Tag: MDP

High Court cannot deliberate on Hulhumalé court bench

The High Court has decided today (February 9) that it does not have the jurisdiction to deliberate on the process in which the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court’s bench was formed.

The ruling was made with regards to a procedural issue raised by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) after former President and Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) leader Mohamed Nasheed had challenged the legality of the bench.

The judicial watchdog had raised a procedural issue, claiming that the High Court does not have the jurisdiction to oversee the case as the bench had been formed on the advise of the Supreme Court.

The controversial court was formed specifically to oversee Nasheed’s trial for the January 2012 detention of Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed. Legal challenges to the court have seen the case stalled since April 2013.

The opposition leader today urged Maldivians to take direct action against persistent injustices in the courts, while his legal team claimed today’s decision contradicted prior decisions by the High Court to consider related cases.

In the ruling, the High Court bench presiding over the case unanimously decided that under regulations governing the relevant procedure, “there are no grounds on which the case can proceed in this court any further”.

The High Court’s decision read that, under the regulation, the court can deliberate on decisions of the lower courts, but not on their composition.

Today’s hearing was immediately concluded after Judge Abbas Shareef – presiding over the case – read out the ruling.

Nasheed’s legal team has subsequently submitted the case to the Civil Court, again challenging the composition of the Hulhumalé court bench.

“It is not a trial that is being conducted here”: Nasheed

Speaking to press after the hearing, Nasheed said the “trial is being hastened without due process in order to prevent me from getting the protection of the new penal code which would be enacted in April”.

He also accused the government of using the judiciary to threaten and intimidate political opponents, stating that the Maldivian judiciary is unable to deliver a “free and fair trial, especially with regards to cases against me”.

Nasheed claimed that the father of one of the High Court judges was ordered by a lower court to pay a substantial amount of money owed, suggesting undue influence in the case to produce a specific ruling.

Nasheed told press that he will consult both his and other international lawyers regarding his impending trial.

“It is not a trial that is being conducted here,” commented Nasheed, urging Maldivians to stand up against injustice by “protesting and going on strikes” as “this might happen to anyone tomorrow, although it happened to me today”.

Meanwhile, a statement by Nasheed’s legal team argued that the decision of the High Court had contradicted its earlier ruling which found it had the jurisdiction to deliberate on the legality of the Hulhumalé Magistrates Court.

“The High Court had previously decided that the case can be heard in the court and the decision was announced during the trial,” read the statement, noting that two of the three judges present today had delivered the previous ruling.

Judge Ali Sameer and Judge Shuaib Hussain Zakariyya had presided over the case along with Judge Ahmed Shareef before the latter was demoted to the Juvenile Court in August 2014 and replaced by Judge Abbas Shareef.

Nasheed’s lawyers have previously challenged – unsuccessfully – the establishment of a magistrates court in the Malé suburb, arguing that Hulhumalé is considered to be part of Malé City under the Decentralisation Act and therefore does not require a separate court.

United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul has previously noted that the “appointment of judges to the case, has been set up in an arbitrary manner outside the parameters laid out in the laws”.


Related to this story

Nasheed’s request for halt to Hulhumalé court appointments denied

Nasheed requests reappointments to Hulhumalé court be stopped

Nasheed trial part of drive to eliminate President’s opponents, says MDP

Supreme Court declares Hulhumale Magistrate Court legitimate

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JP defection is no loss to government, says Gayoom

The Jumhooree Party’s (JP) departure from the Progressive Coalition causes no loss to the government, says Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) leader and former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

Arriving in Malé after attending an environmental forum in New Delhi, Gayoom told media that the current government remains “strong and steadfast”.

“Initially, we had a coalition between three political parties, now there is one between two. The coalition with JP broke apart due to some disagreements that arose a while ago. However, the coalition with MDA [Maldives Development Alliance] remains very strong,” he said.

The JP has today responded by suggesting that the PPM leader was unwilling to see violations committed by the ruling coalition.

The party officially joined the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) last week, after having officially left the coalition, though relations with the PPM were effectively severed in May last year.

