Tag: media

Q&A: Aishath Velezinee on plots, power and treason

The international community has urged the Maldives executive to respect the rule of law in negotiating a solution to its current political deadlock with the Majlis (parliament), and in handling its accusations of corruption and treason against several prominent MPs and high-profile businessmen.

In a democracy the judiciary is the crucial arbitrator of any such disputes between the other two arms of government. But Aishath Velezinee, the President’s Member of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), the independent institution tasked with reforming the judiciary and ensuring both its independence and accountability to the public, believes the current state of the judiciary renders it unfit to do so.

Article 285 of the Constitution outlines an interim period for the reappointment of the judiciary by the JSC, according to minimum standards, with a deadline of August 7, 2010. After this, a judge may only be removed for gross incompetency or misconduct in a resolution passed by a two-thirds majority in parliament – the same number required for impeaching the President or Vice President.

Last week the JSC reappointed 160 of the judges appointed by the former government, despite a quarter of the bench possessing criminal records and many others with only primary school level education. The Supreme Court meanwhile sent the President a letter claiming it had ruled itself tenure for life.

Velezinee blows the whistle, speaking to Minivan News about the JSC’s failure to ensure the accountability of the judiciary, the compromise of its own independence at the hands of the Majlis – and the ramifications for the country in the lead up to the August deadline.

JJ Robinson: What is the function of the Judicial Services Commission?

Aishath Velezinee: The main function of the JSC – as I see it – is to maintain judicial integrity, and to build public confidence in the judiciary and individual judges.

The way we would do it under a democratic governance structure would be to hear the complaints of the people, and to look into these matters objectively and independently, and take action if necessary, to assure the public there is no hanky-panky [going on].

But instead of that, we are putting out press releases saying things like: “You can’t criticise judges”, “You can’t criticise the judiciary”, and ‘‘the president is exercising influence over judges”.

JJ: So the JSC is working as shield organisation for judges rather than as a watchdog?

AV: Very much. It is a shield for judges, and the evidence for that is very obvious. We have all this evidence in the media now from what is happening in the criminal court – a fact is a fact.

Why did [Criminal Court] Judge Abdulla Mohamed open the Criminal Court at midnight when two high-profile [opposition MPs Abdulla Yameen and Gasim Ibrahim] were arrested?

From August 2008 to today there have been many instances when the public might have wanted the court to open outside hours. But no – before that day, they have never opened the court out of hours for anybody else.

This was the first time they have done it – and then put out press releases saying it happened at 9pm? This is not the truth. We have evidence it is wrong.

But the Commission takes for granted that whatever the judge says is right. We can’t protect judges and oversee them.

JJ: This was the case taken to the Criminal Court by Yameen’s defence lawyer [former attorney general Azima Shukoor]?

AV: That’s not standard procedure. According to regulations the Criminal Court can only accept submissions from the State.

It would not have been an issue – the defence lawyer would have been given the opportunity to argue the case when the State went to the court. But Yameen’s lawyer initiated it – and got into the Criminal Court in the wee hours of the night – that is strange.

I’m not saying it is right or wrong – I don’t know. But what I do know is that this is out of the ordinary. The JSC has an obligation to the people to ensure the Criminal Court has done nothing wrong.

JJ: How did the JSC react?

AV: They did nothing. Article 22(b) of the Judicial Services Act gives us the power to look into matters arising in public on our own initiative. But what did the JSC do? They said nobody had complained: “We haven’t received an official complaint.” They were waiting for an individual to come and complain.

My experience, from being part of the complaints committee in the JSC, is that whenever a complaint is received, we have two judges on the complaints committee who will defend the [accused] judge, trashing the complainant, and talk about “taking action” against these people “who are picking on judges”.

Then they will put out a press release: “Nobody should interfere with work of judges.” Their interpretation is that “nobody should criticise us. We are above and beyond the law.”

Since January – when the JSC censored its own annual report, despite the law clearly saying what we should include – they decided to hide the names of all judges who had complaints made against them.

Instead, they released the details – including quite private information – about the complainants.

Civil Court judge Mohamed Naeem has "a box-file" of complaints pending, says Velezinee

JJ: What is the current state of the judiciary?

AV: The current judiciary has 198 judges that were appointed prior to this Constitution being adopted. Those judges were appointed by the then-executive: the Ministry of Justice. The appointment procedure, the criteria – none of these were transparent.

They were only given ‘on-the-job’ training. This ‘Certificate in Justice Studies’ they say they have is on-the-job training given after the 1998 Constitution was adopted, to teach them how to run the country according to that Constitution.

How do we expect these people – without exposure to democratic principles and cultures, without exposure to the world, with only basic education, and with only tailor-made on-the-job training for a different Constitution – how do we expect them to respect and uphold this Constitution?

A majority have not even completed primary school. A quarter have criminal convictions: sexual misconduct, embezzlement, violence, disruption of public harmony, all sorts of things – convictions, not accusations.

We are not even looking at the 100 plus complaints we have in the JSC that are unattended to. They have not been tabled. Civil Court Judge Mohamed Naeem has a box-file of complaints against him. And Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed has way too many against him.

JJ: Given the condition of the judiciary, and if the government is in a state of political deadlock with parliament, how is the government able to legitimise accusations against the MPs it has accused of corruption and treason?

