Tag: Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)

Nasheed’s legal team files High Court case to defer trial until after elections

Former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team filed a case with the High Court today (March 24) regarding the deferment of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court criminal case until after the September presidential election.

Nasheed is facing criminal charges over the controversial detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed during the last days of his presidency.

Nasheed’s legal team previously requested the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court delay the trial until the end of the scheduled presidential elections in 2013, and in a separate request, asked the Hulhumale’ court for a delay in proceedings by four weeks, during the March 7 Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court hearing.

At the same hearing, state prosecutors said they did not object to delaying the trial until presidential elections scheduled for September this year are over.

The Hulhumale’ court dismissed the request to delay the trial until the end of the elections, but agreed to withhold it for four weeks, stating that the panel of judges by majority “had decided to proceed with the trial”.

Nasheed’s lawyers subsequently contested the decision, claiming that continuing the trial could compromise the rights of many people, arguing that Nasheed was the presidential candidate of the largest political party in the country, the MDP.

However, the court stated that Nasheed’s claim he was the presidential candidate of a political party lacked legal grounds to support it, as presidential candidates were decided by the Elections Commission after it opened the opportunity to file presidential candidates.

Filing of presidential candidates is expected to take place in July.

High Court case submission

Nasheed’s legal team submitted a case to the High Court at approximately 10:20 this morning (March 24) to defer the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court criminal case until after the September presidential election, MDP Spokesperson Imthiyaz ‘Inthi’ Fahmy told Minivan News.

“Now the court has to formally accept the case, which will happen at a later date,” stated Fahmy.

“We expect that prior to the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court hearing, the High Court should have a decision and will ask the lower court to halt the case,” he added.

Nasheed’s legal team confirmed with Minivan News that the case has been submitted to the High Court.

“This is not an appeal. We submitted a case to the High Court for the deferment of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court case until the election is over,” said one of Nasheed’s lawyers, Hifaan Hussain.

“The court accepted the documents, but we are waiting for the court to accept and register the case,” she explained.

Hussain explained a reply from the High Court will likely be issued within three days and once the case is accepted it should take about a month to complete.

She expects the High Court to grant the deferment of lower court’s case against Nasheed until the presidential election is over.

President Nasheed’s Spokesperson MP Mariya Didi is also confident the High Court will grant the deferment.

“The prosecution has said they have no objection to deferment of the trial until after the elections,” Didi stated.

“I don’t see any reason why the court should not grant deferment when the prosecutor has no objection to it,” she added.

Politicising  justice

The MDP maintain that the charges are a politically-motivated attempt to prevent Nasheed from contesting elections in September, and have condemned the former President’s repeated arrest on the court’s order by squads of masked special operations police.

Speaking during a party rally held earlier in March, President Nasheed stated that the four-week break granted by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court until the next hearing was an opportunity for state institutions to decide on the matter.

“Delaying trial for just four weeks has no meaning. There is no reason for it nor does it help anyone. We want the trial to be delayed till the elections are over. [The prosecution] gave one month and said that they did not object to further delays,” Nasheed told his supporters.

Nasheed said that it was very clear that charge of arresting the judge was not a charge against him alone, but several others as well.

He also warned that if the magistrate court issued a verdict that would bar him from contesting the elections, a lot of people would rise up against the decision and trigger a “very dangerous political insurgency”.

Didi also highlighted the large number of Maldivians continuing to support Nasheed, speaking with Minivan News today.

“It is clear that 46,000 Maldivians have decided President Nasheed is their presidential candidate. Our campaigns show that President Nasheed will win the elections with a clear majority.

“The coup has set us back not only with regard to democracy and human rights, but in regard to investor confidence and development.

“Our international development partners have also urged the government to take account of the wishes of the people and to hold an inclusive election with – as the European Union put it – the chosen candidate of MDP Mohamed Nasheed being able to contest the elections.

“We cannot waste another five years with a government that lacks a democratic mandate,” Didi declared.

Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court legitimacy questioned

During the early-March MDP rally, Nasheed also criticised the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) stating that the problem with Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was not just the panel of judges. He alleged that the JSC had formulated the bench and have now been forcing administrative staff of the court to do specific things to impact the trial.

Parliament’s Independent Commissions Oversight Committee has been investigating the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, specifically the appointment of judges by the JSC.

Deputy Speaker of Parliament Ahmed Nazim told local media on Friday (March 22) that a notice had been sent to Gasim Ibrahim – who is a Majlis-appointed JSC member and also the presidential candidate for Jumhoree Party (JP) – regarding a case to remove him from his JSC post.

The parliamentary committee summoned all members of the JSC to attend the committee on Wednesday (March 20) to face questions regarding the manner in which judges were appointed to the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench.

Another committee meeting is scheduled to take place tonight (March 24).

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, also raised concerns over the politicisation of the JSC during her investigative visit to the Maldives this February.

As part of a wider review of the Maldives justice system, Knaul claimed that the JSC – mandated with the appointment, transfer and removal of judges – was unable to perform its constitutional duty adequately in its current form.

As well as recommendations to address what she said were minimal levels of public “trust” in the nation’s judicial system, Knaul also addressed matters such as the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed.

