Tag: maldives

Government requests international legal assistance to clean up judiciary

Following a protest-packed weekend during which politicians were attacked and journalists threatened, the Foreign Ministry has requested a senior international legal delegation from the United Nations Human Rights Commission (OHCHR) to help resolve the current judicial crisis in the Maldives.

“We have been working to improve the judiciary since we came to power, but we have not succeeded. We have asked the international community to assist us in this effort several times, and we find that they are willing to help at this point,” said Foreign Minister Ahmed Naseem.

The request was made following conversations with UN officials last week. According to a press statement, the delegation would be asked to help resolve “the immediate issues surrounding the detention of Justice Abdulla Mohamed, the Chief Judge of the Criminal court, and also the longer-term problems facing the Maldives’ judiciary and the failure of judicial accountability mechanisms under the Constitution.”

Following the detention of minority opposition Dhivehi Quamee Party (DQP) leaders, who had accused the government of behind-the-scenes dealings with Israel and Christian priests, and the arrest of Judge Abdulla Mohamed by military forces after he attempted to block his own police summons in the High Court, opposition party members took the streets last week in protest. DQP meanwhile approached various foreign embassies claiming their freedom of speech was being impinged.

In a statement released on Friday the European Union (EU) Heads of Mission in Colombo expressed concern over the judge’s arrest and “[called] on all parties in the Maldives to act in accordance with these principles and to refrain from inflammatory language or other action which could incite hatred.”

In response the Foreign Ministry cited the government’s efforts to reform the judiciary and oppose the use of hate speech, reiterating its interest in continued relations with the EU.

Stating that “the diplomatic community has received inaccurate information” regarding the political situation in Male’, the Foreign Ministry said it had delivered “accurate information” to foreign missions last week. Officials say those missions had received the news positively, had asked that “racial rhetoric” be stopped, and had not expressed concerns over the judge’s arrest.

Observing that judicial reform “really should come from the Judicial Services Commission (JSC)”, Naseem said the commission’s shortcoming are “now an issue of national security.”

In its statement the Foreign Ministry contended that “since its establishment the JSC has been unable to fulfill [its] constitutional mandate. For example, during the whole of 2010 the JSC failed to take action on any of the 143 complaints submitted to it. On the one occasion in late 2011 when the JSC did find that a judge (Justice Abdulla Mohamed) had failed to comply with the required standard of conduct and had been acting in a manner amounting to gross misconduct, the Civil Court issues an order (26 November 2011) preventing the proceedings.

“With that order, the Civil Court effectively removed the constitutional powers of the JSC. The JSC was made powerless by the very same people (judges) that it is supposed to oversee.”

In communications with the OHCHR the Foreign Minister said the Civil Court’s action highlighted “a systemic failure of the judicial checks and balances foreseen in the Constitution. This systemic failure led directly to the President’s decision [to arrest the judge].”

Parliament’s Independent Institutions Committee has been tasked with investigating the JSC’s “failings”. According to committee member Independent MP Mohamed Nasheed, hearings and interviews have been concluded and possible reformation of the JSC has been discussed.

“It’s the one institution that has not really taken off. It’s been bogged down with personality issues and procedural issues. Bring in a change of membership, some new blood, and give it a new chance,” he said.

Nasheed added that a provision allows for the appointment of foreign judges during the first 15 years of the new Constitution. Naseem said the requested delegation did not necessarily fall under the provision, but rather was expected to provide guidance according to the local situation.

Specifics of the delegation are unknown as the request was only recently made, however Naseem explained that “the planning and appointment process takes time, as we need individuals qualified to stay here for a long period of time.”

“We hope that with the help of Islamic judges the Maldives judiciary would be improved”, he said.

While representatives from opposition Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) could not be reached at time of press, Mulak MP Abdulla Yameen yesterday said the President has no authority to “meddle with” or enforce the nation’s judicial system, local media reported.

Opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Ibrahim ‘Mavota’ Shareef today said “DRP will welcome any international participation to solve the situation at the moment.”

