Tag: Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)

Four additional cases sent to state prosecutors over Afrasheem murder

Police have forwarded cases of four additional individuals to the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) for their alleged involvement in the murder of MP Dr Afrasheem Ali last year – taking the total number of suspects facing charges over the attack to seven.

Police today confirmed that cases had been filed with the PGO on September 23 against Azleef Rauf, Shaahin Mohamed, Adam Salaah and Abdulla ‘Jaa’ Javid – son-in-law of opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Chair ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik.

Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Dr Afrasheem Ali was stabbed to death on the night of October 1, 2012, on the staircase of his home.

State prosecutors have previously accused Hussain Humam of going to the residence of Dr Afrasheem and murdering him with a machete and a bayonet knife.

Along with Humam, Ali Shan faces the same charges. A minor identified as ‘Nangi’ meanwhile stands accused of aiding and abetting the murder, after police claimed he had accompanied Humam and Shan to the residence of Dr Afrasheem before the attack.

Previous hearings

In August this year, two police officers testified at the Criminal Court against key suspect Hussein Humam, claiming they had discovered incriminating text messages on his phone during a random search on the night of the murder. The message was said by the police witnesses to discuss a failure to receive a payment the suspect he had been promised.

The police officer did not identify the recipient of the text message during the hearing, alleging that Humam – who they had stopped many times previously – was under the influence of an illegal substance and acting out of character.

Humam had initially denied charges against him in court.  He later confessed to the crime at a hearing held in May, according to a statement read out by prosecutors in the court/ State prosecutors read out the statement in court, which was said to have been given by Humam at one of the initial hearings.

The statement claimed that son-in-law of ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik, Abdulla ‘Jaa’ Javid, had offered to pay him MVR 4 million for the murder of MP Afrasheem. However at a subsequent hearing in June, Humam retracted his confession claiming that he had been coerced by police.

Humam’s father has also written to the Criminal Court and the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives accusing police of conducting psychological abuse against the suspect, and exerting coercion to make him confess to a crime he did not commit.

Political calls

To mark one year since the attack that killed the MP yesterday (October 1), the PPM called on the country’s courts to expedite trials of all those involved in the case in order to “enforce due justice” on the attackers, according to local media.

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) last month meanwhile condemned alleged insinuations by religious NGO Jamiyyathul Salaf preacher Sheikh Adam Shameem Ibrahim suggesting that the party was behind Dr Afrasheem’s murder.

Following the first round of voting in which the MDP took 45.45 percent of the popular vote and secured its place as front runner in a run-off vote that remains indefinitely suspended by the country’s Supreme Court, the party slammed what it alleged was an “incitement of hatred” by the NGO.

Police investigation

The Maldives Police Services (MPS) announced in October 2012 that the FBI were extending assistance in the investigation of the MPs murder.

Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz later stated during a press conference held in December 2012 that the murder of Afrasheem had been carried out with a political motive, and that the culprits were to be paid MVR 4 million (US$ 260,000).

Riyaz had at the time dismissed claims that the murder was linked to religious fundamentalists, stating “no evidence has been gathered which suggests this murder had a religious motive.”

Soon after the murder police arrested two MDP activists – Mariyam Naifa and Ali Hashim ‘Smith’ – in connection with the attack. Both suspects were later released without charge.

The MDP later accused the government of attempting to frame the party with “politically-motivated arrests” of its members. In November 2012, former President Mohamed Nasheed accused the government of negligence in its efforts to bring the perpetrators to justice.

Last appearance

On the night of his murder, Dr Afrasheem had made his last public appearance on a live talk show on state broadcaster Television Maldives (TVM) titled “Islamee Dhiriulhun” (Islamic Living).

In the program, Dr Afrasheem said he was deeply saddened and asked for forgiveness from citizens if he had created a misconception in their minds due to his inability to express himself in the right manner.

