MDP protest against Supreme Court

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) held a peaceful street protest on Friday (March 22) against the Supreme Court following two controversial rulings against parliament.

Starting from Usfasgandhu, roughly 400 protesters led by former President Mohamed Nasheed took part in the demonstration calling for authorities to refrain from undermining parliament.

Local media reported that the protesters stopped near the Supreme Court to voice their opinions, further calling for the Supreme Court bench to be abolished and the resignation of President Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik.

On March 14, Supreme Court declared two decisions made by parliament last year as unconstitutional.

According to the court ruling, parliament’s decision to remove Civil Service Commission President Mohamed Fahmy Hassan over allegations of sexual harassment and to conduct no-confidence votes through secret ballot violated the Maldives constitution.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament notifies Gasim of case to remove him from JSC

Parliament has sent a notice to Majlis-appointed member to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), Gasim Ibrahim, regarding a case to remove him from his post.

Deputy Speaker of Parliament Ahmed Nazim told local media on Friday (March 22) that a notice had been sent to Gasim, who is also the presidential candidate for Jumhoree Party (JP), as per parliament procedures.

Nazim stated that the case submitted by the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) to remove Gasim from the JSC would be put on parliament’s agenda only after speaking with leaders from various political parties.

The notice follows a meeting held last week by Parliament’s Independent Commissions Oversight Committee, in which the entire JSC board was summoned to attend.

Throughout March, the oversight committee has been speaking with members of JSC in regard to the manner in which judges were appointed to the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench. The court is currently hearing the trial of former president Mohamed Nasheed, who is Gasim’s presidential rival in the upcoming elections in September.

Oversight Committee member and MDP Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor told Minivan News that during the meeting held on Wednesday (March 20), Gasim had lacked integrity when faced with questions from the committee.

“The focus of my questions was on the integrity of the JSC members and of the independence of judges.

“When I asked Mr Gasim whether he had announced his [presidential] candidacy before or after he was nominated to his post within the JSC, he said ‘I am not sure’,” Hamid claimed.

Gasim’s presidential rival and leader of the MDP, former President Mohamed Nasheed, is currently facing charges at Hulhumale’ court over the controversial detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

The MDP has maintained that the charges against Nasheed are a politically motivated attempt to bar him from the election in September.

Despite the JSC Chair and Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed declaring that the commission refused to discuss matters regarding the Hulhumale’ Court, individual members of the JSC still attended the oversight meetings.

“It is like a domino effect – the chair of the JSC has lost his authority. We believe this is the first step of the JSC being shaken to its core,” Hamid said. “Even on Wednesday the chair was still resistant to being questioned.”

Statements from individual JSC members given to the oversight committee revealed there had been concern as to how the Hulhumale’ Court bench had been appointed.

Furthermore, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul raised concerns over the politicisation of the JSC last month.

“I have heard from numerous sources that the current composition of the JSC is inadequate and politicised.

Because of this politicisation, the commission has been subjected to all sorts of external influence and consequently has been unable to function properly,” Knaul stated last month.

JSC composition does not allow independence of judiciary to be maintained: Shakoor

On Wednesday (March 20), Attorney General and JSC member Aishath Azima Shakoor told local media that the current composition of the commission did not allow it to maintain independence of the judiciary.

“I believe that, even though JSC has been composed according to constitution, it does not allow [it] to maintain the independence of the judiciary.

“I do not believe that JSC’s configuration is based on the most effective model. But JSC is how the Constitution says it should be, so we have to function like that,” Azima was quoted as saying in local media.

In regard to Gasim, who voted in favour of establishing the Hulhumale’ Court bench, Azima told local media that if she had been in Gasim’s position when the vote for the court bench had been undertaken, she would not have participated in the vote.

“I believe that the Parliament Committee on Independent Institutions’ review or investigation of the manner in which Hulhumale’ Court bench of judges was established will affect the trail that is currently proceeding in that court,” Azima was quoted as saying in Sun Online.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP MPs elected for Parliamentary Group positions

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Parliamentary Group (PG) Leader MP Ibrahim Mohamed Solih ‘Ibu’ has been re-elected as PG leader.

Local media reported that MP Ali Waheed and MP Abdullah Jabir have both been elected as the party’s PG Deputy Leaders, after they received 25 votes and 13 votes respectively.

Solih – who was the only contestant for the PG Leader election – was re-elected with 25 votes in favour out of a total of 28.