Nasheed is currently facing trial for his detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court last year, charges he claims are politically motivated to prevent him from contesting presidential elections later this year.

Knaul maintained that the former president, like every other Maldivian citizen, should be guaranteed a free and independent trial.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MP Colonel Nasheed defects to DRP, claiming MDP “undisciplined”

Opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP for Nolhivarum constituency Mohamed ‘Colonel’ Nasheed has opted to join the government-aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP).

The DRP was founded by former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and now led by his former vice presidential nominee, MP Ahmed Thasmeen Ali, after a split in 2011 that saw Gayoom and his supporters leave the party to form the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM).

During a small ceremony held at the DRP head office, Nasheed signed to the party in front of party leader Thasmeen.

The defection comes the day following his defeat in the MDP’s parliamentary group elections, in which he contested for the position of one of the two deputy leaders.

MP Nasheed placed last after receiving five votes out of the 30 members. However, he said during the ceremony that the defeat in the party election had nothing to do with his defection to DRP.

Speaking during the ceremony after joining the party, the MP said that even though former President Mohamed Nasheed had a vision to reform the country, his aides never had the same thinking.

He also claimed that he joined DRP because he wholeheartedly believed the DRP was consistent in upholding its policies, and had“civilised” policies to offer for the nation.

“MDP is a party that I love. To sell MDP’s ideology, I took it on my own shoulders and carried it to the international stage. I spent days in imprisonment to uphold that ideology. But the truth is that our former presidents can do little to help this country. We cannot remain tied with the past,” he said.

Nasheed argued that whenever there was a conflict of opinion among a group of members the matter should not be settled “in the wrestling ring”.

He also said that both the parliament and the courts deserved privileges and respect.

“All boys who get ‘A reports’ are in DRP”

“In my view, we should never disrepute the state organs. At the same time I do admit to the fact that both the country’s legislature and judiciary have their problems. I believe the DRP is the only disciplined party that can solve the problems in a civilised manner,” he said.

Nasheed also criticised the recent anti government protests led by the MDP, contending that freedom of assembly should be exercised within the law.

“I do not believe that it is freedom of assembly when protesters overturn a passing van,” he said. “I believe in the right to freedom of assembly. But it is not freedom of assembly when you shatter the windows of a car and injure two school boys in it.”

Nasheed, who spoke highly in favor of his new party, said that DRP was a formidable vehicle that only needs to be activated by a few young people.

The MP claimed the party “has the most able and competent individuals in the country”, which is reflected from the performance of DRP cabinet ministers.

“All those boys who get ‘A reports’ are in DRP and all those who gets ‘B reports’ are with the MDP. What we are seeing today is that the country is being run by boys who end up with ‘C reports’ while those who get ‘A reports’ and ‘B reports’ are kept sidelined. This is something that public should clearly think about,” MP Nasheed said.

MP Eva Abdulla and Ilyas Labeeb calling the shots in deciding party whip line: Colonel Nasheed

Nasheed also alleged that MP Eva Abdulla and MP Ilyas Labeeb were calling the shots in deciding the party whip line in parliamentary votes, and claimed that there was no discussion between the remaining members of the parliamentary group.

“[MDP’s] whip line comes depending on what Eva Abdulla and Ilyas Labeeb feel about the matter. That is not how I want to follow the party whip line. When you vote in parliament, the first priority is the nation. The nation is bigger that any of our individual interests,” Nasheed said, expressing his frustration.

“The DRP is a party that upholds principles. Those principles are followed by the members of the DRP parliamentary group. When we don’t vote on a matter, we have reasons and justifications to our actions,” he said.

Following the addition of a member to his party’s parliamentary group, an ecstatic Ahmed Thasmeen Ali said that Nasheed and he had common views and principles.

The DRP leader described MP Nasheed as a person of both conviction and principle.

“The way he acts in parliament will prove whether he is a person who sticks to principle,” Thasmeen said.

Meanwhile DRP Deputy Parliamentary Group Leader Abdulla Mausoom tweeted welcoming Nasheed’s decision to join the party.

“Happy Day! Welcome [MP Mohamed ‘Colonel’ Nasheed] to DRP, the responsible political party of Maldives,” he tweeted.

MDP response

Speaking to Minivan News about the defection, MDP Spokesperson MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor said that MP Nasheed and the rest of the parliamentary group members did not share common thinking.

Although he said he did not know the exact reason for the defection, Ghafoor suggested that the move could be for the reason that Nasheed wanted to assure his re-election to parliament.

“Maybe it was an attempt to secure his re-election. But we see that re-election possibilities are high within our own party. We also noticed that he was working very hard to get a position in the parliamentary group which did not bear much fruit,” he said.

MP Colonel Nasheed began his parliamentary career in 2007 following a by-election victory for the Male’ seat of the constitutional assembly that drafted the current constitution. He won the seat on an MDP ticket with a support base of 7,000 votes, but left the MDP to join the Social Liberal Party (SLP) following disputes.

Nasheed again rejoined the MDP ahead of the 2009 parliamentary elections and won the seat of Nolhivaram constituency on an MDP ticket.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Sacked Human Rights Minister files case in court to declare Waheed government illegitimate

A legal team led by sacked Human Rights Minister Fathimath Dhiyana Saeed has filed a case at the High Court, requesting it rule that former President Mohamed Nasheed’s resignation was obtained under duress and the transfer of power on February 7, 2012 was illegitimate.