Minister of Islamic Affairs Sheikh Shaheem Ali Saeed was meanwhile quoted in local media as saying that the Islamic Ministry had not forced Dr Afrasheem to offer a public apology for anything in his last television appearance.

Dr Afrasheem’s moderate positions on subjects such as listening to music had drawn stringent criticism from more conservative religious elements, who dubbed him “Dr Ibilees” (“Dr Satan”).

In 2008, the scholar was kicked and chased outside a mosque after Friday prayers, while more recently in May 2012, the religious Adhaalath Party released a statement condemning Afrasheem for allegedly “mocking the Sunnah”.

In a three-page press release (Dhivehi) released on July 10, 2008, NGO Salaf listed Dr Afrasheem’s alleged transgressions and advised the moderate religious scholar to “fear Allah, stop talking any way you please of things you do not know of in the name of religion and [stop] twisting [Islamic] judgements to suit your personal wishes”.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

PPM lobbying to re-start Nasheed’s criminal trial

The Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) has said it is lobbying the courts to resume proceedings in the criminal case against opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) presidential candidate Mohamed Nasheed.

PPM candidate Abdulla Yameen’s election agent, Abdulla Ameen yesterday (September 30) told local media that it was imperative the judiciary speed up the court cases concerning Nasheed’s criminal prosecution.

Ameen called on the EC to delay the second round of elections until the courts concluded the trial of Nasheed, expressing fears that the public may otherwise begin to question the credibility of the elections.

Nasheed was charged by the prosecutor general for his involvement in the controversial detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed, during the final days of his presidency.

The case is currently suspended after Nasheed’s legal counsel challenged the legitimacy of the appointment of the judges-panel to Hulhumale Magistrates Court, where the trial is being heard.

During a PPM rally held on Monday evening PPM MP Ahmed Shareef claimed that, once the party finished its work, the MDP would be dissolved, would cease to exist as a political party, and that Nasheed’s name would not be in the ballot paper.

The PPM MP also claimed that the 95,224 votes which Nasheed had obtained in the first round were achieved “through fraud and deception”.

“The maximum vote that man will ever get is 50,000 -60,000. That is even if they work extremely hard. [Extremely hard work such as] deceiving the people, brain washing them and misleading the youth,” Shareef told the rally.

Meanwhile, PPM running mate Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed told the rally that the Maldives would not have any stability if there is a presidential election with Nasheed competing as a candidate.

Jameel claimed that Nasheed had treated the Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed in “such an inhumane and derogatory manner” when the only wrong he had committed was to “faithfully execute his responsibilities as a judge”.

The former home minister also said that the judges who had purposefully been delaying the former president’s trial should take responsibility for the current state of the country.

Jameel previously said that the MDP leader “will not be allowed to assume power”, even if he should emerge as the clear winner in the run-off election.

Election drama

The official results of the first round of Presidential Elections – held on September 7 – showed the MDP finishing the race in front with 45.45 percent of the popular vote, while former 30 year autocrat Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s PPM trailed behind with 25.35 percent of the popular vote.

The constitution dictates that if no candidate attains the required ’50 percent plus one vote’ for a first round election victory, the winner is decided by a run-off election held 21 days after the first poll.

However, resort tycoon Gasim Ibrahim’s Jumhoree Party (JP) – who narrowly missed a place in the run-off elections after finishing the poll in the third position with 24.07 percent – filed a Supreme Court case requesting the court annul the poll, alleging voting discrepancies and irregularities.

On September 23, the Supreme Court issued an injunction indefinitely delaying the second round of the presidential election until it had finished looking into alleged discrepancies from the first round.

In addition to challenging the validity of the presidential elections, the PPM last Sunday announced its intention to file Supreme Court cases against individual opposition MPs, including Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid, in a bid to challenge their legitimacy as members of parliament.

The announcement comes at a time when the PPM and its allies have lost the parliamentary majority to the opposition MDP after the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) –  with eight MPs in parliament – decided to back the MDP in the presidential polls.

