Tag: maldivian democracy network

Ratification of limits on freedom of assembly won’t affect ‘revolution’: MDP

The ratification of the Freedom of Peaceful Assembly Bill is a “direct response” to the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s proposed revolution, the party’s Spokesperson Hamed Abdul Ghafoor has alleged.

Yesterday (January 11) the President’s Office website announced that President Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik had approved the controversial bill, which enforces limits for protests in the Maldives.

Parliament passed the bill on December 25, 2012 with 44 votes in favour and 30 against – a decision which attracted criticism from NGOs within the country who warned the bill could “restrict some fundamental rights”.

Ghafoor told Minivan News that the MDP stood against the principles of the Freedom of Assembly Bill, alleging its ratification is a response to the ‘Ingilaab’ proposed by former President Mohamed Nasheed last month.

“We are not happy with this bill, and on principle alone we are against it. The current government feels the need to restrict freedom of expression and unwind the democratic gains of this country,” he alleged.

“The whole intention of this bill was to respond to our popular uprising. But when the time comes [for the revolution] the bill won’t matter. We will still go out onto the streets,” Ghafoor claimed.

Among the key features of the Freedom of Assembly bill is the outlawing of demonstrations outside private residences and government buildings, limitations on media covering protests not accredited with the state and defining “gatherings” as a group of more than a single person.

One of the main stated objectives of the legislation is to try and minimise restrictions on peaceful gatherings, which it claims remain a fundamental right.

Under the legislation, demonstrations will be outlawed within a certain distance of the residences of the president and vice president, tourist resorts, harbours utilized for economic purposes, airports, the President’s Office, the courts of law, the Parliament, mosques, schools, hospitals and buildings housing diplomatic missions.

NGO concerns

In a joint statement from local NGOs Transparency Maldives (TM) and Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN) this month (January 2), it warned that the bill posed “serious challenges to the whole democratic system”.

The statement claimed that the bill could restrict the constitutional right to freedom of assembly (article 32), freedom of expression (article 27) and press freedom (article 28).

As article four of the constitution states that “all the powers of the state of the Maldives are derived from, and remains with, the citizens,” both NGOs warned that narrowing the fundamental rights guaranteed by the second chapter of the constitution would “facilitate taking away from the public the powers that remain with them.”

Media “accreditation” on protest coverage

Last month, the Maldives Journalists’ Association (MJA) expressed concern over certain clauses in the ratified Freedom of Peaceful Assembly Bill, claiming that it will directly impact reporting by local and international media organisations.

In regard to the media’s right to cover demonstrations, the bill states that the Maldives Broadcasting Commission (MBC) must draft a regulation on accrediting journalists within three months of the ratification of the bill.

Only those journalists who are accredited by the MBC will be granted access to cover and report on gatherings and police activities in the vicinity.

MJA President and board member of the Maldives Media Council (MMC) ‘Hiriga’ Ahmed Zahir claimed last month (December 29) that the MBC – appointed by parliament – would not be able to accredit media persons in an independent manner free from any influence.

“We are seeing the MBC failing to address many existing issues even now, so we cannot support handing over additional responsibilities like this to such a body,” he added.

Zahir also raised concerns that foreign journalists coming to the Maldives would also be required to obtain additional accreditation. He said that international media was already faced with having to meet specific visa requirements and obtaining state approval.

“For example, [international reporters] cannot really cover events if they are just here on a tourist visa, that won’t be allowed anywhere in the world,” he said.

Speaking on the matter of media accreditation, MDP Spokesman Ghafoor alleged to Minivan News today that it was the current governments “intention” to control the media coverage of protests.

“When the incumbent government took over office, they took over the state media too. We have noticed this trend continuing today,” he claimed.

President’s Office Spokesman Masood Imad was not responding to calls at time of press today.

However back in November last year, Imad previously defended a case submitted to Supreme Court by the Attorney General that claimed causing a public disturbance in the name of political protest is against the constitution.

The case, submitted in September, requests the Supreme Court to rule that such protests are against some articles of the constitution. This includes disturbing the public, using foul language and “protesting in a manner that instills fear into the hearts of children and the elderly”.

Speaking back in November regarding the case, Imad said: “A protest should be about changing something. A protest conducted in residential areas has nothing to do with parliament. Public protest and public nuisance are two very different things.”