Nasheed’s resignation followed 22 days of continuous protests backed by religious scholars, opposition leaders and mutinying police and military officers, in mid-January 2012, over the controversial detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed. Nasheed’s Vice-President Mohamed Waheed Hassan subsequently ascended to power.

Following resignation, Nasheed and his Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) claimed he was forced to resign under duress and that his government was toppled in a bloodless coup d’etat.

Dhiyana Saeed, formerly a member of President Mohamed Waheed’s cabinet and one of the earliest critics of Nasheed’s decision to detain Judge Abdulla, has released a personal memoir explaining her interpretation of Waheed’s ascension to power. The former SAARC Secretary General also alleged that Nasheed’s political rivals had conspired to assassinate him.

Speaking to Minivan News, Saeed confirmed that the High Court had accepted the initial paperwork. However, a final determination to formally accept the case will be made after review of the paperwork.

According to local media, lawyers joining Saeed in the petition include Ishraq Thaufeeg and Aiminath Nazlee, both whom currently represent Saeed’s newly founded law firm, Fanandheeb Chambers.

Speaking to local media outlet Channel News Maldives, Thaufeeg said following legal reviewing of the circumstances, the firm had noticed several legal inconsistencies and lapses that suggested the transfer of power took place illegally.

He also said that public still questions the legitimacy of President Mohamed Waheed Hassan’s government, and that therefore it was important that a court of law decides on the matter.

Saeed alleged in her memoir that the controversial transfer of presidential power on February 7 was the result of a premeditated and well-orchestrated plan, and questioned the findings of the Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CNI), which had declared that there was no coup and Nasheed had resigned voluntarily.

Parliament’s Executive Oversight Committee’s review of of the report revealed several concerns including omission of key evidence and witness statements.

Chair of Parliament’s Executive Oversight Committee, MP Ali Waheed, claimed the August 2012 report produced by the CNI was “flawed” based on the findings of the committee.

He added that many interviewed by the committee claimed the CNI report lacked “key information they had given [the CNI panel]” while “others claimed their infmrmation was wrongly presented”.

To support its claims, the parliamentary select committee released audio recordings of all the statements given by the witnesses. These included former police and military chiefs and officers, who claimed that Nasheed had no option but to resign.

Former Chief of Defence Force Moosa Ali Jaleel was heard telling the committee that he “fully believed that President Nasheed resigned under duress”.

He added that the circumstances leading up to the resignation of former President gave rise to the fact that resignation was obtained by “illegal coercion”.

Meanwhile former Police Chief Ahmed Faseeh told the committee that police officers who gathered in Republican Square on February 7 had disobeyed orders and their actions were grossly inconsistent with the Police Act, as well as professional standards established within the police.

Former Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) Intelligence Head Brigadier General Ahmed Nilam also testified to the committee that Nasheed was ousted in a coup, claiming that events on February 7 fulfilled all the essentials of a coup.

“Academically speaking, the events on February 7 fulfilled all the essentials of a coup. It involved all the features of a coup that are widely accepted around the world. Some of the elements take place before the toppling of a president. Others take place spontaneously,” he said.

Leaked statements given by key witnesses of the events to CNI, also suggested that the transfer of power took place illegitimately.

In the transcript of the statement given to CNI by MNDF Staff Sergeant Shafraz Naeem – the commander of the riot squad of the Bandara Koshi (BK) Battalion on the day – said that he also believed that Nasheed was ousted in a coup.

“In my view this was a coup. Why? I could see it from the way they handled everything, their attitude, how cool and calm all the officers were. I could tell from how cool General Shiyam was inside the MNDF. They did nothing. This is not how a uniformed officer should behave,” he told the CNI.

Meanwhile President Nasheed told the CNI that he was forced to resign, as he believed his life was at stake on February 7 if he did not.

“In essence, my statement is very small. I was forced to resign. I resigned under duress. I was threatened. If I did not resign within a stipulated period it would endanger mine and my family’s life. I understood they were going to harm a number of other citizens, party members. They were going to literally sack the town. I felt that I had no other option, other than to resign,” he said.

On September 2012, following the release of the report, a legal analysis of the CNI’s report by a team of high-profile Sri Lankan legal professionals – including the country’s former Attorney General concluded that the report was “selective”, “flawed”, and “exceeded its mandate”.

“The report offends the fundamental tenets of natural justice, transparency and good governance, including the right to see adverse material, which undermines the salutary tenets of the Rule of Law,” observed the report.

The Sri Lankan legal team also contended that “there is evidence to demonstrate that there was in fact adequate evidence to suggest that duress (or even ‘coercion’ and/ or illegal coercion as used by CNI) is attributable to the resignation of President Nasheed.”

The CNI report dismissed this theory.

“In summary, the commission concludes that there was no illegal coercion or intimidation nor any coup d’état. The commission has received no evidence supporting or to substantiate these allegations. This disposes the main mandate of the Commission,”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP demands Supreme Court bench be replaced, inclusion of educated foreign judges

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s National Council has passed a motion calling on its parliamentary group to seek to abolish the existing Supreme Court bench and replace it with a new panel of judges, including foreign judges.

