submitted to the commission.

Out of the 336 complaints submitted so far, 208 have been completed and 38 cases under investigation, the JSC claimed, while commission is working to finish the 128 complaints remaining. Investigation committees had been set up within the commission to “expedite the process”, JSC claims, adding that complaints concerned different judges, not only Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

The statement comes despite the JSC’s abolishing its complaints committee in May 2011. It did not clarify the outcome of any of the complaints it said it had investigated.

The JSC explained in the statement that the commission has been unable to pursue the case against Chief Judge as the Civil Court had ordered the JSC on November 17 to take no action against the judge until the court reached a verdict in the case filed against him.

The JSC requested the High Court to terminate the injunction citing that the commission’s decision cannot be overruled by the civil court.

Abdulla Mohamed filed the suit against the JSC after it completed a report into misconduct allegations against the cheif judge. According to the report, which the JSC has not yet publicly released, the judge violated the Judge’s Code of Conduct by making a politically biased statement in an interview he gave to private broadcaster DhiTV.

The injunction was first appealed by the JSC at the Supreme Court, which ordered it to be submitted to the High court on January 19 – three days after chief judge was detained by the military, after he had opened the court outside normal hours a night ago, to order the immmmediate release of Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed, deputy leader of the minority opposition Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) who was arrested after President’s Office requested an investigation into “slanderous” allegations he made that the government was working under the influence of “Jews and Christian priests” to weaken Islam in the Maldives.

In this week’s statement JSC reiterates its stance that neither police or Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) have the “constitutional authority” to detain a judge, citing that the commission reserves the right to investigate complaints about judges and submit to the parliament in case a judge has to be removed from the bench under the section 159 of the constitution and Judicial Service Commission Act.

However, the government continues to legally justify the military detention of the judge amid spiralling political tensions.

In a televised statement on MNBC One on Junary 17, Home Minister Hassan Afeef said military assistance was sought for “fear of loss of public order and safety and national security” on account of Judge Abdulla, who has “taken the entire criminal justice system in his fist”.

Afeef listed 14 cases of obstruction of police duty by Judge Abdulla, including withholding warrants for up to four days, ordering police to conduct unlawful investigations and disregarding decisions by higher courts.

Afeef accused the judge of “deliberately” holding up cases involving opposition figures, and barring media from corruption trials.

Afeef said the judge also ordered the release of suspects detained for serious crimes “without a single hearing”, and maintained “suspicious ties” with family members of convicts sentenced for dangerous crimes.

The judge also released a murder suspect “in the name of holding ministers accountable”, who went on to kill another victim.

Afeef also alleged that the judge actively undermined cases against drug trafficking suspects and had allowed them opportunity to “fabricate false evidence after hearings had concluded”.

Judge Abdulla “hijacked the whole court” by deciding that he alone could issue search warrants, Afeef continued, and has arbitrarily suspended court officers.

The chief judge “twisted and interpreted laws so they could not be enforced against certain politicians” and stood accused of “accepting bribes to release convicts.”

However, opposition continues to contend that the judge’s “abduction” by the military and its refusal to release him or present him in court, despite being ordered to do so by the Supreme Court, represents a constitutional violation by the government.

Likes(2)Dislikes(0)

Q&A: Silent coup has cost Maldives a judiciary, says Aishath Velezinee

Aishath Velezinee was formerly the President’s Member on the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), the watchdog body assigned to appoint and investigate complaints against judges.

She has consistently maintained that the JSC is complicit in protecting judges appointed under the former government, colluding with parliament to ensure legal impunity for senior opposition supporters. During her tenure at the JSC she was never given a desk or so much as a chair to sit down on. In January 2011 she was stabbed twice in the back in broad daylight.

The JSC is now at the centre of a judicial crisis that has led to the military’s detention of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, Abdulla Mohamed.

JJ Robinson: To what extent does the current judicial crisis represent the failure of Article 285 in 2010, the constitutional provision guaranteeing an independent and qualified judiciary at the conclusion of the two year interim period?

Aishath Velezinee: 100 percent. This was what I was trying to bring out at the time – but I could only allege that Abdulla Mohamed was at the heart of the matter. But it was very obvious to me that this was not just the action of one man, but a hijacking of the judiciary [by the opposition] – the ‘silent coup’.

In the highly politicised environment at time it was very difficult to get people to look into this, because parliament was out to cover it up – nobody was willing to take it up, and everyone wanted distance because it was too sensitive and so highly politicised. So really no one wanted to try and see if there was any truth to what I was saying.