AV: That is where we have the problem. The international community seem to have forgotten that this is a new-found democracy. We have in all our institutions people who have been in the previous government. We haven’t changed everybody – and they are still following their own culture, not the law.

How can [the international community] ask for the rule of law to be followed when there are no courts of law? Where are the courts? Where are the judges? A majority never even finished primary school.

Supreme Court Justice and President of the JSC, Mujthaz Fahmy

JJ: What possible reason was there for appointing judges with only primary grade education?

AV: It’s very obvious – just look at the records. As a member of the JSC I have been privy to records kept from before [the current government]. In their files, there are reprimands against judges for not sentencing as they were directed. That was a crime when the Minister of Justice ran the courts. The Ministry of Justice directed judges as to how sentences should be passed, and that was perfectly legitimate under that Constitution.

JJ: Has anything changed since 2008 and when the judges were appointed under the former government?

AV: Yes – what has changed is that [the judges] were freed from the executive. So they are very happy with the freedom they have received. But unfortunately they haven’t understood what that freedom and independence means.

They are looking for a father-figure, and they have found him in the current President of the JSC, Supreme Court Justice Mujthaz Fahmy. He has taken on this role, and he is now the king and father of the judges.

So they are all looking up to him to protect their interests. If you look at all the press releases from the Judges’ Association – which is run from Mujthaz Fahmy’s home address – he makes arbitrary decisions in the JSC and then puts out press statements from this organisation run from his home, to defend his own position.

We are in a very big game. Mujthaz Fahmy has been under the thumb of the former executive for way too long – the man is going on 50, he has been on the bench for 25 years, he has never had anybody come and argue with him – he can’t stand anybody who challenges him. So he’s got a problem with me sitting on the Commission because I do not take his word as the law. The man thinks that anything that comes out of his mouth is the law, and the majority of the JSC members take it as a fact.

But if you look into the documentation, if you look into the recordings – nothing that comes out of that man’s mouth will hold. Those interviews he is giving, all he is using is this image he has built up of himself as ‘the esteemed justice’. That is what he is using to convince the public that he is right. And they are trashing me in public and in biased media, just so people do not listen to me.

I do not ask anybody to take my word. I am saying: hear the recordings in the commission. Listen to what they say.

They have this belief that whatever happens in the Commission must be kept a secret amongst ourselves. This was run like a secret society – we have a pact of secrecy amongst us. I broke it, because I do not believe in tyranny of the majority. What we are seeing here is a repeat of what happened in the High Court in January, what we are currently seeing happen in the Majlis, and the same things are now happening in the JSC.

Elements of the parliament are collaborating with the JSC, says Velezinee

JJ: What are the links between the Majlis and the judiciary?

AV: That is a very serious issue. I am currently sitting on this seat as the President’s appointed member of the JSC, but prior to this, I was was the member of the general public appointed by the Majlis. They have forgotten that part.

I have brought this to Majlis attention. When the Commission voted on what I call the minimum ‘sub-standards’ for the judiciary, I sent a complaint to the Majlis. The same letter I sent to the President and the President of the Law Society. I sent it to the Speaker of the Majlis, as well as the chair of the Independent Commissions Committee, Mohamed Mujthaz.

When the JSC finalised the ‘substandards’, the Majlis into recess. So I went to the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), because it was the only constitutional structure where I could go to hold the JSC accountable. It is rather odd for one Commission member to go to another commission and ask them to investigate her own commission.

I met the ACC on May 12. The JSC say they adopted the substandards on May 11. Later I collected all the documentation, and wrote a report – because this is not going to be something easy to investigate. This is a whole conspiracy cooked up from the time the JSC was initially constituted. It has been planned, and it is very clear this is a plot.

When the Majlis reopened in June, I sent an official complaint to the Independent Commissions Committee which they accepted. On June 16, the Majlis wrote two letters to the JSC, one letter requesting all documentation and recordings relating to Article 285 – my complaint.

The JSC is not respecting Constitution and is doing as it pleases. Their disregard of Article 285, and their decision to adopt substandards for judges, comes from their belief in a promise made by the former government.

They do not refer to the Constitution in adopting the standards. They refer to conversations they had with the majority party at that time, a delegation led by our dear JSC President, Mujthaz Fahmy. He and a team of judges met with the politicians to negotiate a guarantee that no judge would be removed under the new Constitution.

Although we have Article 285 in the Constitution – to give the people a judiciary they can trust and respect – we have the President of the Commission responsible for the implementation of this article working on this political understanding with the former government.

This is very clear from the recordings.

All I’m asking is for third party to look into this – and that third party is the Majlis. After the Majlis took all the documentation and recordings, they had requested the JSC meet with the Majlis Independent Commissions Committee at 2:30pm on June 23.

If you go back to your news files, that was the day when the Majlis floor heated up. Since then the Speaker [DRP MP Abdulla Shahid] has suspended the Majlis.

The committee accepted the complaint – if they had not, they would not have asked us to come and discuss this with them.

I believe the speaker is taking undue advantage of this political crisis. The Speaker of the Majlis is now coming and sitting in the JSC [office] day and night, during Friday, holidays and Independence Day. The Speaker is sitting in the JSC trying to expedite this process of reappointing judges before the Majlis starts on August 1. What is going on here?

The Supreme Court, formerly the Presidential Palace

JJ: What is going on?