Shareef asserted that the Constitution is not in crisis, “only that President Nasheed has violated it. We’re very sure that the international delegation would hold him accountable because there is no way that President Nasheed is justified in what he is doing.”

Likes(2)Dislikes(0)

MDP to file cases against Abdulla Mohamed with Chief Judge Supreme Court

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has said it will file two cases with Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Ahmed Faiz, against Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed.

One case appeals the High Court injunction against the summoning of Abdulla Mohamed by police last week, which led to police requesting the military conduct the arrest of the judge.

MDP MP Alhan Fahmy was reported as saying in Haveeru that the Supreme Court had authority to investigate the issuing of that High Court injunction.

He claimed to have been turned away from meeting the Chief Justice this morning and told to return in the afternoon to file the cases, while lawyers Azima Shakoor and Shaaheen Hameed were granted meetings late at night without prior appointment.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Maldivians among 161 Muslim clerics evicted from Sri Lanka for illegal preaching

Sri Lanka has ordered a group of 161 foreign Islamic clerics – including a number of Maldivian citizens – to leave the country after they were found preaching Islam illegally.

AFP reported the Controller of Immigration and Emigration of Sri Lanka Chulananda Perera as saying that the clerics belonging to the Tabligh Jamat group, and were ordered to leave following complaints from the Muslim community that the “clerics were not preaching the moderate Islam” practiced normally in the Buddhist dominant country.

Perera also told that the clerics arrived in Sri Lanka on the tourist visas and they had violated Sri Lanka’s immigration laws by preaching Islam.

“We have ordered them to leave the country by January 31. They have violated immigration laws. A tourist visa is to have a holiday or visit friends and family and not to preach Islam,” Perera told AFP.

Foreign clerics are required to submit an application to the Sri Lankan religious affairs authorities to get permission before preaching Islam.

According to Perera, the clerics arrived in Sri Lanka last month in small batches.

The preachers included Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Indian, Maldivian and Arab nationals, although authorities did not specify the number of people belonging to each country.

The Maldives Foreign Ministry did not specify the number of Maldivians ordered to leave, although it confirmed the report.

“The ministry is deeply upset that some Maldivians were among the group of people ordered to leave the country for breaching Sri Lankan law,” the official added, advising Maldivians visiting abroad to respect the rules and regulations of countries they were visiting.

Tablighi community scrutinised

The group to which the clerics belonged to remains “controversial” among the Muslim community and has been criticised even by the some local religious NGOs in the Maldives.

When the Islamic Ministry permitted a group of five Tablighi Jamaat members to preach in the Maldives in 2009, several religious scholars advised the public not to join their gatherings and walked out from the mosques during the Tablighi scholars’ sermons.

Speaking to Minivan News at the time, Sheikh Abdulla Bin Mohamed Ibrahim, the president of religious NGO Jamiyyathu Salaf, said the Tablighi Jamaat “have beliefs and principles which conflict with the true Islamic creed.”

He added that no prominent scholar had accepted their principles and all had warned against them for their “misconceptions”.

Further, Sheikh Aboobakuru said a number of Islamic clerics, including the former Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia Sheikh Abd al-Aziz ibn Abd Allah ibn Baaz, had urged Muslims to stay away from the group.

But, Sheikh Mohamed Shaheem Ali Saeed, State Minister for Islamic Affairs at the time, defended the ministry’s decision to issue preaching permits to the group saying “they are not extremists and they are preaching according to guidelines given by the ministry”.

Speaking to Minivannews on Sunday, Ibrahim Fauzee, President of the Islamic Foundation of the Maldives (IFM) also said that it is “concerning to hear” that Maldivians are participating in the Tablighi group.

“I do not know about the Maldivians being deported from Sri Lanka. But we have  heard that some Maldivians are involved in Tablighi group. This is very concerning and needs to be investigated,” Fauzee said.

He also added that the Tabligh group widely promotes Sufi beliefs, as opposed to the Sunni Islam practices in Maldives.