Time passed. I didn’t imagine all this would come up so soon – it has been an amazing experience to see all of this suddenly happening so quickly.

It was inevitable – with everything Abdulla Mohamed has done inside and outside the courts, it was very obvious that he was not a man to be a judge.

With all the highly political rulings coming from the Criminal Court, it was clearly not right. The JSC’s cover up of Abdulla Mohamed was also apparent.

He had spoken on TV [against the government] – and it was not just his voice. There was no need to spend two years investigating whether he had said what he said.

Finally they decided yes, he is highly politicised, and had lost the capacity to judge independently and impartially. His views and verdicts were expressing not just partiality towards the opposition, but apparently a very deep anger against the government. It is very obvious when you speak to him or see him on the media. We had to look at what was behind all this.

JJ: Abdulla Mohamed filed a case in the Civil Court which ordered the JSC investigation be halted. Does the JSC have any jurisdiction to rule against its own watchdog body?

AV: Absolutely not. If the judicial watchdog can be overruled by a judge sitting in some court somewhere, then it’s dysfunctional. But that’s what has been happening. And [Supreme Court Judge] Adam Mohamed, Chair of the JSC, has probably been encouraging Abdulla Mohamed to do this.

The whole approach of the JSC is to cover up the judge’s misconduct. When it comes to Abdulla Mohamed it’s not just issues of misconduct – it’s possible links with serious criminal activities. There is every reason to believe he is influenced by serious criminals in this country.

JJ: The international community has expressed concern over the government’s ongoing detention of the judge by the military. Is the government acting within the constitution?

AV: It is impossible to work within the constitution when you have lost one arm of the state: we are talking about the country not having a judiciary. When one man becomes a threat to national security – and the personal security of everyone – the head of state must act.

He can’t stand and watch while this man is releasing people accused of murder, who then go out and kill again the same day. We are seeing these reports in the media all along, and everyone is helpless.

If the JSC was functioning properly – and if the Majlis was up to its oversight duties – we would not have got to this stage. But when all state institutions fail, then it is necessary to act rather than watch while the country falls down.

JJ: What next? The government surely can’t keep the judge detained indefinitely.

AV: We have to find a solution. It is not right to keep someone detained without any action – there must be an investigation and something must happen. I’m sure the government is looking into Abdulla Mohamed.

But releasing him is a threat to security. I have heard Vice President Mohamed Waheed Hassan calling for him to be released. Abdulla Mohamed is not under arrest – but his freedom of movement and communication would be a danger at this moment. We are at the point where we really and truly need to get to the bottom of this and act upon the constitution.

We talking about cleaning up the judiciary, and this is not talking outside the constitution – this is the foundation of the constitution. The constitution is build upon having three separate powers.

The judiciary is perhaps the most important power. The other powers come and go, politics change, but the judiciary is the balancing act. When that is out of balance, action is necessary.

With regards to attention from the international community – I tried really hard in 2010 to get the international community involved, to come and carry out a public inquiry, because we do not have any institution or eminent person with the authority to look into the matter. We needed outside help.

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) did come and their report highlighted some things, but they did not have access to all the material because it’s all in Dhivehi. We need a proper inquiry into this, and a solution.

JJ: The Foreign Minister has asked the UN Office of Human Rights to send a legal team able to look into the situation and advise. To what extent will this draw on the constitution’s provision to appoint foreign judges?

AV: That has been something we were interested in doing, but the former interim Supreme Court Judge Abdulla Saeed was absolutely against it – not only bringing in foreign judges, but even judicial expertise. He was also against putting experts in the JSC so it could be properly institutionalised. The ICJ tried very hard to place a judge in there but didn’t get a positive response.

The UN brought in a former Australian Supreme Court Judge, but he didn’t get any support either. There was a lady [from Harvard] but she left in tears as well. There was no support – the Commission voted not to even give her a living allowance. They are unwelcoming to knowledge – to everyone. It is a closed place.

JJ: Is there a risk the UN will send a token advisor and things will quickly return to business as usual?

AV: We need the ICJ to be involved – someone like [former] UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Leandro Despouy. He was here for a fact-finding mission and had a thorough understanding of it, and gives authoritative advice.

We need to look for people who understand not only the law in the constitution, but what we are transiting from. Because that is really important.