After describing the opposition’s claims to be defending the Constitution as laughable last week, Gayoom again criticised the agreement.

“If they claim to be protecting the Constitution, then they must also tell us exactly how the incumbent government has acted against the Constitution. They haven’t been able to do so. The truth is, they don’t really have much of essence to say about this,” he told media.

The former 30-year ruler asserted that the administration of his half-brother Abdulla Yameen respects the Constitution, rejecting claims that the replacement of the auditor general last October, and the dismissal of two Supreme Court judges in December, was unconstitutional.

He insisted that those actions cannot be described as undermining the Constitution, as they were taken “lawfully through the establishment of laws”.

“These laws are made in ways that the Constitution allow us to. We can’t make any laws that go against the Constitution, as the contradicting clauses will themselves become void. So these actions were conducted in accordance with what the Constitution stipulates,” he explained.

Doesn’t want to see: JP

JP Spokesperson Ahmed Sameer has subsequently dismissed Gayoom’s comments, stating that the current government’s unconstitutional actions are “apparent for all to see”, suggesting that Gayoom chooses not to acknowledge them.

“Gayoom sees them, knows about them, and is deliberately using the majority that the PPM currently has to undermine the rights of the people,” alleged Sameer.

“We citizens should be deeply concerned if a man who ruled for such a long time cannot even recognise violations of people’s rights while it is happening right in front of him”.

He went on to give various instances in which the party believes the government has acted unconstitutionally.

“One of the first statements by the President’s Spokesperson was a justification of why President Yameen did not mention the judiciary in his presidential address in the parliament. He then said that the judiciary is absolutely strong and without fault. Why then did he bring such a major change to such a solid institution later on?” asked Sameer.

The spokesman went on to say that, when deciding which two judges to remove from the Supreme Court bench, the government had dismissed two of the judges most trusted by the public, while allowing a “disgraced judge” to remain in position.

He also pointed to the proposed constitutional amendment submitted to parliament, seeking to restrict persons over 65 years of age from running for presidency.

“The constitution clearly states that any citizen can run for an elected position. How then can this amendment be in accordance with the law?” he asked.

“It is a deeply concerning matter that Gayoom is turning a blind eye to the atrocities against the Constitution being committed by the rule of his party,” Sameer concluded.

The Progressive Coalition currently controls 49 of the Majlis’ 85 seats, while the opposition alliance – which has pledged to work together both inside and outside the Majlis – has a combined 34 MPs.


Related to this story

Gasim defiant as opposition sign agreement to defend Constitution

Opposition alliance a “waste of time”, says Gayoom

Judiciary excluded from presidential address due to Yameen’s trust in the institution

Majlis removes Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz, Justice Muthasim Adnan from Supreme Court

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Opposition parties to sign agreement on defense of Constitution tonight

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and Jumhooree Party (JP) will sign the agreement to work towards defending the Constitution at a special joint rally at the carnival area of Malé tonight (January 5).

Speaking at a press conference today, JP Deputy Leader Ameen Ibrahim said that the two parties have worked ceaselessly towards the agreement, adding that some ruling Progressive Party of Maldives MPs have also agreed to work with the opposition parties in defending the Constitution.

“There are some individuals amongst them who want to see change, individuals who want to save Maldivians from the dire circumstances they are in,” said Ameen.

Last week, the JP severed its ties with the PPM coalition – defunct since May last year, with party leader Gasim Ibrahim inviting all opposition parties for talks.

The JP has also invited the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party and the religious Adhaalath Party, though neither party has yet agreed to join the talks, with Adhaalath saying that it saw no use in the discussions at the current time.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MPs need more time for Ibthihaal investigation

The Majlis government accountability committee requires more time to determine possible state negligence regarding the death of three-year-old Mohamed Ibthihaal last week.

Committee member Rozaina Adam said that the committee first received documents and reports from the state institutions regarding the case when arriving at today’s sitting.

“The reports were not emailed to committee members before the sitting,” said Rozaina. “We had to read them while at the committee so we did not have adequate time to map out a course of action according to the contents of the documents”.