The Tablighi Jamaat, (‘society for spreading faith’) is described on Wikipedia as a religious movement founded by a Muslim named Maulana Muhammed Ilyas India in 1926, in response to degradation in practice of Islamic principles and values among the common Muslim folk and efforts by organisations to convert poorer sections of Muslims to Hinduism.

The movement primarily aims at Tablighi spiritual reformation by working at the grass roots level, reaching out to Muslims across all social and economic spectra to bring them closer to Islam, according to the site.

The movement gradually expanded from local to national, and turned to a translational movement and now has followers in over 150 countries.

Due to the orthodox nature of Tablighi Jamaat, they have been criticised for being retrogressive, according to the entry: “The women in the movement observe full hijab for which the Tablighi Jamaat is accused of keeping women strictly subservient”.

The group is also widely criticised for their “neutral political stance” and accused of being a “recruiting ground by al-Qaeda” – allegations which the movement has denied repeatedly.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

SAARC Secretary General’s resignation first in regional body’s history

The SAARC Secretariat has said it has yet to formally receive the resignation of Secretary General Dhiyana Saeed, both the youngest individual and first woman to be appointed to the position.

The Secretariat is headquartered in Nepal. In the country’s Himalayan newspaper, Secretariat Spokesperson Niranjan Man Singh Basnyat noted Saeed’s resignation was the first untimely resignation by a Secretary General in SAARC’s 26-year history.

“It will be clear only after the office opens on Monday,” Basnyat told the Nepalese newspaper.

Saeed has confirmed her resignation following her appearance on private broadcaster VTV, owned by opposition-aligned Jumhoree Party (JP) MP Gasim Ibrahim, during which she accused the government of ignoring the law in its detention of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, Abdulla Mohamed.

If the government contended that Abdulla Mohamed had violated the constitution, “he has to be dealt with within the confines of the law,” Saeed insisted. “The government should not take the law into its own hands.”

Press Secretary for the President Mohamed Zuhair told Minivan News last week that Saeed’s public statements “clearly contravened the SAARC Charter” which “forbids interference in the matters of any state, including the state she represents”.

Resigning before making her public statement against the government would have been the “honourable” approach, Zuhair said. “Now, even should she resign, [her behavior] is still dishonourable and indecent.”

Secretary Generals of the regional body are appointed for three year terms. The Maldives is required to appoint a replacement for Saeed to serve out the rest of her term, which expires on February 28, 2014. The nomination must be endorsed the SAARC Council of Ministers, currently headed by Foreign Minister of the Maldives, Ahmed Naseem.

The ongoing detention of Abdulla Mohamed has caused divisions even among senior members of the government. Vice President Mohamed Waheed Hassan said over the weekend that he was “ ashamed and totally devastated by the fact that this is happening in a government in which I am the elected the Vice President.”

For its part, the government contends that its detention of the Judge is justifiable under the President’s obligation to protect the letter and spirit of the constitution, given the failure of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) to pursue the many allegations of corruption and political favouritism pending against the judge.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Political tensions flare amid constitutional crisis over judiciary

Male’ is bracing for further protests after a weekend of violent demonstrations involving several hundred opposition supporters, as political tensions spiral over the military’s detention of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, Abdulla Mohamed.

Eight opposition-aligned political parties held a joint press conference on Thursday afternoon calling on the public to join their series of protests “to defend the Maldivian constitution” and “bring the government back into legal bounds”.

Police said in a statement that five officers were “seriously injured” in protests that evening after opposition supporters in front of the Maldives Monetary Authority (MMA) building attempted to break through the police blockade.

A number of other police officers sustained minor injuries while a window of the MMA building was smashed and three police vehicles, one MNDF vehicle and the car of Civil Service Commission (CSC) head Mohamed Fahmy Hassan were damaged.

Opposition protesters also broke into the home of Youth Minister Hassan Latheef and vandalised his living room, while his wife and children were in the house. The homes of other ministers were also vandalised from the outside, and palm trees lining the main roads of Male’ were uprooted.

The Maldives National Broadcasting Corporation (MNBC) claimed that six of its reporters were attacked on Thursday evening by the opposition protesters, including a cameraman who had paving stones and oil thrown at him, and a camera woman who had an unknown substance sprayed in her eyes as demonstrators attempted to take her video camera.