The call was made following the Supreme Court’s controversial rulings on Thursday overturning decisions made by parliament.

The Supreme Court had overturned parliament’s removal of Civil Service Commission (CSC) Chair Mohamed Fahmy Hassan on sexual harassment charges, and a decision to conduct no-confidence votes through secret ballot.

During an emergency national council meeting held on Sunday evening, the proposal by MDP national council member Mohamed ‘Sanco’ Shareef received unanimous support from all attending members, including former President Mohamed Nasheed.

“The Supreme Court is acting in such a fashion that it has now begun overtaking the powers of the parliament and in the process undermining the constitution of this country. [Therefore] this motion calls on MDP’s parliamentary group to make formal requests to parliament to immediately abolish the current bench of Supreme Court and establish a new bench that consists of honest judges.

“Also as the Maldives Constitution does not bar the Supreme Court having foreign judges, [this motion also calls] to seek qualified and educated judges from abroad,” read the motion (Dhivehi).

During the debate on the motion, MDP’s Parliamentary Group and Parliament’s Majority Leader Ibrahim Mohamed Solih described the day of the verdicts as the darkest day of Maldives’ 80 year long parliamentary history.

Solih said the Supreme Court had significantly undermined the legislative power of the state by openly challenging parliament’s power to decide on its own affairs and the bills passed by the parliament.

The Hinnavaru Constituency MP assured the council that the party’s parliamentary group under his leadership would do everything at its hand to ensure the dissolution of the existing Supreme Court bench.

“Shocking verdicts”

Speaking during the debate, former President Mohamed Nasheed expressed his support for the motion claiming that it was time to change the Supreme Court bench, as it was delivering “shocking” verdicts.

Nasheed recalled several controversial decisions made by the Supreme Court, such as its decision that eight of former President Gayoom’s political appointees be paid MVR 500,000 (US$32,425) each in compensation after Nasheed replaced them.

The Supreme Court also ruled in favour of the legitimacy of Hulhumale Magistrate Court, created by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), after the JSC’s head – Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed – made the casting vote.

“It is more important that we have justice established in this country rather than myself being elected as the President. To reform the judiciary and bring the justice system of this country into the right course is something I must do,” he said.

“We will come out to the streets, we will protest. I will not take a single step back until the bench is replaced with better judges,” Nasheed vowed.

Nasheed claimed that Supreme Court had attempted to silence lawyers, by forcing them to sign a declaration which requires them to not to comment on court rulings if they want to keep their licenses to practice law.

The former President also alleged the Supreme Court was employing deceitful tactics by tempering its own verdicts before these were being made available to public.

“We know how they issue the verdict and we know how different it is on the paper to that which is made available to the public. The two versions of the verdict differ significantly. This is something I am very concerned about,” he said.

Nasheed – who has written books on the country’s history – said that Maldives had followed a “tradition” in which “the people come out to sort the problems within the court when judges go out of line in sentencing”.

Spokespersons for the government-aligned Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) and Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) were not responding to calls at time of press.

Controversial rulings

On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that Fahmy would receive two punishments for the same crime if he was convicted at court following his dismissal by parliament (double jeopardy). Following the judgment, Fahmy would be reinstated and compensated for lost wages since December 2012.

Delivering the judgment, Supreme Court Justice Abdulla Saeed said that a person should be considered innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law and was entitled to protect his reputation and dignity.

Fahmy was alleged to have to have said to a female CSC employee that “it is not appealing when unmarried girls like you get fat”, whilst touching her on the stomach.

In November last year, parliament voted 38 – 32 to remove the CSC chair after the Independent Institutions Committee investigated a complaint of sexual harassment lodged by a female employee of the CSC.

On Thursday in its ruling on the secret ballot, the majority of the judges contended that the move contravened article 85 of the constitution as well as parliamentary principles and norms of free and democratic societies.

Article 85 stipulates that meetings of the Parliament and its committees must be open to the public.

Dissenting opinion

Meanwhile, Justice Ahmed Muthasim Adnan – the only Supreme Court justice with a background in common law – issued dissenting opinions in both cases.

On the constitutionality of the secret ballot, Justice Adnan noted that article 101(f) of the constitution states that “the regulations governing the functioning of the People’s Majlis shall specify the principles and procedures concerning a resolution to remove the President or Vice President from office as provided in this Constitution.”

Unless a clause added to the regulation was explicitly in violation of the constitution, Justice Adnan said that he believed it “could not be challenged in any court in the Maldives.”

He further noted that while article 85 of the constitution requires parliamentary proceedings to be open to the public, 85(b) states that a majority of MPs present and voting could decide to exclude the public or press “if there is a compelling need to do so in the interest of public order or national security.”

Moreover, article 85(c) states, “Article (b) does not prevent the People’s Majlis from specifying additional reasons for excluding the public from all or any part of a committee meeting of the People’s Majlis.”

He added that the secret ballot would be taken at a sitting open to the public.

In the case submitted by Fahmy contesting his dismissal, Justice Adnan’s dissenting opinion noted that article 187(a) of the constitution authorised parliament to remove members of the CSC “on the ground of misconduct, incapacity or incompetence.”