AV: I believe that when the Majlis was suspended, they should have directed the JSC to at least halt what was going on until they have looked into the matter. It is a very serious complaint I have made – it is a very serious allegation. And if that allegation and complaint is unfounded, I am willing to stand before the people, in Republic Square, and be shot.

I believe we have all the evidence we need to look into this matter – but under this Constitution, we have to go to the Majlis. But where is the Majlis? And what is the Speaker doing in the JSC?

What about all those other complaints? The Commission’s president is not letting us work on them. We have in our rules that any member can ask for a matter to be tabled. I asked him to look into the matter – and do you know what he did? He sent me a letter to my home address – as though I was not a member of the Commission – and asked me to write it in a proper form and bring it to the attention [of reception].

The JSC has decided Article 285 is symbolic, that article 22(b) does not exist, while the esteemed people of the law in the commission, include the Commission President, Supreme Court Justice Mujthaz Fahmy, explain to me that article 22(b) gives me the power to write a letter, fill in a form and submit a complaint. I asking – why did the drafters of this law put in a clause to give me a right I already have as any ordinary citizen?

Where we are right now – with the lack of confidence in the judiciary – it all lies with Mujthaz Fahmy.

JJ: What do you mean when you talk about “a plot”? How interconnected is this?

AV: They are trying to expedite the reappointment of judges without looking into my complaint. If you look into my complaint, you will find this has been done in an unconstitutional way.

What they are doing right now is going to kill the Constitution.

We are not going to consolidate democracy if they succeed in getting away with what they are doing right now. The Speaker has suspended the Majlis whilst a very serious complaint is with the Majlis committee, and now he is sitting in the JSC doing this.

If there is a matter pending in a court of law, usually they ask for a court order until the matter is settled. You don’t just carry on as if nothing is happening.

We have a petition signed by 1562 people – the JUST campaign – calling for an honest and impartial judiciary. This was not even put on the Commission’s agenda – it said it did not find it necessary to take it into account, and on that day I was not given opportunity to participate because on the agenda was the matter of approving judges under the substandards.

We are asked to put before any other matter the people, and the Constitution. Instead, the Commission is working in the interests of these individual few judges who have hijacked the judiciary. Mujthaz Fahmy must go.

JJ: So these Commission members met with politicians from the former government, to obtain a guarantee that sitting judges would remain on the bench, and not be subject to reappointment under Article 285? What do the politicians get back from the judges?

AV: We are talking about corruption. The change in government came in 2008 because people were fed up with a corrupt administration and autocratic governance.

But all those people who were in power entered parliament. The Speaker, who is right now sitting in the JSC working night and day expediting the reappointment of the judges, was also part of that administration. It is within their interest to keep this judiciary here, and not work in the interests of this Constitution, or the People.

Their personal interests take precedence over everything else. I’m afraid that is what we are seeing.

JJ: Do you feel the media has been taking this case seriously enough?

AV: I’ve been writing to all the concerned authorities since Januruary. I’ve been going on and on about the JSC and the dictatorship within it for a long, long time. I knew where we were heading, I have been warning the Majlis and talking to people from various parties. I have been talking about Article 285 for so long that I have become ‘the old article 285 madwoman.’

JJ: Do you think the current political crisis can be resolved without a functioning judiciary?

AV: Absolutely not. But then a functioning judiciary cannot be introduced without this crisis being resolved. How can the international community ask for the rule of law to be followed when there are no courts of law?

We need an impartial investigation of what is going on. And I believe the Maldives does not have anyone able to conduct an impartial investigation. We need assistance – the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) should be here. The UN Special Rapporteur on Independence of the Judiciary should be here, right now.

This is not the fault of the judiciary. We have a large bench, and most of the judges have absolutely no idea about what is going on. They have not even been given orientation on the new Constitution.

I had the opportunity to meet magistrates from four Atolls. They know the law. But what they need is a basic understanding of the principles of this Constitution, of the foundations of democracy. Because it is through those lenses that they should be interpreting the Constitution.

I am not in favour of the removal of all judges. But I demand that all judges with criminal records be removed – they should not be sitting there even now, and there’s 40-50 of them – a quarter of the bench.

Why is the JSC remaining silent? Why is the Speaker of the Majlis in the JSC [office]? By his silence, and through the act of suspending the Majlis, the Speaker has given the JSC the opportunity to complete this act of treason they are currently committing.

The deadline for the judicial reform period under the new constitution in August 7. The Speaker and the President of the JSC are working overtime to get all these judges reappointed before the Majlis restarts on August 1. That is treason.

Supreme Court Judge Uz Ahmed Faiz Hussain, the President's nomination for Chief Justice

JJ: What benefit would outside arbitration bring?

AV: It is difficult because all our documentation is in Dhivehi. But we need an independent and impartial body to look into this properly. Forget listening to me or Mujthaz. Forget listening to politicians, and investigate. We need an impartial mediator.

It is very easy for the international community to turn around and blame the executive for taking a dictatorial attitude. We are demanding the executive uphold the rule of law. But what about the Majlis? Where is the rule of law when the Speaker suspends the Majlis and hides in the JSC expediting the reappointment of judges? Where are the courts to go to?