The Maldivian Democratic Party MP noted that the report sent by the police did not include any information relating to Ibthihaal before his death, only detailing the actions by the service afterwards.

“We have no choice but to ask representatives from police to come and clarify the information to the committee,” she said.

Local authorities and the police and gender ministry were both aware of the abuse prior to the child’s death, the island council has revealed, though the government has assured that Ibthihaal was in a safe environment when officials last visited the island.

However, Rozaina noted today that the Ministry of Law and Gender has no documents to substantiate these claims.

“The gender ministry says they handed the child over to a relative, but they have no records of doing so and the relative denies having been handed over guardianship. There are documents and forms that need to be filled if gender assigns guardianship of a child to another person,” said the Addu-Meedhoo MP.

Closed committee

Rozaina also accused pro-government MPs of hampering the investigation, stating they “do not want to reveal any information that might find the government guilty of negligence”.

She also accused committee chair Riyaz Rasheed of conducting today’s sitting in violation of the Majlis’ rules of procedure by refusing to allow members of the press to witness proceedings.

Responding to these claims, Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Riyaz said that neither a motion to hold a closed door session nor an open one was proposed by any member, with the meeting adjourned before any such deliberations were made.

“At first I did not let media personnel inside the meeting room as some of the institutions requested their reports and documents be kept confidential, and before any committee member proposed to hold a closed door meeting or an open one, I ended the committee as most members requested further time to analyse the documents,” Riyaz stated.

The Vilifushi MP also said that the committee members would receive until next week to analyse the documents, after which he would schedule a sitting to proceed with the issue further.

Documents regarding Ibthihaal were requested from Rakeedhoo Island Council, the Maldives Police Services, the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives, the Ministry of Law and Gender, and the Family Protection Unit.

Multiple investigations into potential state negligence have begun after the authorities’ prior knowledge of the abuse became apparent.

Meanwhile, the 26-year-old mother of the child, Afiya Mohamed, was arrested in the afternoon hours of January 30, with media reporting that Rakeedhoo Magistrates Court had remanded her for 15 days.

Ibthihaal’s two siblings are currently in the care of family members, local authorities have said.


Related to this story

Majlis begins investigation into Ibthihaal’s death

ARC condemns “systematic laws” after death of Rakeedhoo toddler

Body of abused child found in Vaavu Rakeedhoo

State negligence investigated in death of Rakeedhoo child

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MNCCI says opposition street rallies upsetting trade

The Maldives National Chamber of Commerce and Industry (MNCCI) has claimed that street demonstrations are damaging local businesses, calling on the government to stop them.

In a statement release today (January 4), the chamber stated that political activity that would destabilise the Maldives is being revived again, after a brief period of normalcy following the 2013 presidential elections.

“Due to recent political rallies and activities held by some parties by blocking roads, local businesses are not only facing difficulties but are damaged,” stated the trade promotion organisation.

The chamber also “regrettably noted that some major business owners are behind these activities”.

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party and Jumhooree Party held a joint rally in Malé at the junction of Chaandanee and Fareedi Magu last night as part of a series of political activities planned to defend the Constitution against what they claim are persistent breaches by the government.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

We will change the government according CoNI report, says Nasheed

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has said the opposition will change the government in the manner which was authenticated by Commission of National Inquiry (CoNI) report.

Speaking at a street rally in Malé held last night (January 3) by Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and its new ally the Jumhooree Party (JP), Nasheed said all political parties had agreed that the findings of the report would be accepted even before it had begun.

“This very report stated that the transfer of power on February 7 was made in accordance with the laws – President Yameen, we are also going to change your government in that very path deemed legal,” he said.

After the Commonwealth-backed inquiry ended the MDP’s hopes of overturning the new administration, Nasheed described the final report as a setting a legal precedent for the overthrow of an elected government through police or mob action.

The Maldives was left “in a very awkward, and in many ways, very comical” situation, said the former president at the time of the report’s release in August 2012, “where toppling the government by brute force is taken to be a reasonable course of action. All you have to do find is a narrative for that course of action.”