JJ: There was talk of foreign judges and the establishment of a mercantile court for cases involving more than Rf 100,000 (US$6500). Based on the current state of the judiciary are people now more open to idea of foreign judges, where once they may have opposed it on nationalistic grounds?

AV: It is not a new thing. We have always used foreign knowledge since the time of the Sultans. We used Arabs who came here as our judges, they were respected people. Ibn Battuta practiced here as a judge during his voyages.

So it is not a new concept. This is the way we are – we do not have the knowledge. Now we are transitioning to a modern, independent judiciary, so of course we need new knowledge, practices and skills. The only way to get our judges up to standard is [for foreign judges] to be working in there, hands on.

Of course before that we have to make sure that the people on the bench are people who qualify under the constitution. With the bench we have right now it wouldn’t do much good bringing in expertise, because many of the people sitting there do not even have the basics to understand or move forward, they are limited in not having even basic education.

JJ: What percentage of the judiciary has more than primary school education?

AV: As a foundation, at least 50 percent have less that Grade 7. But they all say they have a certificate in justice studies – a tailor-made program written by the most prominent protester at the moment, former Justice Minister Mohamed Jameel of the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP). There were no textbooks on the course – they were given handouts.

Now we do have access to resources through the internet. But do the judges and magistrates have the skills or language abilities necessary to research on the internet? No they don’t.

JJ: Based on your access to privileged JSC information, you have also previously expressed concern at the high number of judges with actual criminal records. What about Abdulla Mohamed?

AV: Abdulla Mohamed was already a criminal convict before he was appointed to the bench. This man was found guilty of creating public disorder, hate speech and had publicly shown himself to be a woman hater or fearer- I don’t know which. But he has this bias against women and has been quoted as such in the courtroom. He’s got issues.

There are unchecked complaints against him in the JSC. The JSC has this practice of taking every complaint and giving it to committee one at a time. But if you look at everything, there is a pattern suggesting links to criminals. The Criminal Court has been given power as the only court able to rule on police custody during police investigations – why does Abdulla Mohamed have a monopoly on this? He personally locks up the seal. Why does he control it?

JJ: What do you mean when you claim he has links to organised crime?

AV: It’s a pattern. He tries to prevent investigation of all the heavy drug cases, and when the case does make it before the court his decisions are questionable. In one instance newspaper Haveeru sent a complaint saying the Criminal Court had tried a case and changed the verdict behind closed doors.

Haveeru later called for the complaint to be withdrawn. But my approach is to say, once we have a complaint we must check it. The complainant can’t withdraw a complaint, because there must have been a reason to come forward in the first place. That verdict referred to something decided two years before – Abdulla Mohamed changed the name of the convict. A mistake in the name, he said. How can you change a name? A name is an identity. The JSC never investigated it.

JJ: Prior to the JSC’s decision to dissolve the complaints committee, it was receiving hundreds of complaints a year. How many were heard?

AV: Five were tabled, four were investigated. Their approach was that if nobody was talking about the judge, then the judge was above question. So they would cover up and hide all the complaints.

Approach of this constitution is transparency – and the investigation is itself proof of the judge’s independence. An accusation doesn’t mean he is not up to being a judge. But if it is not investigated, those accusations stand. Instead, the JSC says: “We don’t have any complaints, so nobody is under investigation.”

We are struggling between the former approach and the new approach of the constitution. We have seen judges with serious criminal issues kept on bench and their records kept secret. They have a problem adapting themselves to the new constitution and democratic principles that require them to gain trust.

The JSC has many other issues- taking money they are not entitled to, perjury; none of this was looked into. All sorts of things happened in there.

JJ: Is it possible to revive Article 285, or did that expire at the conclusion of the interim period?

AV: Article 285 is the foundation of our judiciary, the institutionalisation of the one power that is going to protect our democracy. How can we measure it against a time period set by us? Two years? We did everything we could to try and enact it. It was a failure of the state that the people did not get the judiciary.

We cannot excuse ourselves by saying that the two years have passed. Parliament elections were delayed – much in the constitution was delayed. 80 percent of the laws required to be passed under this constitution have yet to be adopted. Are we going to say ‘no’ to them because time has passed?

We can’t do that, so we have to act.

JJ: Parliament has oversight of the JSC – what ability does parliament have to reform it?

AV: Parliament has shown itself to be incapable of doing it. We are seeing parliamentarians out trying to free Judge Abdulla Mohamed – including Jumhoree Party (JP) MP Gasim Ibrahim, a member of the JSC.