The President’s Office Spokesman further stated that the government “fully” supports the right to protest, but added that it should not be conducted in a way that negatively affects the lives of others.

Minivan News attempted to contact MPs and spokespersons from Progressive Party of Maldives, Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party, Dhivehi Qaumee Party, Jumhoree Party, People’s Alliance and Maldivian Development Alliance to speak on the matter, however none were responding to calls at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Recent bills “restrict fundamental rights,” NGOs warn

A number of bills passed by parliament in 2012 could “weaken the democratic, good governance system” and “restrict some fundamental rights,” local NGOs Transparency Maldives (TM) and Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN) have warned.

In a joint statement issued today, the civil society organisations expressed concern at the potential narrowing of constitutional rights to freedom of assembly and expression as well the formation of political parties.

The statement also expressed concern with the “loss of transparency” due to the decision to conduct no-confidence motions through secret ballot.

With legislative and oversight powers over the executive and independent institutions, the NGOs noted that the People’s Majlis had “the most prominent role” in establishing democratic, good governance and protecting human rights.

The NGOs also called on the relevant authorities to ensure that MPs could fulfil their legal responsibilities “free from harassment and fear in a secure environment”

It added that the NGOs did not believe calls for dissolving parliament “could strengthen the People’s Majlis.”

On the amendment approved to the parliamentary rules of procedure to conduct no-confidence motions through a secret vote, the NGOs said it believed that decision could lead to “loss of transparency in the Majlis, pave the way for corruption and impede holding the people’s representatives accountable.”

Fear of physical harm or other forms of retribution based on such votes was not a justification for the decision, the NGOs said, contending that secret votes was “not the solution” to the purported threats.

The political parties bill meanwhile restricted the constitutional right to form political parties by requiring 10,000 members for registration, the statement continued.

“What is needed to strengthen the functioning of the party system is to increase participation of party members, party’s taking initiative to inform members of financial matters, auditing, ensuring implementation and taking measures against violations,” the statement read.

The NGOs suggested that the number of votes a party receives in general elections, number of parliamentary seats and strength of internal mechanisms could be used as a measure to provide state funding in lieu of the number of registered members.

The organisations further contended that the bill on peaceful assembly posed “serious challenges to the whole democratic system.”

The bill could restrict the constitutional right to freedom of assembly (article 32), freedom of expression (article 27) and press freedom (article 28), it added.

As article four of the constitution states that “all the powers of the state of the Maldives are derived from, and remains with, the citizens,” both NGOs warned that narrowing the fundamental rights guaranteed by the second chapter of the constitution would “facilitate taking away from the public the powers that remain with them.”

The legislation on freedom of assembly was passed on December 25 with 44 votes in favour and 30 against.

MPs of the formerly ruling Maldivian Democratic Party voted against the bill, which would outlaw demonstrations outside designated areas and require accreditation for media to cover protests.

Parliamentary privileges

Transparency Maldives and Maldivian Democracy Network also expressed concern with the controversial parliamentary privileges bill passed last month.

The bill was submitted in late 2010 and became the subject of controversy and public outrage. In January 2011, a group of “concerned citizens” demonstrated and petitioned then-President Mohamed Nasheed urging him to veto the legislation.

The bill was passed on December 27, 2012 with Speaker Abdulla Shahid casting the tie-breaking vote.

The vote was tied 31-31 with three abstentions. Most MPs of the opposition MDP voted against it and later raised concerns with some of the clauses.

In its statement, the NGOs insisted that the parliamentary privileges bill should have been “based on the concept of privileges stated in article 90 of the constitution” to uphold the “integrity of the institution” and ensure that MPs could fulfil their duties “free of undue influence”.

Article 90(a) states, “No member or other person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court, and no person shall be subject to any inquiry, arrest, detention or prosecution, with respect to anything said in, produced before, or submitted to the People’s Majlis or any of its committees, or with respect to any vote given if the same is not contrary to any tenet of Islam.”

Moreover, article 90(b) states, “No person or newspaper or journal shall be liable in respect of any report or proceedings made or published under the authority of the People’s Majlis, or in respect of any fair and accurate report of the proceedings of the People’s Majlis or any of its committees, where this is done in accordance with principles specified by the People’s Majlis.”

The NGOs contended that the parliamentary privileges bill violated the spirit of article 90 of the constitution and contained “inappropriate financial and other benefits” for MPs.