Article 187(b) meanwhile states, “a finding to that effect by a committee of the People’s Majlis pursuant to article (a), and upon the approval of such finding by the People’s Majlis by a majority of those present and voting, calling for the member’s removal from office, such member shall be deemed removed from office.”

Justice Adnan argued that an inquiry by a parliamentary committee into alleged misconduct would not be a criminal investigation. Therefore, he added, the oversight committee would not be required to prove guilt to the extent required at trial before making a decision.

He further noted that parliament’s dismissal under the authority of article 187 and a possible conviction at a late date could not be considered meting out two punishments for the same offence.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Attorney general challenges Political Parties Act in Supreme Court

The attorney general has filed a case in the Supreme Court requesting a writ of mandamus against the Elections Commission to prevent dissolution of political parties that has failed to maintain the required 10,000 members as stipulated in the Political Parties Act.

The parliament’s overrule of presidential veto on the Political Parties Bill by a majority of 60 votes on Tuesday (March 5) means the bill will automatically came into force without needing ratification from the president.

Deputy Solicitor General Ahmed Usham was reported in local media as stating that enactment of the Political Parties Act meant political parties that do not have the required number of members would be dissolved without any transitional period.

The attorney general, he said, was of the view that dissolution of smaller political parties without a transitional period would compromise the rights of several parties.

The case

According to Usham, the state has requested the Supreme Court issue a writ that would prevent dissolution of the parties prior to a court decision, or until a transitional mechanism is set up.

“Referring to the legal principles employed in other democratic societies, dissolution of a political party that is formed in accordance with the law is only given on very exceptional occasions,” he told local newspaper Haveeru.

He contended that the consequence of ratifying the bill was that smaller political parties would be dissolved in an irresponsible manner without being given the opportunity to attain the required membership.

The attorney general requested the Supreme Court declare who should be held responsible for the debts incurred by a political party dissolved as per the Political Parties Act.

“We have filed the case in two ways. The first asking the Supreme Court to issue a writ declaring that smaller political parties will not be dissolved and the second to invalidate the clause which dictates dissolution of political parties that do not have a membership of 10,000. The bill failed to highlight who should be responsible to the debts incurred by the party and its employees,” an official from the AG’s office stated.

According to the official, the same arguments were reflected in the letter giving reasons for vetoing the bill, which was sent to parliament by President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik before it was forced into law.

“Our concern is that political parties are legal entities, they have made contracts with several parties. If they are dissolved without a transitional period this compromises a lot of rights,” he added.

Passage of the bill

The Political Parties bill was passed on December 2012 however, President Waheed – whose own Gaumee Iththihaadh Party (GIP) is among those set to be dissolved – refused to ratify the bill and sent it back to parliament for reconsideration in January.

However, with unanimous support from both parliament’s minority leader and majority leader, the bill was forced into law by overruling the presidential veto on Tuesday. Out of the 67 members present during the vote, 60 voted in favour of the passage of the bill while six voted against the bill and one MP abstained.

The law will provide a three month period for any political party with fewer than 10,000 members to reach the required amount or face being dissolved.

Article 11 of the law states that at least 10,000 signatures would be needed to register a party at the Elections Commission (EC), which would be mandated to ensure that membership does not fall below the figure.

Parties unable to sign 10,000 members would be dissolved.

Immediate dissolution of smaller political parties

However following the ratification, President of Elections Commission Fuad Thaufeeg stated that the commission’s interpretation of the act suggests that political parties that do not have a minimum of 10,000 members could be abolished immediately.

He stated that once the act is gazetted, the commission was of the view that smaller political parties would immediately be dissolved. However, he said that EC’s legal team was currently reviewing the act and would make a decision based on its report.

“Our legal team is currently reviewing the law before it actually is enacted. The bill having passed by such a strong majority means that the commission would make all the necessary arrangements to begin enforcing the law,” he said.

He added that the law gives the Elections Commission additional powers to regulate and discipline political parties and that the law also gives powers to the commission to take action against parties that violate the law.

Despite several parties facing being dissolved, Thaufeeg said that he hoped to see several parties registered under the new law.

Condemnation

Several leaders of smaller political parties including President Waheed have criticised the Act.

During a party rally held in GIP headquarters, President Mohamed Waheed criticised parliament claiming that the legislature was very “stubborn” towards amending the bill.

Meanwhile, his party spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza said on Thursday in a press conference that the political parties act directly violated the constitution and compromised several rights guaranteed by the constitution.

“Fundamental rights can only be abolished through a public referendum. We want parliament members to amend the act,” he said. “Our problem is not just 10,000. The Act is flawed and has several lapses.”

He added that GIP wish to intervene in the case filed in the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, Adhaalath Party leaders claimed the legislation was a direct attempt to dissolve the party and in the long run “eradicate” Islamic ideology from Maldivian politics and “defeat” the party’s efforts to oppose alleged attempts to secularise the country.

“This is a big political and legal challenge [they] placed before Adhaalath Party. The way the political sphere in the country is shaped today, it is very important for a political party like Adhaalath Party to exist,” said its leader Sheikh Imran Abdulla at the time.