We need the public to understand the Constitution, and we need all duty-bearers to uphold the Constitution. I’m afraid half the members of the JSC do not understand the principles of democracy or the role of the JSC, or the mandate we have. Then there are a few who understand it very well but remain silent while all this goes on

JJ: The President recently nominated Supreme Court Judge Uz Ahmed Faiz Hussain as the new Chief Justice, and is awaiting Majlis approval. How likely is this to resolve the current situation, given the Majlis is currently suspended?

AV: Uz Ahmed Faiz Hussain is a well-respected man amongst the judges. I have never heard anybody question his independence or impartiality. He is a learned man and amongst all the politicking and hanky-panky going on, he has maintained his integrity.

But the Majlis has to appoint him and the Majlis may not even get that far – the Supreme Court has already declared itself permanent.

I’m telling you: this is big. What we are seeing is all interconnected – it is one big plot to try – in any way possible – to return power to the corrupt.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: In love of democracy

Recent political developments not only confirm that democracy certainly is not ‘the only game in town’ – which is the simple test of consolidated democracy according to political scientists Alfred Stepan and Juan Linz – but also make one doubt whether there has been a completed democratic transition in the Maldives.

Two issues – the increasing inability of the government to generate new policies, and the de jure and de facto sharing and blurring of the powers of the executive with those of the legislature – put into question the transition to democracy.

‘Cash for votes’ in the parliament, the failures of the judiciary, reaction from government to predatory politics, the inaction of the civil society, the unreflective ‘political society’ polarized between two violent tribes, show that games from the authoritarian era can still be the favourites in town.

Failure of institutions VS human failure

Sri Lanka’s foreign minister, who is also trained in law, recently argued that the reasons for the current impasse lie in the institutional design of the 2008 constitution. President Nasheed agreed at a press conference on Wednesday. The unique features of presidentialism are also the institutional reasons for similar political deadlock as argued by others like Linz.

Yet institutionalism is not a sufficient reason – for either evil or good.

For, even perfect or just constitutions may not result in good outcomes or realisations.

As Nobel laureate Amartya Sen powerfully argues in his recent book The Idea of Justice the compliance of people’s behaviour with the demands of institutions is necessary for comprehensive good outcomes.

Wealthy parliamentarians can buy votes, minority parties can filibuster and disrupt parliament’s work, parliamentarians can block legislation and misuse constitutional provisions, authorities can arbitrarily arrest people and bypass due process, judges can be biased, executive can ignore court orders, and oversight bodies can be power-ridden.

To avoid, therefore, ‘justice in the world of fish’ where powerful predators devour the rest, both institutions and behavioral compliance, both processes and substance, are essential.

The persistence of predatory culture

Recent revelations show that predatory practices in the country are shockingly persistent. If what Larry Diamond, who has extensively written on political transitions, describes as ‘predatory society’ is an ideal type, the Maldives may not be far away from it. He describes, and I quote in length from Civic Communities and Predatory Societies:

In the predatory society, people do not get rich through productive activity and honest risk-taking. They get rich by manipulating power and privilege, by stealing from the state, exploiting the weak, and shirking the law.

Political actors in the predatory society will use any means and break any rules in the quest for power and wealth. Politicians in the predatory society bribe electoral officials, beat up opposition campaigners, and assassinate opposing candidates. Presidents silence criticism and eliminate their opponents by legal manipulation, arrest, or murder. Ministers worry first about the rents they can collect and only second about whether the equipment they are purchasing or the contract they are signing has any value for the public.

Legislators collect bribes to vote for bills.

Military officers order weapons on the basis of how large the kickback will be. Ordinary soldiers and policemen extort rather than defend the public. In the predatory society, the line between the police and the criminals is a thin one, and may not exist at all. In fact, in the predatory society, institutions are a façade. The police do not enforce the law.

Judges do not decide the law.

Customs officials do not inspect the goods. Manufacturers do not produce, bankers do not invest, borrowers do not repay, and contracts do not get enforced. Any actor with discretionary power is a rent-seeker. Every transaction is twisted to immediate advantage. Time horizons are extremely short because no one has any confidence in the collectivity and its future. This is pure opportunism: get what you can now. Government is not a public enterprise but a criminal conspiracy, and organized crime heavily penetrates politics and government.

Again, he says that “Corruption is the core phenomenon of the predatory state.”

The problem with such a society is that it cannot sustain democracy.

How to leave Las Vegas

President Nasheed’s government no doubt represents a victory against the forces of predation. However, some reasonable people have questioned whether his government’s recent reaction to predatory politics was legitimately conducted.

Of course, as value-pluralists like Isaiah Berlin remind us, we may take the risk of drastic action in desperate situations. So to give the government the benefit of the doubt, legitimacy aside, it is questionable if the government’s actions such as arrests and fomenting masses will lead to improvement.

Writing about political deadlocks, political scientist Scott Mainwaring has this to say:

“Common among populist presidents, such a pattern [i.e. mobilizing masses] easily leads to escalating mutual suspicions and hostilities between the president and the opposition.”

Moreover, by detaining otherwise predatory characters on questional grounds, we are giving them the benefit of victimhood and making them ever strong and popular. There is no greater tragedy to responsible opposition politics than having predatory characters as the most popular.

To my mind, therefore, there is no alternative to talks as an immediate measure, and strengthening institutions of horizontal accountability such as the Anti-Corruption Commission, the Audit Office, and the judiciary for long haul.