The NGOs concluded their statement by calling on parliament to review the bills passed during the third session of 2012.

The statement urged MPs to consider the constitution and human rights as well as “international general principles and measures” in its review of the approved legislation.

Beyond privileges

In a video message posted on his personal blog yesterday (January 1), Independent MP for Kulhudhufushi South Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed explained that the “main reason” he voted against the privileges bill was because it “contained a number of clauses outside the meaning of privileges.”

Parliamentary privileges should be construed as eliminating obstacles to fulfilling MPs’ legal responsibility, Nasheed said.

Former Information and Legal Reform Minister Nasheed objected to clauses in the bill specifying financial benefits for MPs as well as jail terms for persons found guilty of violating  MPs’ privileges.

“In my view, when we are implementing these things for the first time, we could settle for fines instead of big criminal punishments,” he said.

Nasheed also disagreed with a clause that allows convicted MPs serving a jail term or sentence of less than 12 months to participate in parliamentary proceedings. MPs convicted to longer than a year would lose their seats.

The bill also stipulates that MPs who serve one five-year term would receive 30 percent of their pay as a retirement pension upon reaching 55 years of age and 45 percent as a pension if they serve two five-year terms.

Nasheed noted that seven percent of an MP’s salary was contributed to the pension fund under the existing pension law, which the bill did not address.

Moreover, Nasheed contended that the bill conflicted with a number of provisions in the parliamentary rules of procedure or standing orders.

Among other issues he raised, Nasheed noted that punishments for offences specified in the bill contravened punishments in existing laws and that the parliamentary secretary-general was to receive “the security offered to the Speaker of Parliament, a state car and a diplomatic passport.”

Nasheed also observed that the legislation did not settle the question of whether MPs could refer to ongoing court cases during parliamentary debates.

While the bill states that official secrets must not be disclosed, Nasheed said it did not specify a penalty for the offence.

Nasheed also expressed concern with the absence of ethical guidelines or rules for MPs in exercising powers to demand and receive any information – “for example, a person’s bank account, information regarding his health, information on loans he has taken.”

According to the privileges legislation, persons who refuse to comply with such demands for information, documents or records would face penalties or punishments specified in the bill.

As both the executive and judiciary would have special privileges as well, Nasheed suggested that such a bill should “balance the scale” between the three powers of state.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Maldivian NGOs call for “immediate changes” to inquiry commission

Four NGOs working under the banner ‘Thinvana Adu’ (Third Voice) have urged President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan to “bring immediate changes to the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) so that it gains public trust and confidence and is able to achieve its objectives.”

Transparency Maldives, Maldivian Democracy Network, Democracy House, and the Maldives NGO Federation, itself representing 59 organisations, joined forces to declare that they are “deeply concerned by the recent political polarisations in the society.”

The CNI came under fire last week from the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) which released a statement giving the government four weeks to reform the body established to investigate the February 7 change of power lest CMAG consider “further and stronger measures”.

“The group was of the view that the Commission of National Inquiry, established to assess the events leading to the transfer of power on 7 February 2012, is not independent or impartial, and has failed to gain sufficient support in Maldives,” read the CMAG statement.

“What we see in the Maldives today is confrontation instead of political dialogue. Because of this political turmoil is increasing in the country,” said Aiman Rasheed, representing Transparency Maldives.

“Thinava Adu believes the citizens must know what happened. Citizens must know the truth. Maldives will find it difficult to take steps forward unless we know the answers. If the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) remains the same as it is today, we believe the inquiry cannot proceed in a way that citizens can trust or accept,” he continued.

Thinvada Adu said that they had previously written to the President on February 29 regarding the CNI as well as meeting with him on March 7. In both instances, the concerns of the group were expressed to the President. These concerns were said to have been “well received” without anything being “translated into action.”

In a press conference this morning, Ahmed Nizam of the Maldivian NGO Federation said, “Political opinion has become divided into two main thoughts since the change of power on February 7 and consequent events. Hence, we believe a third voice is very important in coming to a resolution.”

Reaction to CMAG criticism

Ahmed Thasmeen Ali, leader of the coalition government’s Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), responded to the CMAG report by saying that the group had based their report on incomplete information.

President’s Office spokesman Abbas Adil Riza last week said that the government did not understand CMAG’s criticisms and was requesting clarification over the required changes.