The report into the circumstances surrounding Nasheed’s controversial resignation found that the change of government was “legal and constitutional”, and the events of February 6-7 “were, in large measure, reactions to the actions of President Nasheed”.

“The resignation of President Nasheed was voluntary and of his own free will. It was not caused by any illegal coercion or intimidation,” the report claimed.

“[I]t is evident that President Nasheed lost the support of the coalition supporting the MDP which had brought him to power and it is an irrefutable fact that MDP never enjoyed a clear majority in the Parliament,” read the document, pointing to factors that led to his departure from office.

Constitutional amendments

Nasheed claimed last night that as stated in the CoNI report, President Abdulla Yameen’s government had also lost legitimacy after JP leader Gasim Ibrahim – who backed Yameen in the 2013 presidential run-off elections – pulled out of the coalition.

“There is no support for President Yameen’s presidency. The support he received even with President Maumoon is 25 percent,” Nasheed stated.

He argued that the spirit of the Maldivian Constitution is aligned with the presidential system of governance, which demands that one individual gains over 50 percent of the voting population’s support.

This support failed to materialise in either the 2013 presidential elections, or in his own 2008 victory, noted Nasheed.

“The result is that the new government in its infancy loses legitimacy after coalition partners pull out”.

Nasheed also stated that the Maldivian people do not wish to create a dictatorial ruler with a super majority, but rather wish “to find a way in which the Maldives is ruled under the principle of dialogue and discussion”.

He subsequently claimed that constitutional changes needed to be brought in order to facilitate a system of democracy in which the government can function without a super majority, through discussions and dialogue between political figures and parties.

The MDP and the JP held a third round of discussions at Maafannu Kunooz on Sunday (January 1) night, agreeing to officially sign a document concerning their joint efforts to defend the Constitution.

The document, scheduled to be signed at a special ceremony on Thursday (January 5), will be followed by a joint rally that evening at the Carnival area in Malé.

Although the Adhaalath Party has decided against joining the alliance, the Maldives Trade Union has joined the opposition, claiming that the government’s persistent violations of the constitution have “eroded crucial checks and balances and accountability mechanisms”.


Related to this story

No coup, no duress, no mutiny: CNI report

MDP and JP reach agreement on defence of Constitution

Nasheed urges President Yameen to convene all-party talks

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Opposition alliance a “waste of time”, says Gayoom

Former President, and leader of the ruling Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), Maumoon Abdul Gayoom has described the opposition’s alliance to defend the Constitution as a “waste of time”.

Gayoom told reporters that the current government has in no way violated the Constitution and that there is no reason for any party to talk about defending it.

“Therefore, when some people have come out claiming to defend the Constitution, it makes me laugh,” Gayoom told reporters before travelling to the Delhi Sustainable Development Summit (DSDS) this morning.

The former 30-year ruler, who will participate in the summit as a panelist and a speaker, also questioned the intentions of the opposition, stating that “our President Abdulla Yameen pays special attention to follow the Constitution”.

Gayoom’s comments are the first from a high level member of the ruling party since the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and Jumhooree Party’s (JP) decision to work together in defending the Constitution.

The parties are alleging that the government is narrowing civil liberties, intimidating political opponents, and destroying state’s checks and balances.

PPM spokesman MP Ali Arif told Minivan News that the opposition parties were unable to specify which part of the Constitution the government has violated.

“We have asked them which specific part or article of the Constitution the government has violated. They cannot seem to answer the question. This is just noise, all these claims are baseless,” stated Arif.

He also said that amendments to the Judicature Act – which saw the removal of two Supreme Court judges, and amendments to the Auditor General’s Act – which saw the reappointment of the auditor general, were all legislative changes brought by parliament.

Former Auditor General Niyaz Ibrahim has suggested his removal – just days after an audit report implicated the tourism minister in a US$6 million corruption scandal – was not legal without changes to the Constitution.

The Civil Court has, meanwhile, said the People’s Majlis had “forced” the Judicial Services Commission to deem Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz and Justice Muthasim Adnan unfit for the Supreme Court bench without due process, through an “unconstitutional” amendment to the Judicature Act.