DQP Leader Hassan Saeed echoed the Adhaalath Party in warning that he would seek to invalidate the bill through the Supreme Court if it was ratified. Latest statistics shows that the DQP’s membership currently stands less than 3,000 members.

“While it is a constitutional right for anybody to form political parties, I do also believe that a right could be limited through legislation. But such a limit should be placed in accordance to principles justified in other free and democratic societies. The current bill demanding a certain membership size in order for a political party to be registered is a big problem,” Saeed was quoted saying in local media.

Of the 16 parties currently in existence, only five parties now have more than 10,000 registered members, including the formerly ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) as well as the government-aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), Business tycoon MP Gasim Ibrahim’s Jumhoree Party (JP) and most recently, the religious conservative Adhaalath Party (AP).

According to EC, tourism magnate Ahmed ‘Sun Travel’ Shiyam’s Maldivian Development Alliance (MDA) have also attained the required number of members.

Political parties were first authorised in the Maldives in May 2005 following an executive decree by then-President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

The regulation required 3,000 members for registration and did not stipulate whether parties with membership numbers falling below the figure would be dissolved.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police and ACC probe MP Ali Waheed’s corruption case

The Maldives Police Service has said it is looking into a corruption case involving Deputy Parliamentary Group Leader of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Ali Waheed, in collaboration with the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC).

Speaking to Minivan News, Police Spokesperson Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef confirmed that police had received the case. He declined to provide any details regarding the case.

Local newspaper Haveeru reported that the case involved Ali Waheed’s mother purchasing land in Male’ during October 2011. Haveeru alleged the net total of the sale stood at MVR 7.938 million (US$514,000), and suggested Waheed’s involvement in the transaction. However, it reported that the extent of Waheed’s involvement remained “unclear”.

Ali Waheed’s mother Zuhuraa had at the time claimed the money for the sale came from her husband’s savings, but some local media outlets have reported that the sale was funded by the construction giant TAP Construction Private limited.

Speaking to Minivan News, President of the ACC Hassan Luthfee also confirmed that the institution was investigating a case concerning the Thoddoo MP.

“We have earlier received complaints regarding the MP taking bribes following his defection from Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) to the MDP. There were also claims that he had utilised the money he received as bribes to buy a house. We are investigating the matter,” Luthfee said.

The ACC President added that the ACC had occasionally requested technical assistance from police in investigating corruption cases and that this case was no different.

In May 2011, Ali Waheed switched sides from DRP to MDP claiming a lack of internal democracy within his former party. Following the defection, several then opposition parliamentarians alleged that Waheed had sold himself to the then ruling MDP and former President Nasheed. Waheed dismissed the allegations.

A few days later, the media reported Waheed’s bid to purchase land in Hulhumale’.

Following the coverage, Waheed alleged that local journalists had politicised a private real estate dealing, in which he had won a bid for a beach house in Hulhumale’ and paid an upfront sum of MVR 1 million.

Waheed won the  beachfront house for Rf4.6 million (US$300,000), bidding MVR 3020 (US$195) per square foot. His wife also reportedly won a house.

“The house will become my property only after I finish the rest of the payment within five years,” Waheed said in a press statement released at the time. “However, the story of this business transaction was spun in the media, with [outlets] writing ‘Ali Waheed and his wife have bought two houses in Hulhumale’ for Rf 9.4 million’ (US$600,000)’ in their headlines.’’

In a press statement on Wednesday, Ali Waheed alleged the case was a politically motivated attempt to intimidate him after Parliament’s Executive Oversight Committee (EOC) – on which Waheed sits as the chair – alleged flaws within the report by the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) concerning the February 2012 transfer of power.

The CNI report in August 2012 concluded that the transfer of power that took place was not a coup as alleged by the MDP, and insisted that the new government was legitimate. However, the parliamentary select committee has claimed the report was “flawed” and missed out key information.

“I have been receiving threats from the government who have said that I and my family will be arrested if I do not resign from the MDP and as the chairman of the EOC. The threats were repeated after parliament Speaker Abdulla Shahid’s brother was arrested,” read Waheed’s statement.

On February 7, the brother of Speaker Shahid, Mohamed Shahid, and former Controller of Immigration Abdulla Shahid and three others, were arrested in connection with an alleged fraud case concerning the Disaster Management Centre, worth MVR 24 million (US$1.57 million).

Following the arrest Speaker Shahid tweeted that the police officers who went to arrest his brother violated the sanctity of his house and entered his parent’s bedroom.

‘’I strongly condemn the violation of the sanctity of my residence and my parent’s bedroom by Maldives Police SO (Special Operations) today,’’ Shahid tweeted on Thursday.

Waheed further claimed that he had nothing to hide from the authorities and added that neither the ACC nor the police had asked him to come in for questioning, which he claimed “proved that there were no discrepancies”.

However, ACC President Luthfee said that Waheed would be called in for questioning when “the time comes”.

“The government cannot manipulate me. I have the remote that controls me, not them,” said Waheed, concluding his statement.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Government-aligned parties condemn India for hosting “cowardly” Nasheed

Political parties supporting the current government of President Mohamed Waheed Hassan have criticised both former President Mohamed Nasheed and the Indian High Commission after Nasheed sought refuge inside.

Former President Nasheed entered the Indian High Commission on Wednesday ahead of a scheduled court hearing, to which he was to be produced under police detention.