So I don’t think we even need to enter into this. it is apparent they are playing politics and do not have the interest of the people or the state at heart. They never believed in this constitution, they were pushed into adopting a democratic constitution, they failed in the elections, and now they are out to kill the constitution.

I am wondering even what they are protesting about. Last night it was Judge Abdulla, and the religious card. It is fear driven.

What we are seeing is [former President Maumoon Abdul] Gayoom and [his half brother, Abdulla] Yameen trying to turn their own personal fears into mass hysteria. Nobody else is under threat – but they are if we have an independent judiciary. If their cases are heard they know they are in for life.

JJ: So this is a struggle for survival?

AV: Exactly. The final battle – this is the last pillar of democracy. If we manage to do this properly, as stated in the constitution, we can be a model democracy. But not without a judiciary.

Likes(2)Dislikes(0)

Rising fundamentalism oppressing Maldivian women: Sydney Morning Herald

When the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, visited the Maldives late last year, she urged that the practice of flogging women for having sex outside marriage – while very rarely punishing men for the same – should be abolished, writes Ben Doherty for the Sydney Morning Herald.

”This practice constitutes one of the most inhumane and degrading forms of violence against women,” she told local reporters then.

The response was as fierce as it was unexpected. The next day protesters rallied outside the UN building, carrying placards that read ”Ban UN” and ”Islam is not a toy” and threatened to ”Flog Pillay”. A website later promised to ”slaughter anyone against Islam”.

Shadiya Ibrahim, member of the newly formed Gender Advocacy Working Group and a long-time campaigner for women’s rights, said Maldivian society was growing more oppressive towards women.

”Being a woman is harder now. The religious Wahhabist scholars preach more forcefully than anyone else can. They have this backing of religion as a tool.

”No one can make the argument to have a more liberal, a more positive attitude towards women. Day by day, it is becoming harder for women to live in this country,” she said.

Ms Ibrahim said women were excluded from positions of power, from taking jobs and even from education, particularly beyond primary level.

The practice of flogging women for extramarital sex was common across the Maldives, she said.

”It happens everywhere. Normally, this punishment is given when you give birth, which is why it is almost always women. If you have 140-odd women being flogged, you have only two or three men.” The flogging is public and done with a paddle or a cane, and is intended more to humiliate than to cause serious injury.

Ms Ibrahim said flogging was accepted by many Maldivians, and there were other, more serious issues emerging, including a growing number of instances of sexual violence.

”This week, there have been two cases of a gang rape of [a] minor, one 16-year-old, one 12-year-old and, very often, while there is an effort to catch the perpetrators, eventually, the media will turn it into ‘the girl was wearing this’, ‘the girl had gone there’,” she said.

Domestic violence is common. A nationwide survey done in 2007 found one in three Maldivian women had been abused, sexually or physically.

Aneesa Ahmed, president of advocacy organisation Hope for Women, said a domestic violence bill before the Maldivian parliament would raise awareness of an issue rarely discussed in the Maldives. But the legislation has been stuck in parliament more than 14 months. Only five of the Maldives’ 77 parliamentarians are women.

Ms Ahmed said Maldivian women’s control over their lives was being eroded. ”Men in the Maldives feel that the women’s role is reproductive and in the home. That’s what women should do and that’s all we should do.’

Read more

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: One captain, one course

These past weeks’ demonstrations, protests, and proclamations continually evoke the principle that constitutional powers must be separated, but conveniently ignore the checks and balances which are meant to be inherent to any functional democracy.

We have had one constitutional crisis after another precisely because our system is broken. The checks don’t work and our system is anything but balanced. The opposition claims the executive is all powerful, while the ruling party claims that both the legislature and the judiciary are trying to hijack the government. The only way forward is through leveling the playing field. I propose we do this in two ways; implementing a real power of veto and meeting our constitutional obligations regarding the judiciary.

At Democracy’s Doorstep

It is self-evident that the democracy we fought for against 30 years of tyranny has not come to pass. In November of 2008, we merely started the next leg of a voyage that pioneers like the President and Vice President started two decades earlier.

In that moment, it was fitting that they embarked on this next leg together. And though much hailed as the fruition of hopes and dreams for democracy, what we failed to grasp is that the journey was not yet complete. The legislature, when controlled by a hostile opposition can bring the state to a standstill, while the judiciary remains with strong political bias and an ethos that should have ended when the middle ages did.