Speaking to the press, PPM’s legal advisor Mohamed Waheed Ibrahim said, “There is a dispute on whether [MPs] have lost their seats in parliament due to speaking out against Maldives’ Supreme Court’s order and defaming the Supreme Court, and other court’s judges. I would like to inform you we will file this case at the Supreme Court.”

The MDP and its new ally the DRP now control 39 out of 77 seats in the parliament – a simple majority. The two parties last week passed a resolution ordering the EC to proceed with polls as planned, and called for the security forces to support the EC.

The resolution, however, was ignored in favour of the Supreme Court order.

However, following a second Supreme Court order – calling upon the security services up uphold the injunction – police surrounded the EC secretariat. The EC soon announced prompting the EC to announce that current conditions were not conducive to a free and fair election.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

No evidence to prove Corporal Atheef brutalized MDP Chairperson on February 8 says PIC

The Police Integrity Commission (PIC) has ruled that it had not come across substantial evidence supporting the claims of opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Chairperson ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik being attacked by Corporal Mohamed Atheef  on February 8, 2012.

Last year on February 8, the MDP backed by thousands of its supporters took to the street in protest following the controversial ousting of the party – led government of former President Mohamed Nasheed.

The protest was met by a vigorous and a brutal crackdown by police officers – who the Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) stated were “emotionally hyped and charged”.

The HRCM in its investigative report into the events concluded that the police crackdown on the MDP march, which left dozens of demonstrators injured, was “brutal” and “without prior warning.”

Manik who was at the forefront of the demonstration was seen singled out by the enraged police and in videos that later became public showed him being dragged by police unconscious and severely injured.

In another video, he along with ousted President Nasheed and MP Mariya Ahmed Didi were seen dragged out of a ceramic shop in Male’ by the police while Nasheed was heard in the video pleading the police to not to torture the people.

However, in a case report sent to Corporal Mohamed Atheef – whom Moosa alleged was one of the police officers who attacked him – the PIC stated that the commission was not able to obtain sufficient evidence required to prosecute Corporal Atheef.

The local media outlets reported that Coporal Atheef was seen in pictures and videos that had come out in public later.

Corporal Atheef however had denied the allegations.

“On that very day, I was trying to protect Moosa Manik and escort him safely out of the area. I have never tortured a Maldivian citizen even before and even now. I shall never torture anyone,” Corporal Atheef told Minivan News.

Despite PIC’s decision, the prosecutor general had pressed charges against another police officer Mohamed Waheed for allegedly hitting Manik in the head with a metal canister on the same day.

Another officer, Ibrahim Faisal is facing charges for assaulting MP Mariya Ahmed Didi.

The PIC had previously said that it had been looking into complaints of police misconduct especially during protests.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court continues hearing witnesses against Elections Commission

The Supreme Court continued obtaining statements from witnesses produced by the Jumhooree Party (JP) in its case against the Elections Commission (EC), seeking the annulment of the first round election over allegations of voting discrepancies and irregularities.

Shortly before the commencement of the hearings on Tuesday, the Supreme Court informed both the EC and the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) – who had also intervened in the case – that its lawyers had been ejected from the case, for acting in contempt of court.

Following the announcement, the court suspended the hearings for two hours to allow the parties to seek a replacement for the suspended lawyers. However, shortly before the two hour period elapsed, the MDP withdrew from the case citing severe discrepancies in the court.

Lawyer Hussain Siraj appeared on behalf of the Elections Commission, replacing former Attorney General Husnu Suood who promptly signed up as an MDP member.

During today’s court session, the Chief Justice announced that the hearing would continue to hear the witnesses produced by the JP in support of its allegations against the Elections Commission.

Three witnesses told the court that when they had gone to vote, EC officials present at the polling station had told them that votes had already been cast under their name but once they had complained, the officials allowed them to vote after manually entering their names into a physical voter list present at the station.