Government aligned parties including the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) and religious conservative Adhaalath Party (AP) have all claimed accused Nasheed of being “cowardly”.

Leader of the DRP and presidential candidate Ahmed Thasmeen Ali told local newspaper Haveeru he was “disappointed” over former President Nasheed’s decision.

He claimed that the decision by the high commission to provide refuge for Nasheed meant the embassy was meddling in the domestic affairs of the country, and said the issue was too complex for India to resolve.

“When a former President shows up in an embassy and claims he was there for protection, it is not an easy matter to solve. A quick solution should be sought through dialogue,” he said.

Thasmeen claimed that there was no need for Nasheed to seek refuge from the Indian High Commission.

He also contended that no political figure could force the Prosecutor General (PG) to withdraw the charges levied against the former President, and that it was solely at the discretion of the PG to decide the matter.

Nasheed is being tried for his controversial detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed during his last days in office.

“Appoint a better high commissioner”, Adhaalath party tells India

In a statement released on Saturday, the Adhaalath Party accused Nasheed of using the Indian diplomatic office as a shield to protect himself from being summoned to court.

“The Adhaalath Party believes that this cowardly act by Nasheed is a huge crime and an attempt to destroy the country’s legal system. Instead of working on proving his innocence, Nasheed is continuously harassing the legal system, defaming security services, showing disobedience and attempting to create chaos,” read the statement.

The party also condemned the Indian High Commission and the Indian government “for assisting a criminal fleeing from trial”.

“Making the Indian High Commission a political camp of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), and [letting Nasheed] hold discussions with MDP activists on the premises and encouraging them to create chaos and unrest among society lowers the respect of Maldivian people towards India,” read the statement.

The Adhaalath Party told the Indian government “to appoint a high commissioner who is professional and capable of mending the deteriorating bilateral relationship between the two countries”.

“The worsening of bilateral ties between the Maldives and India is not at all something which this party wants to happen,” it added.

The Adhaalath Party was a vocal opponent of India’s GMR Group, and its US$511 million concession agreement to develop Ibrahim Nasir International Airport. During on of the party’s rallies, several senior government figures mocked and insulted Indian High Commissioner D M Mulay calling him a “traitor to the Maldives”.

During a PPM press conference held on Thursday, party spokesperson MP Ahmed Mahloof claimed Nasheed was “coward” on the run knowing that his crime would invalidate his candidacy in the presidential election.

Mahloof said Nasheed did not have the patience to remain inside the high commission and that he would come out “very soon”.

“What is actually happening to Nasheed is that after resigning on February 7, 2012, he claims he will the MDP protests even if the police shoot him. But when the protests begin he is nowhere to be seen and is either at his home or on an island. Now we know Nasheed is a big coward,” he said.

He further said that Nasheed should be proving his innocence in court instead of hiding in the Indian High Commission.

Mahlouf said Nasheed’s decision to remain in the high commission until the elections would be costly to his party, as he would not have the opportunity to campaign as much as his rivals.

MDP response

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Spokesperson Imthiyaz Fahmy dismissed the remarks made by the government-aligned parties, claiming that their respective leaders were desperate to eliminate Nasheed from the upcoming presidential election.

“Why are they condemning Indian High Commission’s hosting of Nasheed when there are graver issues to be concerned about? Our judiciary is failing. The Commonwealth, the European Union (EU), UN and even the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) report highlights the flaws within Judiciary. Why are they silent on that?” Fahmy questioned.

He further reiterated that India was observing the situation in the Maldives and were wary of the situation with the judiciary.

Fahmy also condemned the Adhaalath Party’s derogatory remarks towards Indian High Commissioner D M Mulay.

In a statement, the MDP said the party’s comments were “unacceptable” and would “mindlessly”  impact the bilateral relationship between the two countries.

“President Nasheed has sought protection from the Indian High Commission after the Prosecutor General levied politically-motivated charges against him which lacked any legal grounds, and is concerned for his security,” the party said.

The party further contended that the Hulhumale Magistrate Court – which has been hearing the Nasheed trial – was illegitimate was therefore it unlikely that the former president would get a fair hearing.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament schedules first parliamentary session of 2013 for March 4

Parliament has announced that it will hold the first parliamentary session of the year on March 4.

The session will commence with the annual presidential address as per article 84 of the Constitution, where the President will highlight the state of the country, as well as measures taken to resolve the country’s difficulties.

Last year, the first Majlis opening session ended in turmoil, following rigorous protests by opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MPs.

A parliament spokesperson said parliament has made all the necessary preparations for the session.

Despite the chaos during the opening of last year’s session, the official said no additional security arrangements are being made.

MDP Deputy Parliamentary Group Leader MP Ali Waheed told local newspaper Haveeru that the parliamentary group had not decided on whether to allow or disallow President Waheed from giving his presidential address.

“We will hold a parliamentary group meeting on March. A decision on the matter will be made on that meeting,” he said.

Waheed was not responding to calls at time of press.

Last year in March, members of MDP parliamentary group sabotaged President Mohamed Waheed’s address, claiming his ascension to power was illegitimate.