In response, the NGOs amended their CNI recommendations to include the following:

  • Members of the CNI must be persons of integrity and should be nominated from groups such as the Human Rights Commissions (MHRC), the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), the Police Integrity Commission (PIC), the Election Commission (EC), under the guidance of the Prosecutor General’s Office.
  • The mandate and scope of the CNI must be decided by agreement across the political divide.
  • The CNI must pool technical assistance for the international community to both expedite and give credence to the process.
  • There must be opportunity for observation of the process by international actors.
  • The CNI’s finding must be shared with the Parliament and independent state institutions as well as to the public.
  • The state and its institutions must cooperate and make sufficient resources available to the CNI.

All-Party talks

Thinvana Adu also focused on the importance of continued dialogue between political parties “without preconditions”. It was argued that, in order to resolve the current crisis, all parties must be permitted to join the discussions which must be attended by key decision makers.

The India-brokered all party talks have failed to build up momentum due to squabbles over the group’s composition and agenda. The MDP boycotted the first meeting on February 20, complaining that some of the parties represented had no democratic mandate, referring to representatives of former President Gayoom’s Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) who at the time of the first meeting had no official representation in the Majlis.

Any MP having switched allegiance to the PPM after its formation in October 2011 was technically classed as an ‘independent’ according to parliamentary regulations. The PPM has since won its first official seat in the Majlis with Ahmed Shareef, formerly Secretary General of the Elections Commission, winning the Thimarafushi by-election on April 14.

The MDP was present at the second round of talks, at which a tentative agenda was defined without specific prioritisation, before the PPM and Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) walked away from the meetings following the MDPs refusal to allow the Majlis’s opening session to commence on March 1.

After the eventual opening of the Majlis on March 19, the talks did resume but the latest round, again, made no progress, this time the MDP calling for the inclusion of all registered parties. Today’s Thinvada Adu statement appears to be taking a similar line.

The group of NGOs also criticised the availability of the talk’s convener Ahmed Mujthaba whose absence from the country has delayed the talks on more than one occasion. Explaining his absence after the last session, Mujthaba told local paper Haveeru, “I did not plan my life with the knowledge of the events of February 7”.

Mujthaba had not responded at time of press.

The group also stated that decisions on early elections should be decided through “participatory, transparent, political processes, via discussions amongst political parties.” Aiman Rasheed of Transparency Maldives added that this entailed any decision between parties that did not contravene the existing legal or constitutional framework.

Regarding the long term recommendations of the group, it urged legislation to enable independent commissions of inquiry to function effectively. It urged state institutions to show greater leadership and commitment to responding to the current crisis.

The group also repeated calls for the support of the international actors in the “process of democratic consolidation”.

“It is a concern that in the absence of such guidance it will be a challenge to the national institutions to nurture the infant democracy of the Maldives,” the group said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Election atmosphere “so far peaceful”, say police

The Maldives Police Service has said that it has so far received no reports of major violence during the country’s first local council elections taking place today, despite fears about potential clashes between rival supporters from authorities and several NGOs.

Police Sub-Inspector Ahmed Shiyam said that despite “little misunderstandings” at some island-based polling stations, there had been no major clashes reported during the last few days.

“There have not been much [elections] violence so far today, yesterday or the day before that,” he said. “We are trying to work with the Elections Commission (EC) in regards to any problems, though there hasn’t been much confrontation.”

The claims were made as one local NGO, the Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN), reported that it has received “a concerning number” of reports of election-related violence in the three weeks running up to today’s local council elections, as it aims to compile a report on the role violence has played during campaigning.

During polling time itself, Shiyam said that certain “misunderstandings” had been reported to have occurred at some ballot boxes, where confusion had arose over whether one constituent was able to correctly see how he would be casting his vote.

“As someone was casing their vote, allegations were made that the constituent in question was blind, while others denied there was a problem,” he said.

As part of a UN Development Programme (UNDP) funded initiative aimed to try and systematically record instances of violence relating around the elections – both before and during polling –the MDN has said that it hopes to put forward measures to mitigate major violence and disturbances in future elections.

MDN Executive Director Ahmed Irfan told Minivan News that it would not be revealing specific instances of violence recorded by the report concerning the involvement of specific parties or individuals until after the local council elections had taken place.

Irfan claimed that the report would use accounts from both witnesses and the authorities to try and produce an in-depth account of violence surrounding the council elections.