MDP Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor was elected as PG Secretary General and MP Eva Abdullah, MP Mohamed Shifaz and MP IIyas Labeeb were elected as PG Whips.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC again summoned to Parliament’s Oversight Committee

Parliament’s Independent Commissions Oversight Committee is to summon all members of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to attend the committee on Wednesday (March 20).

Members of the JSC are being summoned to face questions regarding the manner in which judges were appointed to the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench.

Earlier this month, the JSC had informed Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid that the commission would not be held answerable to the oversight committee.

Despite the JSC Chair and Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed declaring that the commission refused to discuss matters regarding the Hulhumale’ Court, individual members of the JSC later attended the committee meetings.

Oversight committee member and Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Spokesperson, Hamid Abdul Ghafoor, said that the committee had received a total of 18 documents and recorded minutes from the JSC regarding the formation of the Hulhumale’ Court bench.

Citing the minutes from the meeting, Hamid said that a magistrate from Hulhumale’ court had originally proposed a bench of judges to the JSC on September 2, 2012.

Two days later on September 4, Hamid claimed that the JSC had met “in a panic” and had sent a letter to the magistrate telling him to “hold everything, we will tell you what to do”.

“The JSC went into this meeting and propose their own bench because they want their own people. Between 12.30 and 4.30pm on September 4 the JSC had decided on a new bench. The magistrates suggested bench was never even discussed,” Hamid told Minivan News.

The oversight committee member alleged that in “just four hours” the JSC had proposed a new bench, written to the Supreme Court and the Judicial Administrator and had received a response, “They got through six acts of documentation in just four hours”, he added.

In regard to the JSC minutes, Hamid stated that on September 10, 2012, a judge from “different judicial administration” sent a letter to the JSC under the heading ‘Is the Hulhumale’ Court Legitimate?’

“Once again the JSC went into panic mode and hold another meeting. According to the minutes, they start posing questions like ‘does he have the right to use the letterhead to write such things?’ while another member states the JSC needs to take disciplinary action against the man,” Hamid claimed.

Various members of the JSC have criticised the formation of Hulhumale’ court during the committee meetings held earlier this month.

Vice Chair of the JSC, Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Didi told the oversight committee that he did not believe the JSC could establish a court through a vote.

Ealier this month, when asked directly whether he believed the court to be a legitimate entity, Didi answered: “I am not saying it is a legitimate court. Then again, nor am I saying it is illegitimate. All I can say is I don’t believe it will be liquidated.”

“I can’t really recall the law too well but the JSC certainly cannot form a court,” he added.

Meanwhile, Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid, who is also a member of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), told the committee he believed the judicial watchdog had acted unconstitutionally in assigning magistrates to a particular case.

“In deciding upon the bench, the JSC did follow its rules of procedures. As in, it was voted upon in an official meeting and six of the seven members in attendance voted on the matter. The seventh member being the Chair, does not vote in matters,” Shahid explained to the committee.

“However, whether it is within the commission’s mandate to appoint a panel of judges in this manner is an issue which raised doubt in the minds of more than one of my fellow members.”

Parliament’s Independent Commissions Oversight Committee is summon the JSC to be present at Wednesday’s meeting scheduled for 2.30pm.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Amnesty International is biased; sometimes excessive force is absolutely necessary”: Human Rights Ambassador

Human Rights Ambassador of the President’s Office “Sandhaanu” Ahmed Ibrahim Didi has accused Amnesty International of “fabricating stories about the human rights situation in the Maldives” and of releasing reports about the Maldives without conducting any studies or research.

The Human Rights Ambassador has previously held a press conference declaring that there “should be no opposition parties”, and that “I cannot believe, in fact, I do not at all want to believe, that there can be anyone with views opposing that of the government.

He has also labelled the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) an “unlawful organisation which commits terrorist activities and attempts to undermine the powers of the state”, and called for the Elections Commission to dissolve it, on the grounds that “they shouldn’t be allowed to exist.”

In a number of letters to the NGO obtained by Minivan News, the Human Rights Ambassador initially spoke highly of the international human rights NGO, crediting it for the freedoms of assembly and expression currently constitutionally guaranteed to the country’s citizens.

“All Maldivians, especially me, should be very thankful to Amnesty. They helped me immensely back when I was jailed. I must say that, if not for Amnesty, we might still be stuck in an extension of that long 30 year regime [former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s administration]. Back then, we did not even have the rights guaranteed to a German frog. That’s right, even the German frog has won a court case which gave him the right to scream as loudly as he likes,” Ibrahim Didi said at a press briefing held on Wednesday.