The other two witnesses claimed that they had knowledge of underage people voting in the poll. However, among the two witnesses who made the claim, one witness said that he had only heard about it, after rumours began circulating that such a thing happened.

During cross examination the EC’s lawyer Siraj asked if he had anything to substantiate his claims. The witness said he had neither personally checked whether the alleged underage voter had actually voted, or whether he was actually under the age of voting.

The second witness who testified said he had seen an underage person who had voted and told the court that he had personally gone to the person in question and said that the person had an indelible ink mark on his finger.

According to the witness, the underage voter was 17 years of age as per his National Identity Card (NIC) – one year less than the eligible age of voting which is 18 years.

After questioning the witnesses, the Supreme Court requested the Attorney General’s office submit their list of alleged underage voters.

The lawyer representing the Attorney General’s office told the court that it intended to submit the intelligence report from the police, as stated during the last hearing. However, the lawyer said that the Attorney General’s Office would not submit the report if the Supreme Court was going to share the report with other parties in the case.

Meanwhile, the JP lawyers submitted two more additional documents as evidence – one, an official document from the Maldives Police Service detailing the security services provided to the Elections Commission, and the second document a request made by Elections Complaints Bureau which had requested recount of a ballot box during the polling day. JP lawyers alleged that the EC had disregarded the request and had gone on to announce the results of the box.

In concluding today’s hearing, Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz announced that a hearing would be held tomorrow (Wednesday).

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Five MDP protestors arrested yesterday

Five individuals were arrested during yesterday’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) protests against the Supreme Court, reports local media.

Police arrested four people from the demonstration held near the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon and one individual was arrested last night during the MDP’s protest against the court’s injunction to indefinitely delay the presidential election’s runoff.

A police media official would not disclose to CNM whether the five arrested individuals remain in police custody.

The Maldives Police Service (MPS) told CNM that “major changes” regarding the “disclosure of information” have been enacted – on the advice of the Prosecutor General’s Office.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Attempted arson at MDP campaign meeting hall in Male’

Two petrol bombs were thrown toward the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s ‘Janbu Jagaha’ meeting hall in Male’ Saturday night (September 21), reports local media.

Two people on a motorcycle threw the bombs at the meeting hall around 11pm, but the flaming projectiles landed on the pavement, an eyewitness told CNM.

However an alternative local media report stated that articles of clothing were set on fire and hurled at the MDP meeting hall.

“Over the weekend some people apparently tried to torch the Male’ campaign coordination centre on Majeedhee Magu [Male’s main thoroughfare],” MDP MP & Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor told Minivan News today.

The Maldives Police Service (MPS) told local media they are investigating the attempt to set the meeting hall on fire.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MBC cancels presidential debate between run-off candidates

The Maldives Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) has announced that it has cancelled the scheduled presidential debate between the two candidates competing in the run-off election of the presidential election, which had originally been scheduled to take place next Monday night.

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s candidate Mohamed Nasheed will face Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) candidate Abdulla Yameen in the run-off vote on September 28.

Former President Nasheed won 45.45 percent of the popular vote or 95,224 votes while PPM Candidate Yameen came second with 53,099 votes.  The Jumhooree Party (JP) leader Gasim Ibrahim secured 50,422 votes to finish the race in third position while incumbent President Mohamed Waheed finished at the bottom with 10,750 votes – 5.13 percent of the popular vote.

In a press statement released on Sunday, the state broadcaster announced that the debate had to be called off after Nasheed’s office had informed them that it was very difficult for the former president to give time for the debate while campaigning.

The statement also said that the PPM had informed the MBC that Yameen was prepared to take part in the debate.

“Therefore, it is with great sadness to announce that the MBC and the Maldives National University will not be able to hold a presidential debate between two candidates who are contesting in the run-off elections,” read the statement.

According to the MBC, the debate had been fashioned to ask questions on areas such as the economy and health care, and the candidates would be given the opportunity to explain their policies on each subject.