“We’re doing a number of things such as sending people around the islands to get second hand accounts of the violence, while also consulting with police and the Elections Commission,” he said.

Irfan added that he believed that political groups had so far been “entirely open” in discussing the role of violence during the current campaign.

“We feel the [report] process has been entirely open and have already met with some parties for feedback,” he said.

Irfan claimed that the group will be going back to parties to see if there are any additional cases of election-time violence once voting has concluded.

“It is MDN’s most fervent hope that the elections on February 5, 2011 will be held in a peaceful, free and fair manner in which everyone can exercise their constitutional right to vote, free from fear and intimidation,” the MDN stated. “This can only be achieved with the sincere support and cooperation of all those involved.”

Reiterating similar concerns about election violence, the police last week called on the country’s politicians to curb rhetoric that could stir up violence, after allegations that a group with allegiances to the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has attacked Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MPs on the island of Kaandehdhoo in Gaafu Dhaalu Atoll.

The MDP denied that any of its members were involved in the confrontations.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Maldivian Democracy Network hits out at parliament’s privilege amendments

The Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN) has hit out at proposed amendments to the privileges afforded to MPs, the judiciary and independent organisations, calling them irresponsible at a time of supposed national cost cutting, as well as potentially setting back social security development in the country.

In a joint statement issued with the Democracy House group, the MDN said that parliament, under Article 102 of the Constitution, needed to act responsibly in setting out state salary structures and its own allowances;  a requirment the NGO claimed had not been the case in passing certain amendments in the 2011 annual budget.

“We note that the bill on parliamentary privileges has been passed in a manner that will further increase state expenses,” stated the MDN. “The bill also grants members of the People’s Majlis certain privileges in criminal matters. We note that these privileges are of a nature that are not granted to parliamentarians in other open democratic societies, and are not even granted to the President under the Maldivian legal system.”

The NGO also dismissed claims that individual MPs required additional benefits and financial remuneration to provide “welfare services” to constituents, claiming such patronage compromises democratic principles.

Speaking to Minivan News last week, both acting Finance Minister Mahmood Razee and parliamentary Deputy Speaker Ahmed Nazim said that the proposed hikes in parliamentary wages were still required to obtain approval from parliamentary committees and the president before being passed.

Nazim claimed that although MPs “have not taken pay increases”, parliament had considered amendments to the wage structure as part of attempts to test methods for improved “productivity” among the Majlis.

Regional salaries

However, in figures compiled from sources including the Asian Development Bank, the CIA Fact File, the Economist magazine and official government statistics, the Maldives was found to offer a significantly higher salary for its MPs than some of its South Asian neighbours such as India and Sri Lanka combined, at least on 2009 levels of income.

Combining both base earnings and allotted allowances, the monthly salary of a Maldivian MP was said to be equivalent to US$ 7,083; well above Sri Lanka and Indian levels, which during 2009 were found to be around US$877 and US$5,966 respectively. Based on 2009 levels, both Sri Lanka and India had much higher national rates of goods and services produced – recorded as Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of US$96.47 billion and US$3.6 trillion respectively. By comparison, the GDP of the Maldives over the same period was US$1.683bn.

In terms of MPs monthly salaries, the Maldives remained behind nations such as Singapore (US9,264), the UK (US$8,552) and Australia (US$9,687), however, the GDP of each of these nations was found to be significantly higher.

While the MDN said that it accepted some difference in the salaries and benefits afforded to state officials, was “necessary and inevitable”, the NGO claimed that economic burdens needed to be shared equally.

“It is unacceptable that this gap be widened by increasing the salaries and benefits given to high ranking state officials at a time when the average citizen faces financial difficulties,” the MDN stated.

The NGO also expressed concerns regarding the administration of social security within the country, which it said needed to be provided through fair, equitable and ultimately transparent systems rather than the private incomes of individual MPs.

Welfare systems

Speaking to Minivan News, MDN Executive Director Ahmed Irfan claimed there was strong concern that members of the Majlis were undermining democratic principles by creating dependency among constituents for financial assistance from local MPs.

“Unfortunately, it does seem that the practice of MPs providing financial and other such support to constituents is a common and accepted practice in the Maldives,” said Irfan. “Rectifying this will require both a more robust welfare system and a change in culture and attitudes among all stakeholders.”