“In a democratic society the parliament brings changes to laws,” Arif told Minivan News today. “If the president does not wish to gazette the law, he can send it back but then again if the parliament passes the bill, it automatically becomes law. How is the president or government at fault?”

Meanwhile, the MDP and the JP held a third round of discussions at Maafannu Kunooz on Sunday (January 1) night, agreeing to officially sign a document concerning their joint efforts to defend the Constitution.

The document, scheduled to be signed at a special ceremony on Thursday (January 5), will be followed by a joint rally that evening at the Carnival area in Malé.

Although the Adhaalath Party has decided against joining the alliance, the Maldives Trade Union has joined the opposition, claiming that the government’s persistent violations of the constitution have “eroded crucial checks and balances and accountability mechanisms”.

The MTU was inaugurated in May 2014, with 180 members aiming to provide an independent voice for the protection of small and medium sized businesses.

Zahir formed the group after clashing with authorities over the new tax regime – introduced by the MDP government. He was investigated the the Prosecutor General’s Office last year for tax evasion.

(PHOTO: PRESIDENT’S OFFICE)


Related to this story

Maldives Trade Union joins opposition’s defence of Constitution

Adhaalath Party decides against participation in opposition talks

MDP and JP reach agreement on defence of Constitution

Nasheed urges President Yameen to convene all-party talks

MDP holds street rally in front of Gasim’s residence

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed requests reappointments to Hulhumalé court be stopped

Former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team have requested that the appointment of new judges to the vacant positions on the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court bench be halted.

The stay order was submitted at today’s High Court hearing in Nasheed’s case against the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) over the legality of the appointment process to the magistrates court.

Despite Nasheed’s representatives insisting that the court consider the request during the hearing, presiding judges asked that it be submitted in writing, saying that the court will deliberate on the issue in a timely manner.

Responding to the request, JSC lawyer Hussain Ibrahim said he was unable to respond as he was unaware that the process of appointing new judges to the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court bench was underway.

Nasheed’s lawyers attempted to add new points to the original case, but the judges again asked that the new point to be submitted in writing, in spite of further protests.

“This hearing will only take arguments from both sides regarding the procedural issue raised by JSC. We will only allow this trial to be conducted as scheduled”, stated Abbas Shareef, the presiding judge.

The case was first raised in 2012, and challenges the legality of the bench, which was assembled to try the opposition leader for the detention of Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed during his presidency.

JSC’s procedural issue

The JSC lawyer stated that he had no points to add to the arguments made prior to the case’s suspension in April 2013. These included claims that the Hulhumalé bench had been appointed on the orders of the Supreme Court, meaning that the High Court could not deliberate on the decision.

Ahmed Abdulla, member of Nasheed’s team, noted that the letter regarding the appointment of the bench was sent by the Supreme Court in the capacity of the Judicial Council, despite it having been written under a Supreme Court letterhead.

Therefore Nasheed’s lawyers contested that the decision cannot be interpreted as a Supreme Court ruling but must be regarded “an administrative decision by an administrative body”, which would enable the High Court to deliberate on its legality.

The Judicial Council was created under the 2010 Judicature Act to oversee administration of the courts, but its duties were soon absorbed by the Supreme Court in what has been described as a centralising of judicial power.

Hisaan Hussain and Abdulla Shairu also spoke on behalf of Nasheed today, while Hassan Latheef also represented the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) leader in court.

Conclusion

The hearing was concluded after a brief statement by Nasheed in which he requested that the High Court grant him the permission to travel freely during the period in between hearings.

Nasheed also expressed his hope that the court had not expedited his case because “we are moving towards the shade of the new penal code, which does not include the article under which I have been charged”.

The presiding judge ended the session with the announcement that a hearing will be held next week in which the court will deliver its verdict on the procedural issues raised by the JSC, explaining to Nasheed that he will be granted permission to leave Malé after making requests in writing.

The MDP yesterday described Nasheed’s trial as the government’s attempt to eliminate President Abdulla Yameen’s political opponents and to prevent them from contesting in the 2018 presidential elections.