MDP Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor told Minivan News that the MBC had informed the parties that there was to be a debate with just two days’s notice. Such a short period of time, Ghafoor said, was not adequate for the party prepare for such a serious debate.

“For a large democratic political party such as ours, we simply cannot go over there and speak anything. It requires preparation, committee meetings within the party. We don’t want to go there unprepared,” Ghafoor told Minivan News.

He added that even for the previous debates, two of the party’s permanent committees had jointly worked in preparation for the debate.

“This is what happens when [debate organisers] seriously lack the understanding of how things work in a democratic culture. They should be more organised than this,” he said.

The MBC successfully hosted two national debates – one, with all presidential candidates and the other with all the running mates.

During each debate, moderator Heena Waleed posed questions to the participants on areas concerning education, health and economy, development and social protection. The MBC claimed that the questions were based on a survey done by the Maldives National University (MNU) on citizens’ concerns.

The run-off is scheduled for September 28, though subject to an ongoing Supreme Court case filed by the JP against the Elections Commission requesting the court to annul the first round in which the party placed third.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP proposes changes to Supreme Court bench and no-confidence motion against Attorney General

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) decided during a contingency meeting of the party’s national council on Friday (September 20) to pursue a no-confidence motion against Attorney General (AG) Azima Shukoor and change the composition of the Supreme Court bench through legislation.

The meeting took place after three consecutive days of lengthy Supreme Court proceedings of a case filed by the Jumhooree Party (JP) against the Elections Commission (EC) seeking annulment of the first round of the September 7 presidential election. The Supreme Court hearings adjourned for the weekend on Thursday.

At its meeting yesterday, the MDP national council adopted a resolution to undertake all necessary efforts to ensure that the presidential election would be free, fair and transparent and “decided only by the vote of the people and not by the courts”.

The resolution submitted by MDP MP Ahmed Hamza was passed with unanimous consent of all 51 members of the national council in attendance.

‘Certainty of the margin’

During the debate on the resolution, the MDP presidential candidate former President Mohamed Nasheed said it was important for all political parties – including the JP – to have no doubts over the integrity of the electoral process.

Nasheed said that the JP’s main issue was the narrow margin of 1.28 percent – a difference of just 2,677 votes – between its candidate Gasim Ibrahim and the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) candidate Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom.

For the JP to accept the narrow margin, Nasheed said that the registry of voters had to be checked to verify the JP’s claim that ineligible voters were on the list.

Nasheed noted that the EC had published the registry in the government gazette for public scrutiny, after which the MDP had identified some 800 people in the list that were either deceased, underage or repeated more than once.

The question that has to be answered, said Nasheed, is whether more than 2,000 people who were not eligible to vote had cast their ballots.

The former president expressed confidence that electoral fraud had not occurred in the September 7 election even if there were problems with the voters registry.

Altering Supreme Court composition

“As experts are noting that some judges on the Supreme Court bench lack certain kinds of legal knowledge and experience, it is our view changes has to be made to the composition of the Supreme Court’s bench. That is, by amending the Judges Act,” Nasheed said.

Shortly before the MDP government was toppled on February 7, 2012, the party proposed a bill to amend the Judicature Act that would reduce the number of judges on both the benches of the Supreme Court and High Court.

MDP Spokesperson Imthiyaz Fahmy told Minivan News at the time that the amendments had been forwarded due to inefficiency of both the High Court and the Supreme Court in concluding cases.

In March 2013, the MDP national council, following a controversial Supreme Court ruling that overturned parliament’s decision to vote out Civil Service Commission (CSC) Chair Mohamed Fahmy Hassan on sexual harassment charges, 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.

Meanwhile, during Friday’s national council meeting, Nasheed also stressed the importance of speeding up the process of appointing a parliament representative to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). The seat reserved in the JSC for a member of parliament was declared vacant after JP Leader Gasim Ibrahim formally became a candidate of the presidential election.