While praising the work of the Majlis in passing a number of “important bills” during recent sessions, Irfan said the MDN did not support proposals to extend benefits and privileges for state employees within the 2011 annual budget.

“The MDN hopes that the increase in expenditure on senior state officials will not be implemented,” he said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Call for JSC to explain itself is a JUST cause

The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) is mandated by Article 285 of the Constitution to determine whether or not the Judges in office at the commencement of the Constitution, possess the qualification of judges specified in Article 149.

The Constitutional deadline for this to take place, August 7, 2010, is now nearly upon us.

Article 285 no doubt provides the country with a unique opportunity to further strengthen the Maldivian Constitution and Democracy by ensuring that the Judiciary and ensure that it is an institution which enjoys the trust and confidence of the Maldivian people.

The successful consolidation of democracy and the protection of Human Rights granted in the second chapter of the Constitution depend on the country not letting this opportunity pass it by.

The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) on May 11 released a statement specifying the criteria for evaluating the eligibility of judges under Article 149 of the Constitution. The criteria have caused much consternation and concern among various sectors of society. While some have questioned the appropriateness of the educational standard set in the criteria by the Commission, others, including this organisation, have been particularly worried about the Commission’s interpretation of the term ‘high moral character’ stipulated in Article 149 of the Constitution as a necessary attribute for Judges.

According to a press release by the JSC on the 27th 26th of May 2010, the only criterion for evaluating whether a Judge meets the ‘high moral character’ stipulation is whether the Judge has been convicted in a Court of Law of an offence for which a hadd is prescribed in Islam, criminal breach of trust, or bribery.

If the a Judge has any other criminal convictions in a Court of Law for an offence not specified in Article 149(b)3, then s/he will be reviewed by the JSC before a decision on his/her eligibility is made.

This decision by the JSC raises some interesting questions to which this organisation feels the JSC should provide the Maldivian people with answers.

1) What does ‘being convicted’ mean?

Under the previous Constitution not all criminal cases would necessarily be taken to a court of law. It would have been possible for a case to be investigated, decided and punished and decided by other authorities such as the Justice Ministry, Anti-Corruption Board and the President’s Office.

Does this then mean that Judges with such convictions who have had their cases decided in such a manner (if there are any) would still satisfy the ‘high moral character’ stipulation? The Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN) wrote to the JSC in the public interest on three occasions requesting information on the criminal records of Judges under the Right to Information enshrined in Article 29 of the Constitution.

MDN is yet to receive a response to this request from the JSC. In the absence of such information, it is all the more imperative that the criteria used by the JSC ensure the trust of the public in the Judiciary.

2) What of those judges who have had criminal cases filed against them in courts by the Attorney General (under the previous Constitution) and the Prosecutor General (under the current Constitution) but were not convicted in court?

Is it unreasonable for the people to demand that such allegations warrant not disqualification but at least a review of the case by the JSC to ensure that the Judge in question meets the ‘high moral character stipulation’?

3) What of those Judges who have cases pending against them at the JSC itself?

Is it not appropriate that the JSC review and decide these cases before deciding whether the Judge in question meets the ‘high moral character’ requirement?

MDN has brought together a coalition of 12 concerned NGOs (Madulu, Maldives Aid, Maldives NGO Federation, Huvadhoo Aid, Maldives Youth Action Network, Strength of Society, Rights for All, Huvadhoo Association for National Development, Society for Women Against Drugs, Journey, Nadella Island Development Society) who have launched the Just (Insaaf) Campaign, calling on the JSC to address concerns regarding the criteria. The petition drive launched by the Campaign is now underway in Male’ and some Atolls.

The Just Campaign urges all concerned citizens to read the petition (available at www.mvdemocracynetwork.org) and if you agree with it, send in signed copies to MDN (fax: 330 2598, email: [email protected]).

The Campaign also has tables at the main entrance to the Carnival in Male’ and on Boduthakurufaanu Magu behind Dharubaaruge. The tables will be in place until Thursday June 10 from 1630 to 2230hrs.

The JSC has been mandated with one of the most crucial tasks to be performed during the transitional period. The Maldivian people now look to the Commission to ensure a Judiciary in which they can trust and a Judiciary which can protect the tenets of Islam, the principles of democracy and the basic rights of the Maldivian people.

No democracy can function effectively if there is a deficit of trust between the people and any of the three pillars of democracy, of which the Judiciary is one.

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)