A group of male demonstrators also reportedly surrounded a female MNBC journalist and threatened to kill her and dump her body into the sea, before she was rescued by other reporters in the area.

Protesters also attempted to gather outside the MNBC premises and threw rocks and other objects at the walls.

Police arrested 43 people over the weekend, including former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) MP Ahmed Mahlouf, Adhaalath Party President Imran Abdulla, and spokesperson for the coalition of NGOs campaigning against the government’s religious policy, Abdulla Mohamed.

Charges included disrupting peace, damaging public and private property, including youth minister’s residence, breaking police lines, and inciting violence.

The Criminal Court today however ruled the arrests were unlawful and ordered the release of all those arrested.

The Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) meanwhile called on the protesters to be mindful of the rights of others and to exercise their right to free assembly responsibly.

The commission observed that as a result of the manner of speech heard at such protests, “inducing anger, hatred and fear in people’s hearts”, public order and peace was “being very adversely affected.”

“As a consequence of such actions, the country’s social fabric is weakened and the trust and respect we should have towards one another are lost, forming numerous obstacles to establishing an environment that fully guarantees rights,” the commission said.

Hundreds of supporters of the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) meanwhile gathered at a heated rally near the tsunami monument on Saturday afternoon. The ruling party launched a campaign earlier this month dubbed “You can’t say that anymore” against the opposition’s “use of religion as a weapon for political purposes.”

Today’s rally at the tsunami memorial area was part of the campaign, which has seen eight rallies held at the party’s Haruge headquarters in past weeks.

Detained Judge

Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed is at the centre of the constitutional impasse currently being played out in the Maldives. The opposition contends that the judge’s “abduction” by the military last week 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.

The government – and former whistleblower on the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), Aishath Velezinee – present Abdulla Mohamed as the corrupt heart of a “silent coup” by the former government to assume control of the judicary, “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist” and ensuring legal impunity for key opposition figures.

Presented with a litany of allegations against the judge, the JSC, as the watchdog body charged with overseeing the judiciary, formed a complaints committee to investigate the cases against the judge in December 2009.

However in November 2011 the Civil Court ordered the judicial watchdog to take no action against Abdulla Mohamed, despite a report by the JSC claiming that he had violated the Judge’s Code of Conduct by making  statements favouring the opposition in an interview he gave to private broadcaster DhiTV.

The government’s decision to take action against the judge followed his opening of the court outside normal hours, to order the immediate release of Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed, deputy leader of the minority opposition Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP).

Police had attempted to arrested two senior members of the party on charges of slander and hate speech after they published a pamphlet alleging, among other claims, that the government was plotting with “Jews and Christian priests” to undermine Islam in the Maldives.

The Chief Judge was first summoned by police for questioning on January 16, but did not appear.

Instead, he filed a case at the High Court requesting the summons be cancelled on the grounds that it was illegal. The High Court then issued an injunction ordering police to halt enforcement of the summons pending a ruling.

Police subsequently requested the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) take Abdulla Mohamed into custody, as “the Criminal Court was not cooperating with police and that as a consequence of Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed obstructing police work, the country’s internal security was threatened and police were unable to maintain public order and safety.”

The judge was taken to the MNDF training island of Girifushi, where he currently remains.

“In good health”

HRCM in an “emergency” press conference yesterday stated that it had visited the judge and that he was in good health and being well treated, with the ability to freely roam the island. He had been granted, but had refused, access to his family, HRCM said.

In response to HRCM’s comments, the opposition accused the human rights body of “backing down” from its responsibilities. Deputy Leader of the Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP), Ibrahim Shareef, attacked the statement as “tame” and “mellow”, claiming that the “kidnapping” of the judge was inhumane.

Reaction

The detention of the Chief Judge has polarised Maldivian society – and the government – even amid the country’s already intense political divide.

In an especially dramatic tangent, Vice President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan declared on his blog that he was “ashamed and totally devastated by the fact that this is happening in a government in which I am the elected the Vice President.”