As a discursive yet instrumental tool, government must strengthen its public communication and pressure the parliament into compliance through public sphere.

As a permanent policy, it is time the government took for granted that it is a minority in the parliament, gave way for real negotiations rather than consultations, and got prepared for painful compromises.

Politics after all is the art of the possible.

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Gayoom to pursue defamation case against Miadhu, Hashim and Naeem over NYT article

Former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom has confirmed he is pursuing legal action against newspaper Miadhu, after it reported that the New York Times had published a story containing allegations he embezzled US$400 million during his time in government.

Spokesman for Gayoom, Mohamed Hussain ‘Mundhu’ Shareef, confirmed that Gayoom was also building a case against Finance Minister Ali Hashim, who was quoted in the NYT article, and former Auditor General Ibrahim Naeem, upon who’s 2009 report the article was largely based, as well as the proprietor and managing editor of Miadhu.

Contrary to earlier reports, Gayoom was not seeking to sue the NYT or the author of the article, Matthew Saltmarsh, Mundhu said.

“I think that’s been misinterpreted, we have no interest in Saltmarsh,” Mundhu said.

“We don’t know him but we’re sure he’s a good journalis, and the NYT is obviously reputed and widely circulated globally,” he said, adding that Gayoom’s response had been to send a letter the NYT editor.

Mundhu noted that according to the NYT article, the journalist Saltmarsh had claimed he attempted to contact Gayoom for his side of the story.

“Mr Gayoom was not in town, but has confirmed he received no calls, either to himself or his secretary,” Mundhu said. “I too was not in town, but my Maldivian mobile was switched on. Mr Saltmarsh says he could not get through, but there was not even an email or a message.”

Mundhu said he did not believe such an article was justified without a right of response, and that Gayoom had written to the NYT editor requesting a right of reply, or a correction.

“This is not the first time we’ve come across issue. We can only ask for the right to respond and the opportunity to put forward our point of view – our letter serves that purpose and there is no need to take Saltmarsh or the NYT to court.”

Mundhu said Gayoom was more concerned with the story being reported in the local media.

“We want to address [the matter of] the ruling party’s engineering of the article for political benefit,” he said.

The foundation of the NYT article was the former Auditor General’s report, he said, “and the Auditor General has been discredited – by the Anti-Corruption Commission, not just us. The report doesn’t stand to scrutiny.”

But he added that comments made by Finance Minister Ali Hashim in the NYT report did not come from the Auditor General’s report – “this US$400 million [alleged embezzlement] is something he’s conjured up in the Haruge (MDP headquarters),” Mundhu said.

“The issue is that whether as a former president or an individual, Mr Gayoom has rights, a family and a reputation to protect.”

Miadhu’s Managing Editor Abdullah ‘Gabbe’ Latheef said he would “be glad to go to court”, and that “already three international journalist associations have offered support and want to send observers to the hearings.”

“Until a court rules that the Auditor General’s report was fabricated, the media has a right to report it – it is a public document. Until then, the media can write about it five times daily if they wish,” he said.

Latheef added that he was looking forward to the opportunity the court case would provide to open the orginal audit reports to public review.

“Then everyone will understand where the US$400 million has come from,” he claimed. “Some people misunderstand the government budget – when you include the private-public companies, such as STELCO, Dhiraagu and MIFCO, US$400 million is nothing.”

Latheef said he believed the local media had done a “responsible job” in reporting the NYT story, “as the NYT is the number one newspaper in the world and is a credible source. There’s no obligation on us to clarify all the facts that the NYT has reported, because it is such a credible source. What about when the Israelis attacked the aid flotilla recently? Should we have gone to Israel to check all the facts for ourselves? No – we have to rely on credible sources, and the NYT is not an anonymous blog.”

“Gayoom is used to attacking people who speak out against him. They used to be taken to jail, now they are taken to court. Maybe one day he will invite them to coffee on the beach,” Latheef said, adding that “there are a lot of diplomats here who are very scared the media will die off because of threats like these.”

Speaking yesterday at the Commonwealth’s media development workshop, Attorney General Husnu Suood acknowledged that if an article was published in the Maldives, even if the source was from abroad, the onus was still on the particular journalist to prove its truth.

“But there are defences available,” Suood noted. “In the regulation on defamation there are certain defences – one is the the defence of truth. In this particular instance, if you are relying on figures given by the government’s Auditor General, then I think that might be a defense.”

Hashim had not responded to Minivan News at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Commenwealth media development workshop opens tomorrow

The Commonwealth will host a four-day media development workshop tomorrow at Holiday Inn, in conjunction with the Maldives Journalists Association (MJA).

The event will launch tomorrow morning at 10:00am with a speech by Minister for Tourism, Arts and Culture, Dr Ahmed Ali Sawad.

The four day workshop will be led by two senior editors from Singapore. Bhagman Singh, Senior Editor, NewsHub, MediaCorp News, which owns and operates the regional satellite news network, Channel NewsAsia, will sessions on TV and radio journalism, while Jayandra Menon, Deputy Foreign Editor of The Straits Times, an English language daily, will share his skills on newspaper and online reporting.

Minivan News Editor JJ Robinson will also be present a session on Tuesday morning.

Deputy spokesperson for the Commonwealth Secretariat, Manoah Esipisu, said the workshop would “bring together two Commonwealth neighbours, Singapore and Maldives, in the sharing of expertise and experiences in media development.”