“It was an initiative and pressure of Amnesty International that led to Maldives signing the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). When vocal youngsters on the street yell ‘baaghee’ [traitor] and vulgarities at me, I don’t say anything and instead smile at them because they are using a right that I guaranteed for them,” Ibrahim Didi said.

“But when these youthful protesters claim that the freedom of expression they use is a right they ensured for themselves, then they are simply wrong. I did it. I got those rights for us. It is I, who achieved the guarantee of these rights, who is now here is the Human Rights Ambassador,” Ibrahim Didi stated.

“Now, going back to the issue, although Amnesty was of great help, now they are being the exact opposite. Now they are acting wrongfully,” he said.

“Amnesty’s Abbas Faiz claims to have conducted studies, but actually they are righting these reports without having conducted any formal research or studies. They are causing so much trouble in the country,” the ambassador alleged.

“I am deeply saddened to utter such words against Amnesty, words which will doubtless upset them. However, this is my responsibility as the Human Rights Ambassador placed in the President’s Office. I have also twice written directly to Amnesty about these concerns,” he stated.

Ibrahim Didi did not clarify whether or not he had received responses to the letters sent to the international human rights civil society. He shared copies of the letters with the media, the first sent on October 30, 2012 titled “Ref: Police violence as ex-president is arrested on 8th October in Fares Mathoda” and the second sent on March 7, 2013 titled “Ref: Former President’s arrest ‘selective justice’ – Amnesty International.”

“Amnesty report extremely biased”

In a letter sent to the NGO regarding the first arrest of former President Mohamed Nasheed to present him to court in October 2012, Ibrahim Didi called Amnesty’s statements regarding the issue “incorrect and extremely biased”, stating they were issued “blindly without any research.”

The letter then aims to explain why the detention of Nasheed was necessary, stating that it was in relation to the former President having “violated the country’s constitution several times”. The letter, however, only offered as example the contentious case of Nasheed’s detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed, calling the detention “the most ruthless action ever conducted by the military against a citizen of the country in the known history”.

Ibrahim Didi also dismissed any allegations of executive involvement in the arrest of Nasheed, insisting that “the judiciary of the state operates independently.”

He then denied the allegations made in the Amnesty report, repeatedly stating that the NGO had “failed to conduct sufficient research”.

“When [Nasheed] was arrested and there was no confrontation between Nasheed’s supporters and the police. The ex-foreign Minister did not attack the police, for him to be kicked and pepper sprayed on his face as Amnesty’s report says. There was clearly no resistance displayed to use pepper spray in the whole operation. The whole operation was recorded on video and televised on local media,” he claimed in the letter.

“The source of Amnesty’s report was based on an eyewitness and without further investigation it was broadcast, tarnishing the Maldivian police integrity. Hence, we strongly urge Amnesty International to refrain from such exploitations without fully probing into facts as it leads to destruction of peace and harmony in the country.”

The Human Rights Ambassador, while dismissing allegations of police brutality, also offered justification for the police actions of February 8, 2012:

“We vehemently deny any accusation of police brutality during President Mohamed Waheed’s period (since February 2012) but on 8th February the police had to use force to disperse an aggressive Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) supporters who were armed with long sticks and bricks in their hands to batter the police force. And we would also like to note that the police personnel and Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) personnel were extremely exhausted on that day while there was no proper command and control formed after Nasheed’s resignation on 7th February sparking chaos in the whole country.”

In conclusion, Ibrahim Didi wrote that Amnesty International seemed to be highly concerned of human rights violations during Gayyoom’s regime, adding “it appears Amnesty International is indirectly rejecting any process of legality as those allegations against Maumoon not being investigated yet.”

Amnesty International had at the time released a report titled “The Other Side of Paradise: A Human Rights Crisis in the Maldives”, chronicling human rights abuses in the country since the controversial transfer of power in February 2012.

Minister of Home Affairs Mohamed Jameel Ahmed had responded to the report at the time, saying the NGO had failed to seek any comments from the government. He did not, however, appear to dispute the contents of the report.

“Sometimes excessive force is absolutely necessary”

In a more recent letter, Ibrahim Didi once again accuses Amnesty of bias, stating:

“We strongly deny that the filing a court case against Nasheed is a ‘selective justice’ being served here as Amnesty International suspects,” the letter read.