“Besides all the international legal obligations, the government of the Maldives is bound by the Maldives Constitution 1988 which prohibits arbitrary arrest and forced disappearance. We have just witnessed the first possible violation since the dawn of democracy in our country. I cannot understand why this is not an issue for everyone in this country,” Dr Waheed said.

“Those of us who have struggled for freedom in this country for over 30 years, are wondering whether we have wasted our efforts.”

The European Union Heads of Mission issued a statement expressing “concern at recent developments in [the Maldives], including the arrest of a criminal court judge by members of the security forces.”

“EU Heads of Mission reiterate their support for the process of democratic transition in the Maldives and note the importance of the principles underlying that transition, including respect for the constitution, due process, independence of the judiciary, the rule of law and freedom of expression are central to this process,” the statement read.

“EU Heads of Mission call on all parties in the Maldives to act in accordance with these principles and to refrain from inflammatory language or other action which could incite hatred.”

Secretary General of SAARC, Diyana Saeed, the youngest person and first woman to be appointed to the post, today confirmed her resignation following her public criticism of the executive’s refusal to obey the Supreme Court order to release the judge, during a press conference on VTV.

“[The Chief Judge’s detention] is a violation of individual human rights, a violation of the independence of the judiciary, and the violation of the constitution,” she told Minivan News on Thursday.

The government’s ignoring of a Supreme Court order is not without precedent in the Maldives.

Prior to the appointment of the new Supreme Court in August 2010 on conclusion of the constitution’s interim period, the existing bench sent a letter to the President declaring themselves permanent.

The letter was ignored, and the MNDF confiscated the keys to the Supreme Court until the new bench was eventually appointed by parliament – a process of intense and rapid backroom political compromise that was at the time hailed as a rare cross-party success for the institution.

Breaking the impasse

A government legal source told Minivan News that the JSC itself had found evidence of “gross misconduct” by Abdulla Mohamed, but was blocked from proceeding on the matter as the chief judge “has undue influence over at least one other judge of the Civil Court who issued a court order against the JSC and prevented it from performing its constitutional role.”

“The allegations levelled against him are of serious concern to the Maldivian government and community. It is apparent that both the Maldivian High Court and the Supreme Court remained silent on the matter,” the source stated.

“This is tacit acceptance of a ploy to prevent the JSC from exercising its powers under the constitution, and the JSC’s acceptance of the Civil Court order is an indication of the extent of undue influence that members of the judiciary have over the JSC.”

The government was, the source said, “taking appropriate action in extraordinary circumstances involving allegations of serious corruption and gross misconduct by a senior judge. Public statements seeking to define his detention as a human rights issue are part of the web of protection which surrounds Judge Abdulla Mohamed.”

Independent MP Mohamed Nasheed told Minivan News that the arrest of the judge could legally only have been ordered by the High Court.

“We have the security of the constitution, but while the print may be there it is evident that it doesn’t matter very much. If I am going to be arrested I deserve to expect certain rights. The arrest of Judge Mohamed should have been made on the order of the High Court,” he said.

He noted that Parliament had a standing committee, which had in turn formed a sub-committee, to investigate the JSC.

The hearings and interviews have been concluded at the sub-committee level said Nasheed, a member of that sub-committee and chair of the Independent Institutions Committee, and the information was to be compiled into a report and forwarded to the full committee.

“It’s possible we will have the investigation addressed within the first session of parliament this year,” Nasheed said.

He said the sub-committee had considered a reformation of the JSC.

“It’s the one institution that has not really taken off. It’s been bogged down with personality issues and procedural issues. Bring in a change of membership, some new blood, and give it a new chance,” he speculated, although adding that this would require bodies such as the Supreme Court to each revoke their own representatives on the commission.

The constitution also includes provision for the appointment of foreign judges from other Islamic countries, he noted.