“This cross-cultural exchange will help to broaden and deepen understanding on journalism and the influence of politics and governance, culture, tradition, environment, education and technology,” Esipisu said.

“We are delighted that Mr Bhagman and Mr Menon have put their substantial experience in reporting Asia and global affairs at the disposal of their colleagues in Maldives, and look to their work in enhancing a sound tradition of media professionalism, leading to greater consistency in the accuracy, fairness and balance of news reports,” he added.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Apostate publicly repents and rejoins Islam, after counselling

A Maldivian man who publicly declared himself an apostate during a speech by Islamic speaker Dr Zakir Naik on Friday evening has repented and offered a public apology on Television Maldives (TVM).

Mohamed Nazim gave Shahada – the Muslim testimony of belief – during a press conference held at the Islamic Ministry today.

He also apologised for causing “agony for the Maldivian people”, and said “major misconceptions I had regarding Islam have been clarified.”

He further requested that the community accept him back into society.

After describing himself to Dr Naik as “Maldivian but not a Muslim” on Friday night, Nazim was escorted from Maafaanu stadium by Islamic Ministry officials into police custody. Several officers were attacked for trying to protect Nazim when members of the crowd turned violent, calling for his death.

The following day the Islamic Foundation NGO issued a press release calling for Nazim to be executed under Islamic law if he failed to repent.

Apostasy is considered a grave sin under Islam, although scholarly opinion varies as to its punishment: in response to Nazim’s question, Dr Naik clarifed that the penalty was only death “if the person becomes a non-Muslim and propagates his faith and speaks against Islam. Just because a person who is a Muslim becomes a non-Muslim, death penalty is not the ruling.”

Speaking after the press conference today, Deputy Minister for Islamic Affairs Sheikh Mohamed Farooq told newspaper Haveeru that Nazim had reverted to Islam “on freewill” after the Ministry had sent two scholars to counsel him while he was in custody.

“[After] two days of counseling he said that his misconceptions had been clarified and that he wanted to become a Muslim,” Sheikh Farooq told Haveeru.

President of Islamic NGO Jammiyyathu Salaf Sheikh Abdulla Bin Mohamed Ibrahim told Minivan News he was very happy to hear of Nazim’s repentance and thanked God, adding that incident has “damaged the good name of the country.”

He further said that there were “many people trying to introduce other religions to the Maldives underground”, and that he would “release the names of these underground people at the appropriate time.”

”The incident was the result of a lack of Islamic studies in the school curriculum,” he said. ”That is one of the reasons why such things as this happen.”

The Adhaalath Party said it welcomed Nazim’s repentance and congratulated him for re-embracing Islam.

Police have meanwhile yet to reveal whether Nazim has been released from custody.

Sub-Inspector Ahmed Shiyam said the court had decided that Nazim should be released, but he would not reveal whether police had yet done so.

“Police will analyse the situation,” Shiyam said, regarding Nazim’s safety.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

PG sends Lale case to criminal court as principal resigns

The Prosecutor General’s Office will file a case against the Principal of Lale Youth International School, Serkan Akar, at the Criminal Court tomorrow morning.

Police confiscated Akar’s passport last Thursday after he attempted to flee the country, pending a police investigation into allegations of child abuse.

Deputy Principal Suleyman Atayev told Minivan News last week that Akar had a return ticket and was trying to escort two children to an Information Communications Technology (ICT) Olympiad when immigration stopped him at the airport, although staff at the school questioned why the principal had packed up his apartment.

Atayev said he was confident any allegations against the Principal would be proven false.

Deputy Prosecutor General Hussain Shameem said the PG’s office intended to prosecute Akar on charges of assault and battery, ensuring he remained in the country while police and the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) completed their investigations into other allegations.

“The case is proceeding and his passport is held, but we need to prosecute if want to hold it any longer,” Shameem explained. “We are still awaiting some documents relating to his passport,” he added.

The PG’s office had attempted to file the case today, he said, “but the criminal court has this odd thing where they only take the submission of cases between 10am to 11am. We will submit the case tomorrow.”

Deputy Minister for Education Dr Abdulla Nazeer told Minivan News today that Akar had resigned as principal of Lale, and Atayev had been appointed acting principal in his stead.

“The replacement principal has arrived but he is on a tourist visa and cannot start work until immigration issues him a work permit,” Dr Nazeer noted, adding that the company behind the school, Biz Atoll, “only has the quota for one principal.”

“My understanding is that Akar’s resignation automatically means the principal’s [quota] is vacant,” he said.

Nazeer said allegations against the principal were of an individual nature and not necessarily a reflection on Biz Atoll, although the agency is responsible for the agreement between the privately-run school and the Education Ministry.

Earlier this month the Minstry said it had amended the contract with Biz Atoll to require the departure of Akar and the appointment of an appropriately-qualified principal within a three month window, and inserted a termination clause.

“We are waiting for the HRCM report, and based on that evidence we may review the Biz Atoll contract,” Dr Nazeer said.

HRCM said the commission’s report on the school will be released next week.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Maldives Media at the Crossroads

Press freedom. Media Freedom. Right to Information.

Several years ago these were taboo words in the Maldives. Now they have become the mantra of the local media. Ironically it is coming from those people who resisted the introduction of these democratic instruments into Maldives.