“Former President Gayyoom’s rule has been also investigated for three long years during Nasheed’s 3 year term,” Ibrahim Didi wrote. “Apart from the wages and office expenses a Singapore law firm was hired for 25 million US dollars.”

“So we regret to say that Amnesty’s comments come without any research as usual and the statements are biased, favouring MDP. It looks as it a MDP statement. If one is a little bit fair of the comments of the situation, they would blame on the burning properties, attacking of the peaceful pedestrians in their so-called peaceful demonstrations,” Ibrahim Didi alleged.

“Moreover MDP militant parliamentarians behaved inside the parliament house like thugs, destroying government properties and attacking security forces. They have played hooliganism before foreign dignitaries inside the chambers. In this civilized world no one could see such violent scenarios even in African subcontinent,” he continued.

Ibrahim Didi further stated that contrary to what MDP might say, their protests were not peaceful and hence “to stop this kind of violent protests, sometimes excessive force is absolutely necessary to minimize damages.”

He further labels MDP’s demonstrations as “illegal”, adding “If these demonstrations are legal and peaceful, we the whole Maldivians can come out and demonstrate at any time. Some can come out to demonstrate to hang Nasheed and his power clique for robbing the state wealth, shrinking our economy.”

Ibrahim Didi states that the trial against Nasheed is not the only charge against him, but rather “the beginning of a series”.

Stating that “we always believe Nasheed is a mentally ill person”, Ibrahim Didi lists out a number of accusations against the former President. Among these, he states that “Nasheed used state TV and Radio to propagate his party’s agenda” and that “MDP activists along with chairperson ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik and Nasheed’s right hand lady, Mariya Ahmed Didi had formed Kangaroo Court and conducted rulings on other citizens.”

Ibrahim Didi then refers to the controversial transfer of power of February 7, 2012, saying Nasheed was either “mentally ill” or “intoxicated and his brain was not functioning properly” on the day.

Ibrahim Didi stated that the Commission of National Inquiry’s findings and the HRCM report proves that Nasheed had resigned voluntarily and that “this is not a disputed resignation at all as Amnesty says.”

The Ambassador said that he “wonders why [Nasheed]’s foreign friends love him so much”, and stated he knew why the local ones did.

“They have altogether robbed the state wealth and sold government assets at cut rates and treasured them for future and now looking forward for some more. Now all these criminal are on the street, the drug addicts and the drunkards. Together they are trying to evade from the courts verdict. This has nothing to do with political instability in the country,” he accused.

“The country is not in a red alert situation here because of some paid street hooligans who shout on the roads and attack innocent civilians.”

Following the arrest of Nasheed earlier this month, Amnesty International stated the arrest an example of “selective justice”, which “highlights the failure of the Maldives authorities to investigate other serious human rights abuses in the country.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Elections Commission to respond after Supreme Court issues injunction on dissolution of parties

The Elections Commission (EC) is to decide on how it is to proceed following Supreme Court’s temporary injunction on the dissolution of political parties.

The court issued the temporary stay order on Thursday (March 14) after Attorney General (AG) Azima Shukoor filed a case claiming that sections of the recently ratified Political Parties Act were in contradiction to the constitution.

Local media reported that Supreme Court had asked all authorities not to consider any party as dissolved until the case is decided.

President of the EC, Fuad Thaufeeq revealed that the commission would make a decision regarding what action would be taken in response to the Supreme Court’s order.

“The commission will sit tomorrow (March 17) to discuss and decide on how we shall proceed. We have to respect and obey court orders,” Fuad told Minivan News via SMS.

The Political Parties Bill – ratified by President Mohamed Waheed on Tuesday (March 12) – states that parties must now meet a minimum of 10,000 members before they can be recognised as such.

Following the bill’s approval by President Waheed, a total of 11 parties were removed of the EC’s political party registry, leaving five to compete in upcoming presidential elections later this year.

When asked whether the EC would now reinstate the parties removed off its registry prior the Supreme Court’s final decision on the case, Fuad stated: “We will follow the court’s orders.”

Out of the 16 parties that had previously existed prior to the ratification of the bill, only the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), Jumhoree Party (JP) and Adhaalath Party (AP) remain registered in the Maldives.

EC Vice President Ahmed Fayaz previously told Minivan News that the EC had removed parties that did not meet the required membership amount in “accordance to the law”.