Foreign judges may sit on court benches during the first 15 years of the constitution “only because we would like some technical assistance and expertise during the transition. This provision is the only area in which Maldivian citizenship is not required of a judge,” Nasheed said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Abuse of Article 285 makes us all complicit in the state of our judiciary

A skewed foundation will not a straight building raise, so goes an old Maldivian saying. The arrest of a Criminal Court judge by the army does not belong in a democratic landscape. We all cry foul – Unconstitutional! Dictatorial! Autocratic! Yes, of course. If the judge being removed was put on the bench constitutionally, our current situation would indeed be beyond the democratic pale.

But the abuse of the Constitution which gave rise to ‘Justice’ Abdulla Mohammed did not occur when he was arrested on 16 January 2012. It happened on August 7, 2010, when Article 285 of the Constitution, which required the judiciary to be cleansed of the unqualified and the criminal by that date was allowed to lapse without so much as a murmur from the general public or the civil society. That was the time when we should have cried foul, when the NGOs, the Human Rights Commission, and learned members of the judiciary should have come out to protest the abuse of our democracy.

But no one did, except for a lone individual who was mocked, ostracised and finally stabbed in the back for her efforts. It was on this day that we began our journey on this crooked path, it was then that we all became complicit in today’s actions – we knowingly allowed criminals, child molesters, fraudsters and mobsters to remain on the benches of our courts. We did this, and now, as we confront the consequences of our (in)actions, we conveniently forget our role in it.

The 2008 Maldivian Constitution must be one of the most abused such documents in the history of democracy. Within the space of three years, it has become the plaything of every Mohammed, Ahmed and Fathimath within arm’s length of political power. When Parliamentarians are taken to court for embezzling millions from the public coffers, it is the Constitution that is cited as containing no stipulation that makes lying or fraud a crime. When opposition leaders malign the executive and the country itself with baseless lies, it is the Constitution that is once again cited; its provision of freedom of expression held up as freedom to defame with impunity. When religious intolerance is exercised to such high levels that living a life free of fear is all but impossible for a Maldivian in the Maldives, it is the Constitution that is once again cited as the source for legitimising such repression.

The Maldivian Constitution does not allow criminals to be judges; it does not give free reign to defamation; and it does not condone religious intolerance. Those who say that ‘Justice’ Abdulla Mohammed has been removed unconstitutionally, read Article 285 and compare what it says against the man’s criminal record and his penchant for victims of sexual offences to re-enact their abuse in court to satisfy his twisted appetites. Those who cite Article 27 of the Constitution as giving freedom to defame, read Article 33, which says that everyone has the right to a good name and protection of their reputation. And those who cite Article 9 of the Constitution as stipulating that every Maldivian citizen must remain a Muslim by law, it would be a worthwhile exercise to re-read it with some due diligence.

Article 9 (d) says that nobody can become a Maldivian citizen unless they are Muslims. The word ‘become’ requires the taking of a deliberate action. Children born to Maldivian parents, which cover well over 99 percent of the population, do not have to become citizens, they are born such. The Constitution also says that nothing can take Maldivian citizenship away from an individual that already possesses the same. Where then is the Constitutional requirement that demands every Maldivian citizen to be a Muslim? And where does all this talk of having to be a Sunni Muslim come from? The Constitution only requires the President, and members of Parliament, the Cabinet and the judiciary to be Sunni Muslims. As far as ordinary citizens go, there is not a word in the Constitution about which sect of Islam a citizen must belong to.

The facts of the matter are that we are a people who have become pawns in a game played by a handful of oligarchs who want to retain political and financial power at any cost. All the talk of fighting for democracy, for ‘Islam’, for the people – it is nothing but a register of words conveniently deployed to build a façade of legitimacy both nationally and internationally.

Just look at the people involved in all these ‘crises’ that have rocked the country in the last two months. There were few among the leaders of the ‘Defending Islam’ protest on 23 December 2010 who did not own a tourist resort or did not have a vested interest in the industry. That these people who make millions of dollars everyday from peddling their products to ‘infidels’ would be so audacious as to call for the purification of Maldivian Muslimness is shocking in itself.