The chant now is ‘self regulation’. And that coming especially from the Maldives Journalist Association (MJA) is worrying.

The MJA has become the grand mufti of the nation’s media. They have become the sole experts to assess the media. But in a country like the Maldives where everyone is familiar with each other, the views of MJA are like that of a serial killer calling for human rights.

If MJA claims to be a voice for free media they are a bit late for this. Such freedoms have undoubtedly been established. The noble deed was done by some others who started the process almost twenty years ago. They risked their lives like those doing a massive clean-up while the storm was blowing. By now, they have stashed their tools and dumped the garbage and are busy with more clean-ups.

Rumor has it that MJA is synonymous to Haveeru – the oldest daily of over 30 years and supposedly with the largest audience. The President of MJA – Ahmed ‘Hiriga’ Zahir has been the editor of Haveeru for most of its life.

For me, MJA’s credibility has always been questionable; among many other contexts is its representation of local media. I asked the President of MJA for a list of its membership. But sadly, he ignored my request. That was from the very person who calls for freedom of information.

I logged onto the MJA website. The executive committee members were disclosed there. To my disappointment, they turn out to be the silent forces that resisted the movement to establish the very freedoms that the Maldivians enjoy today.

Now these forces are busy producing the media junk that Maldivians are exposed to, every time they turn a radio or a TV on.

I cannot say such trash is entirely due to the lack of professional training of the local journalists. In the current scenario, the security of your job as a journalist in private media depends on your willingness to attack the government. The editors discount the ethics of their profession when it comes to imposing their views on the general public and violate the average person’s right to information.

I have always had deep suspicions about those who change their tune overnight and take multiple forms. Haveeru was definitely not advocating freedom of expression and press freedom in 2007.

My experience with them dates back to March 20, 2007, when one of my articles was published in a local paper.

In relation to that, I remember Haveeru was way ahead of others in portraying me as an ignorant apostate of Islam. I saw no wrong on my part as I was merely expressing my opinion. However, Haveeru was quick to twist my opinion as the view point of my employer. Further, they spiced up their story with quotes of those who shared their views.

On May 3, 2007, on World Press Freedom Day, the police chased me on the road and finally carried me to the police station. At the station, on live TV, I saw the official functions to mark the day. Soon I was delivered to the Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs, to have the views I expressed in the article “corrected”. Still Haveeru never mentioned that I was exercising my right to expression.

The election of the Maldives Media Council (MMC) held on 28th March 2010 is a case in point for assessing the credibility of the MJA.

I ran for a seat in the MMC. I was one of the two women shortlisted along with 13 men competing for seven seats to represent the public there. Two other women competed with nine men to represent the registered media in the council. The voters consisted of 20 registered media outlets.

MMC was formed with a blatant gender gap – a consequence of MJA’s attempt to ensure that the MMC is their subsidiary branch. MJA’s preferences unfortunately represent my loss.

A press release from the MJA on 18th March 2010 reads:

“While there is no room for us to deem the procedure was not politically motivated, our Association has noticed that the announced candidates include former frontline members of political parties.”

Six months ago, I worked as a purely administrative, senior secretary of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP). I am certainly proud that I contributed to the social and political reform of my country through my work there. Especially when MDP represents the leaders who brought us not only the freedom of expression but all the freedoms that Maldivians entertain today.

I found it surprising MJA failed to look beyond my one identity.

I have several identities. I was a school teacher who taught primary school kids, college kids, adults. I was a coordinator for UN funded projects on areas such as Population Education, Empowerment of Women, Reproductive health and Life skills. I have received government’s pension for 20 years of public service. I was a reporter and an editor for a local daily with an adequate level of professional training. I wrote many articles on social issues for the media including Haveeru and their English magazine ‘The Evening Weekly.’ I am a graduate of social science – one of the very few who ran in the MMC elections who had a university degree. Most importantly I am a mother of three grown up children.

Despite the dragging complaints by MJA on the MMC elections, they did not see anything wrong with Haveeru casting three votes as separate sources – Haveerudaily, Haveeru online (they have the same news stories and articles) and Haveeru FM (a music channel). Yet they failed to field a single female candidate from their establishment. MJA’s President and Editor of Haveeru, Ahmed Zahir, told me the MJA does not work for gender equality.

So far, MJA has been busy lambasting the government. But they have never taken a look inwards at how their media is performing. The aggressive promotion of gender stereotypes, gender discriminations and extremist viewpoints are probably not something they comprehend.

The MJA has undoubtedly achieved their main objective, which is attracting the attention of the international organisations. MJA knows that international organisations, to complete their tasks, depend heavily on local groups. This means that one can work for the benefit of the other. The building blocks for the MJA’s powerbase have started streaming in, in the form of training opportunities, local and international platforms and scholarships. MJA knows that the work plan of international organisations does not always include close scrutiny of people to whom they hand over funds.

The World Press Freedom Day was celebrated in Maldives last week. A two day consultation on Freedom of Information was held. The event was organised jointly by the Maldivian government and UNESCO. The local media personnel and representatives of the regional media participated at this workshop.