No confidence motion against Attorney General

During the debate, MDP MP Ahmed Sameer announced that the MDP parliamentary group has prepared a no-confidence motion against Attorney General Azima Shukoor.

Sameer contended that the Attorney General neglected her duties and has advocated on behalf of a political party against the EC, a state institution.

A special sitting of parliament during its ongoing recess has been scheduled for Sunday upon request by 29 MDP MPs.

Deputy leader of PPM’s Parliamentary Group Moosa Zameer told local media outlet CNM today that the PPM would not support such a motion against Shukoor in parliament.

Zameer said that although the PPM had not taken an official stand on the matter, the party would not support removal of its former council member.

However, with the support of at least six out of ten MPs of the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) – which recently decided to back former President Nasheed in the run-off election – the MDP would have enough votes in parliament to pass the no-confidence motion.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Statements by election observers “have not much weight”, JP running mate Hassan Saeed tells Supreme Court

Former Attorney General Dr Hassan Saeed, running mate of resort tycoon and presidential candidate Gasim Ibrahim, has told the Supreme Court that positive assessments of the September 7 presidential poll by local and international election observers “do not carry much weight”.

Dr Saeed – who is now leading the Jumhooree Party (JP)’s legal bid to annul the election results in the Supreme Court – made the remarks during the second hearing of the party’s case against the Election Commission (EC) held on Wednesday.

Dr Saeed told the Supreme Court that statements made by both local and international observers that the election had proceeded smoothly and freely did not reflect the reality of the situation.

“Yes, I even agree that the voting process went very smoothly. But those foreign observers don’t know the depth of the issues. Their words do not carry much weight. Some of the elections which have been observed by the international observers, some people have died, but yet they have reported the election went smoothly,” Saeed told the court.

He also claimed the JP – which narrowly missed a place in the run-off with 24.07 percent of the vote – had sufficient evidence and witnesses who would testify in court that electoral discrepancies and irregularities had taken place.

Dr Saeed also declared that Attorney General (AG) Azima Shukoor’s acknowledgement of electoral discrepancies during the first round of presidential elections gives weight to the party’s allegations  of electoral fraud.

During the first hearing of the case, Attorney General Shukoor told the court the AG’s Office had also found discrepancies in the voter list, including underage people listed as eligible for voting, and the mixing up of voter information – including gender, address, and date of birth.

Addressing the seven-member Supreme Court bench, Saeed also alleged the EC was not following a High Court order issued Tuesday (September 17) to allow viewing of the original voter list at the commission. Saeed claimed that despite repeated requests – both verbal and written – the commission was yet to give any response.

The High Court ruled that it was a right of all presidential candidates and their affiliated political parties to view the original voter list and ordered the EC to allow this to take place at the commission in presence of its officials.

Instead, Saeed claimed, the EC lawyers had dismissed as baseless and unfounded JP’s evidence suggesting electoral fraud, without giving the party the chance to verify it evidences against the commission’s data. This action by the EC, the former Attorney General contested, disregarded the doctrine of ‘Clean Hand’.

The ‘Clean Hand’ doctrine is a rule of law that a person coming to court with a lawsuit or petition for a court order must be free from unfair conduct (have “clean hands” or not have done anything wrong) in regard to the subject matter of his/her claim.

During the hearing, Saeed also criticised the EC’s Ballot Progress Reporting System (BPRS) – a web based application that tallied the number of voters who had cast their vote or are in the queue to vote – contesting that it had several weaknesses and loopholes.

He claimed that the entire application was built without due consultation with the National Center for Information Technology (NCIT) – a government agency responsible for management of IT systems within government institutions. Instead, Saeed claimed the system had been built and designed by Indian IT specialists.

Saeed also noted that the EC members had previously acknowledged that the BPRS were having problems and yet, at the same time the EC had claimed that there was no possibility of double voting. This, Saeed contested, did not make any sense, and he alleged there was a difference between the number shown by the BPRS that had voted and the EC’s figures obtained through manual counting. He challenged why the commission had not shifted to the manual system when the electronic mechanism collapsed.