What is more breathtakingly shameless is that among those calling for strengthening Sharia in the Maldives was DQP’s Dr Hassan Saeed who co-authored the book, Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam (2007), which is introduced as ‘a contribution to the thinking that freedom of religion is a fundamental principle of Islam…’

That the co-author of this book would be at a gathering that protested against religious tolerance and rallied people to strengthen Sharia rule in the Maldives is a betrayal not just of the Maldivian people but of the ethics and principles of the wider academic community to which he belongs. It beggars belief that such a figure would stand up in an effort to work people up into a frenzy to support the other side of his own argument, and is now on a crusade to prove an alleged hidden ‘anti-Islamic agenda’ pursued by the current government. There could be no more blatant an example of just how low these ‘political leaders’ of the new Maldivian democracy are willing to stoop to get their backsides onto the executive chair.

If the Maldivian democracy is to be rescued from the clutches of these oligarchs, we the public need to take ownership of our Constitution. Their vested agendas have been made clear: (a) take Maldivians to the depths of religious intolerance which would stop the general public from laying a claim to their rightful share of the tourism industry, hence leaving them in control of the billions that pour in every year; and (b) bring down the current government whatever it takes. Or, to put it in their own words, ‘put President Nasheed behind bars’.

We need to distance ourselves from these political games. It should not matter to us whether it is President Nasheed, Rasheed or Waleed that is in power, as long as we, the people, are able to retain and exercise our will to be governed democratically. And to do that, we need to begin to think for ourselves rather than jump on every malevolent bandwagon that comes our way.

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)

SAARC Secretary General attacks government over detention of Chief Judge

The Maldivian government has clashed with the youngest and first female SAARC Secretary General, Fathimath Dhiyana Saeed, over the legality of its arrest of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed.

Speaking at a press conference held by a group of lawyers contesting the legality of Judge Mohamed’s arrest, aired on Jumhoree Party (JP) leader Gasim Ibrahim’s VTV last night, Saeed accused the government of ignoring the law and called for parliament to oppose the ruling body.

The government does not have the authority “to say ‘we will act on this article, and this article does not exist for us’,” Saeed claimed. “This is not something we can pick and choose.”

The government’s rejection of court orders to release the judge could “only be solved by the people”, Saeed said, but added this should be through the parliament “and not by coming out on the roads”.

The government has expressed outrage over Saeed’s television appearance, arguing that her position as SAARC Secretary General demands her political impartiality in the internal affairs of all SAARC nations – including her own.

Article one of the SAARC Charter emphasises “strict adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter and non-alignment, particularly respect for the principles of sovereign equality, territorial integrity, national independence, non-use of force and non-interference in the internal affairs of other States and peaceful settlement of all disputes.”

President Mohamed Nasheed’s Press Secretary, Mohamed Zuhair, said Saeed’s stating her “personal, private position” on VTV “clearly contravened the SAARC Charter”.

“The SAARC charter forbids interference in the matters of any state, including the state she represents,” Zuhair said.

“She should have resigned and then taken her stand, or brought her concerns to us – or someone like the Attorney General. We are her colleagues. This is at best very dishonourable,” Zuhair said.

He claimed that Saeed had pledged her allegiance to the government “and her husband (Abdulla Jabir) is head of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and a senior member of the party,” Zuhair said. “Even should she resign, [her behavior] is still dishonourable and indecent. “

Saeed reacted angrily to Zuhair’s allegations and said his comments were not indecent, and that she had not violated the SAARC Charter.

“I am first and foremost a Maldivian citizen. It is my right [to comment] on whatever happens in my country, and I will not give away that right. As a lawyer I am also a member of the Maldivian bar,” she told Minivan News.

“[The Chief Judge’s detention] is a violation of individual human rights, a violation of the independence of the judiciary, and the violation of the constitution,” she stated.

“The constitution defines how a person should be detained, and this is not an ordinary person, this is a judge. Up until last night no one even knew where he was held.”

If the government contended that Abdulla Mohamed had violated the constitution, “he has to be dealt with within the confines of the law,” she insisted. “The government should not take the law into its own hands.”