I watched the inauguration of the event live on TV. I also made some notes as distinguished people gave their speeches. One of them urged to deliver democracy with responsibility. Another pointed out that right to information is not the journalist’s right to information, but the right to information of the ordinary person on the street. The UNESCO Director General stressed the importance of quality of information and its dependence on the availability of accurate and up-to-date information for the journalists. The keynote speaker touched on a core value of the profession. He indicated that right to information is less satisfied by law than the desire, ability and choice of the journalist to choose the right information for the job.

The point leap of Maldives in the Press freedom Index was mentioned before the event was over. I did not find anyone there who helped bring that leap. No faces and no mention of names of those who over the past twenty years, at their own behest, struggled and made sacrifices to bring the media freedom we witness in the country today. Paradoxically, the hall was full of those locals who vehemently obstructed media freedom and freedom of expression in the country.

I ask myself why I wrote what I’ve written here. Is it worth? Or is it a waste of time?

At its worst, my readers will view me as a disgruntled person, taking it out personally on the MJA.

At its best, my readers will view my comments in a broader context.

As the Maldives transforms from a society of consensus – a condition forced by political repression – into a society of conflict, caused by the newly acquired freedoms, the role of media now, could never be more critical for the future of this nation.


All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

DhiTV and VTV take 50% of media subsidies, Parliament reveals

Parliament has announced the distribution of one-off subsidies to be received by the media this year, with 50 percent of a total Rf 4 million being allocated to VTV and DhiTV.

35 percent has been allocated to radio and 15 percent to print media.

“I personally don’t think it’s fair,” noted President of the Maldives Journalists Association (MJA) and editor of Haveeru, Ahmed ‘Hiriga’ Zahir, but said but could not give any further comment on the matter.

Press Secretary for the President’s Office, Mohamed Zuhair explained the funds for the subsidies were allocated by the Parliamentary Finance Committee “after they made  amendments to the budget.”

“They should not be deciding administrative methods of how it should be given out,” he observed.

The country’s new media council, elected today and intended to regulate the media in the country, has the MJA more concerned, however.

The council consists of fifteen members, seven of whom have been elected from the public and the remaining eight from the media sector.

Hiriga said “we don’t agree with this sort of council [because] almost half [the members] are nominated from the government.” He added these members were “elected on a political basis” and it was not “a right thing to do.”

The eight members of the media to be in the council are: Saif Azhar from Haama Daily; Mohamed Nazeef from Atoll Radio; Shiyam Mohamed Waheed from VTV; Ahmed Abdulla Shaheed from Haveeru; Musoon Hilmy from DhiFM; Ahmed Muhsin from TVM; Mohamed Haleem (Sungari) and Ismail Rasheed.

Hiriga said the council would have the power, not to censor media, but to inform the public whether they believe a report “is biased or wrong.”

He said he was lobbying with the government to try to “block” the council, and are “sending amendments to the Parliament.” He believes the media should monitor itself.

Zuhair said the media council “is necessary” and because a majority of the members are from the media, “they will surely be fair.”

Minister for Tourism, Arts and Culture, Dr Ali Sawad, said the the idea of a media council has been discussed before and there has been “legislation to that effect” proposed to Parliament earlier.

He said the council was meant to “regulate the media” and they would look at “ethical issues and all regulatory aspects of the media.”

Dr Sawad noted the council would not be politically influenced since members have been “elected by peers” from both the general public and the media. He added the council would be “an independent legislative authority” that would operate under the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture.

Who got what

Parliament has released a list stating how much money each news company will receive. All the figures are in Maldivian Ruffiya and amount to a total of Rf 4 million.

DhiTV: 820,000.00

Villa TV: 1,060,000.00

Future TV: 120,000.00

DhiFM: 434,000.00

HFM: 56,000.00

Radio Atoll: 294,000.00

Sun FM: 364,000.00

Faraway FM: 252,000.00

Haveeru Daily: 246,000.00

Aafathis Daily: 162,000.00

Miadhu News: 102,000.00

Haama Daily: 90,000.00

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

President Nasheed informs South Korean industries on investment in the Maldives

As part of his visit to South Korea President Mohamed Nasheed met with executives of the country’s business sector, fisheries industry and the media.

In his meeting with representative from the business sector held at the Intercontinetal Hotel in Seoul on Friday, the president informed them of the business and investment opportunities in the Maldives.

President Nasheed spoke of the potential investment opportunities in green energy and housing projects in the Maldives.

He noted South Korea was a growing market for the Maldivian tourism industry and an important partner in the fisheries sector.

The president also met with the president of Korea Trade Investment Promotion Agency (KOTRA), Hwan-eik Cho at the KOTRA Centre to discuss investment in the Maldives, especially in the fisheries, energy and housing sectors.

According to the President’s Office, a number of South Korean companies expressed interest in investing in the Maldives.

He then met with the Director General of Distant Water Fisheries Bureau of the Ministry of Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of South Korea, Lee Cheol Woo, and the Chariman of Korean Overseas Fisheries Association, Kyung-Nam Chang.

Present at the meeting were also representatives from Sajo Industries and Dongwon Industries, two South Korean companies working in the fisheries and business secotr.

President Nasheed spoke of the challenges faced by the Maldivian fishing industry, and said the government wanted to expand the overseas market for fish products so foreign companies could buy fish directly from Maldivian fishermen.

After his meetings, the president met with South Korean press and spoke mostly on the environmental challenges faced by the Maldives and his commitment to bring the issues of climate change to the international stage.

President Nasheed concluded his visit to South Korea on Friday.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)