Democracy is meant to function with representation from the people. The people choose a president and a plan for five years, and while the implementation of that plan should be vetted through the legislature and the rule of law safeguarded by the judicature, neither of the two subsidiary bodies are supposed to take the helm of the country. A ship is supposed to have one captain, who is advised and guided, but whose direction and vision guides the course that the ship takes.

The reason why we have a presidential system is because we have the right to choose the vision to guide our nation. We choose our President and Vice President as they are directly elected by us. We choose our path for five years.

But say they both, God forbid, die tomorrow. Our Speaker becomes interim President till elections are held. In parliamentary systems, those who control parliament head government as well, and they do fine – right?

Wrong. If the Speaker led government, we would have a man who represents only 0.2 percent of the voting population (having won his seat with a total of 305 votes). A delightfully clearheaded and capable man though he is, he would not represent the people. We would not have a say in how our country should progress.

In 2008, when we voted, we had our say. Fine, a bunch of people voted against the former President, rather than for this one – but that is one of the growing pains of overcoming dictatorship. We chose this path, so it is time we stopped institutional mechanisms from hindering it.

We stand here at democracy’s doorstep, afraid to cross the threshold because of our authoritarian past. But the point of government is not to constantly bicker and make governing impossible, but rather to provide for those who elected you to power – not through handouts but rather through policy that changes things rather than causes stagnation.

The Point of Majlis

All the Majlis has done for the last three years is to find ways to cause stagnation rather than governance. The opposition believes that every government policy is wrong and that instead of dialogue, the only avenue available is to block policy. It is not about helping the people – it is about making sure the government fails.

That is not the way a government is supposed to function. Apart from the fact that our newly elected Majlis members have no resources, guidance, or staff to assist them – we are also encumbered by a significant institutional failing: the President has no veto.

When the President sends a bill back to Parliament because it is either inconsistent with his vision, or because it may be damaging to the people, it is but a symbolic gesture in our country. In other nations, such an action can only be overturned by a stronger majority (such as two-thirds).

Yet in the Maldives, a simple majority can force a bill through. A simple majority can hijack government and change the course of our ship. This is not the way it was meant to be. Because of the electoral system by which our parliamentarians are chosen, and because of the other factors that influence parliamentary functions, that simple majority can never equal the weight of the office of the President. To change our course and to change the direction which our country follows, we must empower our president with the authority to stand against the tyranny of a minority, and only ever let the will of the majority override the vision we chose.

An Independent Judiciary

Yet a nation cannot function, unless the rule of law is safeguarded. We worked long and hard to ensure that the judiciary would be one that was independent and free from political and social bias. There is but one mechanism to keep the judiciary accountable; the Judicial Services Commission. Alas, this mechanism has failed. It was tasked with thinning the herd, with vetting our judges, and with maintaining some level of dignity on the Maldivian bench. As described by Dr Azra Naseem, we had our moment to hold the judiciary to some standard, and we collectively dropped the ball.

The constitution clearly empowers this commission to take disciplinary action, including dismissal proceedings, against judges for incompetence or gross misconduct. And yet, when they finally get around to finding that Abdulla Mohamed failed to comply with the required standard of conduct, on the 26th of November 2011, the same judge managed to have a court order issued preventing further proceedings. The one body charged with keeping our courts in check has proven itself powerless to fulfill its constitutional mandate.

Here, we have a judge whom most agree is corrupt – or at the very least unfit to sit in so high an office; we have a judge who is blatantly politically biased and admits as much on national television; we have a judge who has released criminals including rapists and drug dealers and who has been seen cavorting with defendants after his rulings; and yet we as a nation and a people are powerless to remove him from the office which he so flagrantly disgraces. Can there be a constitutional failing that is more evident than the one embodied in this man?

A Constitutional Amendment

Our path and our national progression are being hindered by mechanisms that do not function. We have a President determined to follow through on the promises he made when elected; to provide housing, healthcare, transportation, less drug abuse and a better standard of living. Yet even basic policies are refuted, not by the merit of the program, but rather by the party which proposed it. And now there are few avenues that are open to move forward. We need to move beyond stagnation as a policy for politics. We need to change the game. There is but one captain of this ship. For five years, we choose one captain, one direction and one path. In 2013 the path might change, but before that happens – let fix these mechanisms. Let’s become the democracy we were always meant to be.

www.jswaheed.com

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(3)Dislikes(0)