In response to the arguments raised by the EC lawyers during Tuesday’s hearing, Saeed said the country would not go into a constitutional void even if a new president failed to take the oath of the office on November 11 – the date on which the term of incumbent President Mohamed Waheed Hassan expires.

Reflecting on the delay in electing the new parliament in 2009, Saeed claimed that no one had challenged the legitimacy of the parliament even when it had been elected months after the date mentioned in the constitution.

“We need to ensure that the person who is elected by the popular vote of the people takes the oath as the president. Not someone who has found their way to it by deception and cheating. Right now, we are no longer sure whether it is the person who the people voted is taking the office,” Saeed told the court.

Saeed also requested the court issue an order to the police to investigate the party’s allegations of electoral fraud.

EC’s counter argument

EC Lawyer and former Attorney General Husnu Al Suood responded to Saeed’s arguments claiming the Attorney General’s acknowledgment of issues during the voting process did not substantiate the JP’s baseless allegations.

He repeated his arguments claiming that the JP has till to this day, failed to produce any substantial evidence to support their claims, let alone annul the elections.

Suood also claimed that the General Elections Act – the parent legislation on general election procedures and issues – did not envision the annulment of an entire election, but rather only allows the annulment of the results of ballot boxes in which discrepancies were proven in court.

He claimed that factors that could lead to annulment of the results of a ballot box were criminal offences such as bribery and illegal influencing of voting, and therefore any claim of electoral discrepancies must be proved by the standard of proof required for criminal offences: beyond reasonable doubt.

Suood also reiterated that the JP’s claim that its evidence was based on information obtained from the party’s own hotline and private investigations lacked any value as evidence, and that it was not sufficient to annul elections.

He also criticised the request made by the Attorney General Azima Shukoor to order the Elections Commission to suspend holding the run-off elections until the issues had been resolved, describing it as a request for an indefinite order that could put the entire state in a state of limbo.

Suood also claimed that if the Supreme Court went on to issue such an order as requested by the Attorney General, it would lead to the suspension of the entire constitution.

“We are not aligned towards the JP” – Attorney General Azima Shukoor

Speaking during the hearing, Attorney General Azima Shukoor told the court that the State was not taking sides in the legal dispute between the JP and the EC, while maintaining that it had not admitted to any claims made by the JP.

However, the Attorney General repeated her claims that the AG’s Office had come across discrepancies in the voter registry published by the EC prior to the election.

“There were names of underage people in the list. There were names repeated in the list. Unless these issues are not resolved before holding the second round of the elections, rights of many voters will be undermined,” Shukoor told the court.

She also claimed that the State should and would be concerned when a group of 50,000 people came up to it seeking justice.

“What is happening here is that one party is claiming that there were discrepancies in the voting process while the other party is simply questioning the authenticity of the claim,” Shukoor said.

“How can those allegations be verified unless the Elections Commission allows access to the information of the voting? Here, we are speaking about one party who has the information but is refusing to share it in order to verify the claims,” Shukoor claimed.

She also questioned the panel of judges as to whether the EC should go on to hold the second round of elections with the allegations and claims unanswered.

However, the Attorney General claimed that she still had faith in the Elections Commission’s ability to resolve the issues, but said this could only be done if the commission gave up its “defensive approach” and showed openness to look into the claims.

Shukoor also said the Attorney General’s decision to intervene in the case was only to bring the issues it had found to the notice of the judges and to seek a remedy to them, and that the government did not wish to take a stand on whether the election should be annulled or not.

Meanwhile, the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s lawyers told the court that the party had accepted the outcome of the results and had not come up with any discrepancies during the elections that would affect the outcome.

The party also echoed similar sentiments as that of the EC’s lawyer Suood, claiming that the JP’s evidence could not be considered as admissible evidence by the courts.

The next hearing will be held on Thursday morning (September 19) at 11:00am.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)