“This action is very clearly unconstitutional. If you look at the how the government has acted these last three years you can see a trend. The government thinks any means to an ends is alright,” she said.

Saeed said she did not wish to comment on whether she intended to resign.

The government has meanwhile contended that Abdulla Mohamed’s detention is legal under the President’s mandate to protect “the letter and spirit” of the constitution, arguing that not only had he corrupted elements of the judiciary in favour of the political opposition, but that the constitutional body mandated with overseeing the judges – the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) – had also been politically compromised.

The JSC failed to table or even acknowledge receipt of a report on the judiciary produced by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), which questioned whether the JSC possessed the technical ability and knowledge to investigate complaints and hold the judiciary accountable, as well as its independence.

In May 2011 the JSC abolished its complaints committee. By its own statistics, of the 143 complaints received in 2010 concerning the conduct of judges, none were tabled and only five were ever replied to.

Chair of the JSC’s dissolved complaints committee, former President’s Member of the JSC Aishath Velezinee who was stabbed in the street in January 2011, said at the time that the complaints committee had been unable to operate as the chair of the JSC, Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed,  had persistently scheduled timetable clashes.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Communication Minister’s comment on withdrawing broadcasting licences “just advice”

The Maldives Journalist Association (MJA) and the Maldives Broadcasting Commission (MBC) have raised concerns over an alleged “threat” to the media from Minister of Transport and Communication Adhil Saleem, after he claimed that the broadcasting licence of media stations “misleading the public” would be revoked.

Adhil reportedly made the remarks during a meeting on Thursday with members of MBC, the broadcast media’s regulatory body.

Following the meeting, MBC held a press conference in which the commission President Badr Naseer contended that the commission legally reserves the right to suspend or renew a licence while according to section 44 of broadcasting commission courts hold the right to revoke a licence given to a media station.

Therefore, he argued, Minister Adhil’s threat “does not have any legal weight”.

He also said that the commission is deeply concerned by the “continous threats faced by the media despite the right to freedom of expression guaranteed under section 27, 28 of the constitution.”

Meanwhile, in a statement released by the MJA, the association condemned Adhil Saleem for “threatening to revoke the licence”.

The government is influencing the role of free media, and continuously attempting to defame some media organisation, the statement reads.

MJA also reiterated that it was the responsibility of the MBC and media council to monitor and take action against organisations breaching editorial policy and laws, not the government.

However, speaking to Minivan News today, Minister Adhil refuted the allegations.

“I did not threaten the media. It was just advice,” Adhil explained.

Adhil said that he met with the MBC members to notify them some of the TV stations covering the protest last night aired recorded content describing it as live events.

“I was watching the TV last night. What they showed was a mix. They showed recordings of yesterday and earlier protests with the live caption on-screen,” he alleged.

The stations must remove the live caption from screen if the telecasted events are not live, Adil argued, “otherwise it is misleading the public”

“I told [MBC] that as the governing body I expected the seven members – who are highly paid by the state – to monitor the situation, even if they don’t have the necessary means,” Adil said.

“If for whatever reason the regulatory body fails to monitor the situation, I said I will withhold the licence,” Adil said.

Speaking to Minivan News, senior officials from VTV and DhiTV insisted that the channels did not broadcast any “manipulated content” to deceive the public.

They also argued that using previous footage of interviews and scenes during live coverage was not something new, and was widely practiced in the international media.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

President cancels Malaysia trip over political unrest at home

President Mohamed Nasheed has cancelled a scheduled trip to Malaysia for the International Conference on the Global Movement of Moderates.

The President was scheduled to depart for Kuala Lampur last Tuesday, January 17, 2011.

The trip was cancelled due to ongoing political unrest in capital Male’. Opposition supporters have protested the detention of opposition party members over an alleged “hate speech” pamphlet, as well as the arrest and detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed, for the past six evenings.

Press Secretary Mohamed Zuhair has said the President was prepared to address the conference before choosing to cancel his participation.

Finance Minister Mohamed Shihab will represent the Maldives at the conference in his stead.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)