The session had to be called off after MPs blocked Speaker of Parliament, Abdulla Shahid, from entering the parliament floor. MPs barricaded the doors and removed chairs intended for the Speaker and President Waheed.

In a press conference that followed, Speaker Shahid said he was unable enter the chamber despite several attempts, and on one occasion had fallen and injured himself.

Given the political tensions at the time, Shahid said he was unable to guarantee the safety of members and had decided to proceed through negotiation, rather than force.

Home Minister Mohamed Jameel Ahmed condemned the actions of MPs and described the event as a “dark day in constitutional and parliamentary history” of the Maldives, and acknowledged the patience and determination of the security forces in handling the situation.

“Security forces [police and MNDF] handled the situation with great patience and determination. Many officers sustained various degrees of injuries while controlling the protesters,” Jameel said at the time.

However on March 19, 2012 President Waheed gave a shortened speech after several unsuccessful attempts during a heated session. The MDP MPs continued their protests, heckling Waheed and labelling him a ‘traitor’ as he gave the speech.

Several MDP MPs were injured during minor scuffles that broke out in the Majlis chamber as protesters faced expulsion for continuing to block Waheed. MDP party members alleged that the MNDF was responsible, a claim refuted by military officials.

MDP Spokesperson Imthiyaz Fahmy told Minivan News at the time that the party did not take pride in obstructing parliament, but had felt forced to do so due to its dissatisfaction with the nature of Waheed’s accession to the presidency.

According to parliamentary regulations, the inaugural meeting of parliament’s first session each year should be held either on the first Monday or Thursday of March.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

PPM membership tally overtakes DRP

Former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) has overtaken the membership of the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), from which it split in 2011.

According to the latest political party membership statistics released on Tuesday by the Election Commission (EC), the PPM is now the second largest political party with 22,793 members, with 472 membership forms pending.

The DRP currently has a membership of 22,501 members.

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) of former President Mohamed Nasheed remains the largest political party by a substantial margin, with 46,321 members, with 1,234 membership applications are pending with the EC.

Business tycoon and presidential hopeful MP Gasim Ibrahim’s Jumhoree Party is the fourth largest political party in the country with 11,139 members.

Meanwhile, the religiously conservative Adhaalath Party’s membership stands at 5,877 members.

President Mohamed Waheed Hassan’s party Gaumee Ithihaadh Party (GIP)’s membership stands at just 3,217 members with 1,395 membership forms pending.

The Dhivehi Gaumee Party (DQP) membership has meanwhile fallen to 2099 members.

The recently established Maldives Development Alliance (MDA) led by tourism magnate Ahmed ‘Sun travel’ Shiyam has a membership of 3,441 with 161 new membership forms pending.

DRP concerns

Following the release of party membership statistics, the government-aligned DRP expressed alleging that the Elections Commission was being politically influenced by fellow government party, the PPM.

Speaking to local media after a meeting with the commission, DRP Spokesperson Ali Solih said it was “very clear” that the Elections Commission was working in favor of PPM while verifying membership forms.

Solih alleged the decision by the elections commission to cease the practice of fingerprinting for membership forms was to enable the PPM to rapidly increase its membership.  The decision was made by the Parliament’s Independent Institutions Oversight Committee last November.

“Even if a committee decides on it, the Elections Commission should not stop the practice immediately. They have to check the forms that were submitted with fingerprints. But what we saw was when people from a specific party come to the Elections Commission, they stopped checking for fingerprints. This is something done to please a certain political party,” he said.

He further alleged that the EC had updated the party membership statistics ahead of PPM’s presidential primary, and suggested that something was taking place behind the scenes. He also claimed the commission had been negligent in assessing the membership forms from his own party.

“When we submit 800 forms, they don’t update them. But we see membership of parties that have  not submitted any forms continuously updating. We have doubts over how the Elections Commission carries out the process,” he added.

Human error

Speaking to Minivan News, Vice President of Elections Commission Ahmed Fayaz dismissed the allegations of party bias.

“We can assure that that Elections Commission is not working in favor of a certain group of people or certain political party,” he said.

Regarding the decision to not include fingerprints in membership forms, Fayaz said it was made by the parliamentary select committee and was not based on the request of a specific political party.

“When we make a decision, there will always be people who are not content with it. I believe that is the case with the DRP. They are expressing their views and we respect that,” he said.

Fayaz acknowledged that the commission had received complaints from the DRP regarding discrepancies in its membership forms submitted, and said the matter was being addressed.

“I do not deny the fact that there could be mistakes. We are all human beings. We use our human senses to verify membership forms, so it is subject to human error. It is also important to note we are not processing a few hundred forms, but thousands of forms from different parties. So there could possibly be errors,” he said.

According to Fayaz, if the current Political Parties bill in parliament becomes law, it would solve a lot of issues that the commission is currently facing.  The bill was passed by parliament and sent for ratification, but was rejected by President Waheed claiming that it bill compromised the constitutional right of freedom of association, by requiring parties to have a minimum of 10,000 members.

The number of political parties in the country currently stands at 16. That is expected to increase in the days to come as yjr Elections Commission has granted permission for ex-servicemen and current Minister of State for Home Affairs Mohamed Fayaz to create a new political party, which the local media has identified as the ‘Maldives Industrial Alliance’.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)