“We followed procedure in accordance to the [Political Parties] bill. Within that bill there is a clause that clearly states, that when a party that has less than 10,000 members it is to become null and void,” he said.

It had been previously reported that upon ratification of the bill, political parties with fewer than 10,000 members would have three months to reach the required amount or face dissolution.

When asked about the clause, Fayaz stated it only applied to registered parties in accordance to the bill, and that therefore if a party does not meet the 10,000 limit it cannot be classed as such and is therefore exempt from the three-month clause.

Attorney General (AG) Azima Shukoor, Director Department of Judicial Administration Ahmed Maajid and Vice President of Elections Commission (EC) Ahmed Fayaz were not responding to calls from Minivan News at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC acted unconstitutionally in assigning panel of judges to Hulhumale’ Court: Speaker Shahid

Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid, who is also a member of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), appeared before Parliament’s Independent Commissions Oversight Committee on Tuesday to answer questions regarding the the appointment of a panel of three magistrates to the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

This panel of three judges were appointed to preside over the case against former President Mohamed Nasheed for his detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed, and cases against other officials from the former government involved in the detention.

Prior to Shahid’s appearance, JSC Vice Chair Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Didi and member appointed to JSC from among the public, Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman, have attended the committee over the same matter.

Meanwhile, JSC Chair Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed has refused to attend the committee on the grounds the matter is related to an ‘ongoing case.’

JSC acted outside its mandate: Speaker Shahid

Speaking at the committee meeting, Shahid stated that he believed that the judicial watchdog had acted unconstitutionally in assigning magistrates to a particular case.

“In deciding upon the bench, the JSC did follow its rules of procedures. As in, it was voted upon in an official meeting and six of the seven members in attendance voted on the matter. The seventh member being the Chair, does not vote in matters,” Shahid explained.

“However, whether it is within the commission’s mandate to appoint a panel of judges in this manner is an issue which raised doubt in the minds of more than one of my fellow members.”

Shahid then referred to the existing legal framework, quoting articles to back his statement that he did not believe the matter was within the responsibilities of the commission.

He quoted Article 21 of the JSC Act, Articles 48 and 49 of the Judges Act, and from the Judicature Act.

Article 21 of the JSC Act outlines in detail the responsibilities and powers of the commission.

Article 48 of the Judges Act states “A judge can be temporarily appointed to another court in the instance that the court is unable to sufficiently complete assigned work, or if the court has difficulties providing services, or if the judges serving in the court has been suspended from their duties. or if other circumstances which may cause a delay in the completion of work assigned to the court occur.”

Article 49 of the same act states “It is the Judicial Services Commission, with the counsel of the Judicial Council, which will come to a decision on the transfer of judges to oversee cases in other courts.”

Article 55 (a) of the Judicature Act states “In addition to the responsibilities assigned by other laws, the responsibilities of the Senior Judge of a superior court are the following: (a) Determine the Judges who would adjudicate the cases of that court.”

“None of these articles say anything about assigning cases concerning a particular individual to a specific set of people. The JSC is mandated with the appointment and transfer of judges. But it does not say anywhere here that the JSC holds the powers to assign cases to specific judges,” Shahid said.

“Hence, I do not believe that the appointment of a panel of magistrates to the Hulhumale’ Magistrate falls into the mandate of the JSC,” Shahid stated.

“The reason why I need to state this here is because the constitution explicitly guarantees the right to a fair trial to all individuals. When things proceed as they are going now, this is being compromised. So I must speak out,” he said.

Responding to a question posed by Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ahmed Abdulla, Shahid said he did not “feel it was the right course of action” to remove then Senior Magistrate of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court Moosa Naseem from the case after he had assumed responsibility for the case.

“Moosa Naseem, who was then in charge of the Hulhumale’ Court sent in his recommendations for magistrates who are to sit on Nasheed’s case to the JSC for comments. This list included his own name. The JSC then replaced all three of these magistrates. Do you feel this was done in the rightful manner?” Abdulla asked.

“I do not think removing Naseem was the right course of action. There should be a good reason to remove a judge from a case from which the judge has not recused himself. I think that is a good issue for this committee to further investigate,” Shahid responded.

Asked about the formation of the Hulhumale’ Court, Shahid answered that his summons letter had detailed that he would be asked specifically about the assignment of the panel, adding that therefore he felt it “unnecessary to even extend [his] thoughts” to any other topic.