Nasheed’s lawyers have previously challenged – unsuccessfully – the establishment of a magistrates court in the Malé suburb, arguing that Hulhumalé is considered to be part of Malé City under the Decentralisation Act and therefore does not require a separate court.

United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul has previously noted that the “appointment of judges to the case, has been set up in an arbitrary manner outside the parameters laid out in the laws”.

(PHOTO: MINIVAN NEWS ARCHIVE)


Related to this story

Nasheed trial part of drive to eliminate President’s opponents, says MDP

High Court to rule in appeal on Hulhumale’ court legitimacy

Hulhumale’ Court rejects case against former President Nasheed

High Court invalidates Hulhumale’ court’s rejection of case against former president

Supreme Court declares Hulhumale Magistrate Court legitimate

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed trial part of drive to eliminate President’s opponents, says MDP

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has accused President Abdulla Yameen of manipulating the judiciary to remove opponents, as court proceedings related to former President Mohamed Nasheed’s trial resume tomorrow.

In a press conference held ahead of the High Court trial challenging the legality of the Hulhumalé Magistrates Court’s bench, MDP spokesman Imthiyaz Fahmy suggested that “a very unpopular government” was trying to “invalidate the candidacy of all of President Yameen’s competitors”.

The case will consider Nasheed’s appeal against the assembly of the court’s bench, appointed to try him for the detention of Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

Fahmy today suggested that the government’s attitude towards the judge’s detention – which stoked anti-government protests before Nasheed’s controversial resignation on February 7 – was reflected in the recent appointment of a fellow defendant in the case as defence minister.

“If the government believes that the case against President Nasheed is serious; if the case has any substance, why would the government appoint Moosa Ali Jaleel as the defence minister?” asked Fahmy.

Formerly the chief of defence forces, Jaleel retired after 32-years of service following Nasheed’s resignation, later telling parliament’s government oversight committee that he believed the MDP leader had “resigned under duress”.

Court proceeding

Fahmy today also suggested that the Supreme Court’s recent decision to reduce the period allowed for legal appeal was an effort to hastily sentence Nasheed before the implementation of the new penal code in April.

The court’s decision reduces the time allowed to file appeals in the higher courts from 90 days (180 for cases from the atolls) to ten, prompting legal experts to accuse the court of infringing upon the constitutional right to an appeal.

“The new penal code does not have the article under which President Nasheed is being prosecuted nor does it have a specified punishment,” continued Fahmy.

If convicted under the old legal code, Nasheed could face imprisonment or banishment for three years – leaving him ineligible for the 2018 presidential race, under Article 109 (f) of the Constitution.

Nasheed’s MDP has recently formed an alliance with the Jumhooree Party (JP) in defence of what it regards as persistent breaches of the Constitution. The eligibility of the JP’s leader, Gasim Ibrahim, is also under threat after the ruling Progressive Party of Maldives proposed constitutional amendments that would deem him too old to contest the presidency for a third time in 2018.

During tomorrow’s hearing, Nasheed’s legal team and the Judicial Services Commission – which assembled the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court’s bench – will be given ten minutes each to summarise arguments and raise further points regarding procedural issues raised before the case was halted in April 2013.

The judicial watchdog has raised a procedural issue claiming that the High Court does not have the jurisdiction to oversee the case.

After the announcement of the trial, Nasheed’s legal team had requested a one and a half month delay in the trials as further time was required to “review and research the case after recent developments in the judicial system”.

Nasheed’s lawyers have previously challenged – unsuccessfully – the establishment of a magistrates court in the Malé suburb, arguing that Hulhumalé is considered to be part of Malé City under the Decentralisation Act and therefore does not require a separate court.

United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul has previously noted that the “appointment of judges to the case, has been set up in an arbitrary manner outside the parameters laid out in the laws”.


Related to this story

High Court to rule in appeal on Hulhumale’ court legitimacy

Hulhumale’ Court rejects case against former President Nasheed

High Court invalidates Hulhumale’ court’s rejection of case against former president

Supreme Court declares Hulhumale Magistrate Court legitimate

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)