Political competitiveness

“As Speaker of Parliament, you have been working with us 77 MPs for years now, in a very politically volatile environment. You are also one of the most senior council members of Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), and we belong to your political opponent, MDP,” MDP MP Ali Waheed addressed Shahid.

“In these past few years, there have been times when we have acted very harshly against you. We even initiated a no confidence motion against you. Now to come back, you have just told us that you don’t think the assignment of the Hulhumale’ Court panel is legitimate. This is the panel which will be ruling on the presidential candidate of your political opposition,” Ali Waheed continued.

“My question to you is, under these circumstances, can you tell us in what light you see the events that are unfolding? Do you think the trial that is being conducted by this panel we speak of can be free and impartial?”

Shahid promptly responded that he did not entertain any political thoughts while serving as a JSC member.

“You have pointed out that I come from a specific political party, and you are right. Nevertheless, I was voted in as Parliament Speaker through votes cast by MPs from various parties. When I sit as speaker, I do not see any political action, and instead work as per the regulations and the constitution,” Shahid answered.

“I sit in the JSC because of my role as speaker, and hence as a rule, I have no right to harbour any political thoughts or mindset in the work I do there, nor will I do so,”’he said.

“In casting my vote in JSC or advocating for different matters in the commission’s meetings, the only focus I keep is on doing what is constitutionally mandated. Hence, even at a politically turbulent time, on a very politically contentious matter, I am sitting here in this chair and telling you that in my personal capacity I believe the JSC acted wrongfully in having appointed that panel,” Shahid repeated.

Chair of the Independent Commissions Oversight Committee Independent MP Mohamed Nasheed did not attend Tuesday’s committee meeting. He was also not present at the last two meetings of the committee where JSC members Abdulla Didi and Sheikh Rahman were summoned.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Documents from JSC show Gasim is lobbying Hulhumale’ court bench: MDP

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has alleged there is evidence to support claims that parliament’s member to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), Gasim Ibrahim, has influenced the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench.

The party’s comments follow a recently submitted motion by MDP Parliamentary Group Member Ibrahim ‘Bondey’ Rasheed to remove Gasim – who is also the leader and presidential candidate of Jumhoree Party – from the JSC.

Rasheed accused Gasim of influencing the legal processes in place to make judges accountable, adding that it “is not right” for a party president to sit on the JSC, local media reported.

Speaking to Minivan News today, MDP Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor claimed that Parliament’s Independent Commissions Oversight Committee had received documents from the JSC, showing that Gasim had been lobbying the Hulhumale’ Court bench.

The JSC was responsible for both creating the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court in which the former President of the Maldives and leader of the MDP, Mohamed Nasheed, is currently facing trial, and appointing the panel of judges hearing the case.

The MDP have maintained that the charges against Nasheed are a politically motivated attempt to bar him from the election in September – in which Gasim is also competing.

“The oversight committee received a total of 18 documents and a number of minutes from the JSC. The documents show that a magistrate [from Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court] had originally proposed a bench of judges for the court to the JSC on September 2, 2012,” Hamid claimed.

According to the MDP Spokesperson, the JSC had responded to the proposal by letter on September 4, calling for the aforementioned magistrate to “not do anything”.

“On the same day [September 4, 2012], The JSC then held a meeting at 12:30 whereby they proposed a new bench before ratifying it and sending it to the Supreme Court for approval.

“The JSC received the approval from the court on the same day and the bench proposed by the magistrate was never even discussed,” he added.

Responding to the MDP’s claims, JP Spokesperson Moosa Ramiz stated that Gasim had “every right” to sit on the JSC under the Maldivian constitution.

“Actually Mr Gasim is the JSC member not on behalf of the Jumhooree Party, but is there from the people’s majilis, so there are no more comments from the party on this matter,” Ramiz stated.

Gasim Ibrahim was not responding to calls from Minivan News at time of press.

Local media reported on Tuesday (March 12) that Ramiz had claimed the MDP’s motion to remove Gasim from the JSC was an attempt to tarnish Gasim’s reputation and “good name”.

Furthermore, Ramiz was quoted as saying that the slanderous statements made by the MDP were done because they feared Gasim’s popularity as a presidential candidate.

The parliament secretary general confirmed to local newspaper Haveeru that the motion to remove Gasim from the 10 member JSC had been received.

Last month, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul raised concerns over the politicisation of the JSC.

“I have heard from numerous sources that the current composition of the JSC is inadequate and politicised.

Because of this politicisation, the commission has been subjected to all sorts of external influence and consequently has been unable to function properly,” Knaul stated last month.

Knaul said that she believed it best for such a body to be composed of retired or sitting judges, adding that it may be advisable for some representation of the legal profession or academics to be included.

However, she maintained that no political representation at all should be allowed in a commission such as the JSC.

In response to the Knaul’s findings, Gasim accused her of lying and joking about the state of the Maldivian judiciary.

“[Gabriela Knaul] claimed that the judges were not appointed transparently, I am sure that is an outright lie. She is lying, she did not even check any document at all nor did she listen to anybody.

“She is repeating something that was spoon-fed to her by someone else. I am someone who sits in JSC. She claimed there were no regulations or mechanism there. That is a big joke,” Gasim claimed.

Knaul is an independent expert appointed to deliver recommendations on potential areas of reform to the Maldives’ legal system at the 23rd session of the UN Human Rights Council in May, 2013.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Eleven political parties dissolved after controversial bill ratified by President

Additional reporting by Neil Merrett.

Five political parties remain registered in the Maldives following the ratification of the controversial Political Parties Bill by President Mohamed Waheed.

Vice President of Elections Commission (EC) Ahmed Fayaz told Minivan News today (March 12) that a total of 11 political parties had now been removed from its political party registry in accordance to the new bill.

Out of the 16 parties that had previously existed prior to the ratification of the bill, only the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), Jumhoree Party (JP) and Adhaalath Party (AP) remain registered in the Maldives.

The Political Parties Bill, ratified today (March 12), states that parties who do not meet the required 10,000 members will no longer be recognised as such in the Maldives.

President Waheed’s own party, Gaumee Ihthihad Party (GIP) was one of the 11 parties dissolved following the bill’s ratification, despite the president’s claims that it had reached 10,000 members.

EC Vice President Fayaz said that whilst GIP and the Maldives Development Alliance (MDA) had both submitted enough forms to meet the 10,000 minimum, many of those forms were still pending and so could not be counted.

“There are two parties who have submitted close to, or over the 10,000 membership minimum, but just because the parties have 10,000 membership forms submitted, it does not mean they have 10,000 party members.

“We followed procedure in accordance to the [Political Parties] bill. Within that bill there is a clause that clearly states, that when a party that has less than 10,000 members it is to become null and void. The EC acted in accordance to the law,” Fayaz told Minivan News.

It had been previously reported that upon ratification of the bill, political parties with fewer than 10,000 members would have three months to reach the required amount or face dissolution.

When asked about the clause, Fayaz stated it only applied to registered parties in accordance to the bill, and that therefore if a party does not meet the 10,000 limit it cannot be classed as such and is therefore exempt from the three-month clause.

Government takes measures to “rectify” Political Parties Bill

Speaking to Minivan News, President’s Office Media Secretary Masood Imad said the government had decided to take measures to “rectify” the decision to dissolve all but five of the country’s political parties.

The dissolution of the parties is seen by the state as an infringement of people’s right to form political bodies, according to Masood.

“The constitution does give the right for every citizen to do this,” he added.

Masood contended that Attorney General (AG) Azima Shukoor had this afternoon sought to file motions with the country’s Supreme Court raising concerns with the decision to dissolve the parties following the ratification of the controversial Political Parties Bill by President Waheed earlier today.

However, at the time of press, he said he was not aware exactly of the nature of documentation submitted to the courts by the attorney general.

Addressing the impact of President Waheed’s own party being dissolved, Masood said the decision would not be a problem for the functioning of the present government.

However, he declined to comment on what implications a lack of party could have on President Waheed’s prospects for re-election.

“There maybe some issues there going forward, but you would need to speak with a spokesperson for the president’s party,” he said. “I would rather not comment on the matter.”

Local media reported that the AG’s Office had submitted both the Political Parties Act and the Privileges and Powers of Parliament Members Act to the Supreme Court today, stating that the bills contain a number of legal discrepancies.

At time of press, Attorney General Azima Shukoor and GIP party spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza were not responding to calls from Minivan News.

President Waheed’s Special Advisor and Leader of the government-aligned Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP), Dr Hassan Saeed, and MP Ahmed ‘Sun Travel’ Shiyam, Interim Leader of the recently formed Maldives Development Alliance (MDA), were also not returning calls today.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)