Tag: minivan news

New soft loan scheme to be launched by BML

A new loan scheme is to be introduced by the Bank of Maldives (BML) following its previous soft loan plan, the bank has announced.

BML has previously issued MVR 15,000 (US$970) loans without a mortgage as part of their soft loan scheme, which the bank claimed had proven popular with the public.

The new scheme will be an extension of the existing plan, however BML has not stated its ceiling value or interest rates.

Only BML customers who have had their salaries deposited into their respective accounts continuously for one year will be eligible for the new soft loan scheme.

BML have stated that the new product will not require customers to submit quotations, and that the service is expected to commence soon.

The previous MVR 15,000 small loan scheme will not be ceased with the introduction of the new plan, the bank said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Maldivian faith to Maldivians

This article first appeared on DhivehiSitee. Republished with permission.

Political prostitutes who pose as religious scholars and sell their Islamic learning to the highest bidder have become some of the biggest contributors to the current socio-political and economic turmoil in the Maldives.

Chief among them is Sheikh Imran Abdulla, current president of Adhaalath Party – an organisation which uses the religion of Islam as its chief recruitment and fundraising tool, and proudly exploits people’s faith for political purposes.

Sheikh Imran Abdulla was one of the chief choreographers of the Islamists’ role in the downfall of the Maldivian democracy. On 2 February 2012, he issued an ultimatum to the then President Mohamed Nasheed: resign within five days or be forced out of office.

Nasheed was forced to resign on 7 February.

Yesterday, Sheikh Imran, now a chief mover and shaker in the current ‘Coalition Government’ issued another ultimatum. This time to the government he helped put in place: get out of the 25-year contract with India’s GMR Group for upgrading and running the Ibrahim Nasir International Airport within six days (by 15 November), or else.

He issued the ultimatum at a public rally widely believed to be funded by rich tourism tycoons, currently openly fighting over the country’s airports, and who have vested interests in getting GMR out.

The rally was a colourful affair, aimed chiefly at rousing the masses into a fervour by making the GMR issue into a religious one. The aim, it appears, is to incite enough public discontent to pressure the government into reneging on its agreement with GMR.

Ahead of the rally, held at the Artificial Beach in Male’, leaflets were distributed all over the island, encouraging people to attend the rally in the name of Islam, to save the Maldivian airport from foreign ‘economic invaders’ of ‘other religions’.

Songs were played on loudspeakers attached to pick-up trucks that went round and round the island, stopping at mosques after Friday prayers for maximum effect.

One of the songs has the title—Maldivians’ Prayer: Maldivian airport to Maldivians. Another is called simply Maldivian Airport to Maldivians. The latter raises the volume on nationalism and the former suggests ending the agreement with GMR is a religious duty of Maldivians.

Here’s some of the lyrics from Maldivians’ Prayer:

You get the picture.

The rally was not as big as the Mother of All Rallies, or the so-called Mahaasinthaa, held on 23 December 2011 to ‘Defend Islam’ by removing President Nasheed from office and endorsing his then Vice President Dr Waheed as his replacement.

But there was still a sizeable crowd of hundreds gathered around the nationalistic/religious banners.

Sheikh Imran told them it was their religious duty to deliver the airport from India’s GMR. Men and women (strange this, given that Imran has repeatedly stated that women should stay home and breed instead of joining political rallies) stayed listening to Sheikh Imran and his fellow Islam-sellers long after midnight and in the pouring rain.

Before ending the rally for the night, another ‘scholar’ led a prayer calling on Allah to bring his wrath upon GMR and cause it great destruction.

Such rhetoric not only fools a lot of people into accepting this economic/political issue as a religious matter, it also helps increase the intolerance and xenophobia which have become defining characteristics of the Maldivian society today, thanks mainly to the religion-political-tourism industry complex that now reigns supreme over Maldivian affairs.

Moreover, as former Maldivian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom Farah Faizal quickly highlighted, turning the issue into a religious one also has the potential to make life very difficult for the tens of thousands of Maldivian immigrants in India by creating tensions between them and the largely Hindu majority Indian population.

The rising radicalisation of Maldivians has been a cause for concern in India for several years, and it is well-known that a Maldivian was involved in the Mumbai attacks of 2008, as is the fact that the terrorist organisation Lashkar e Taiba has beenoperating and recruiting in the Maldives.

Young disaffected Maldivians are many, and most are highly vulnerable to ideological indoctrination by individuals who propagate extremist ideologies.

Sadly, many do not see beyond ‘The Scholar’ façade behind which these individuals operate. Tens of thousands remain incapable of looking further than the carefully cultivated beards, or the Pashtun garb—no more Islamic or Maldivian than GMR itself.

Hundreds everyday accept these individuals as devout religious scholars and remain blind to how they turn Islamic teachings into a commodity that can be bought and sold to equally unscrupulous businessmen/politicians.

It is these individuals, worked into a frenzy by individuals like Sheikh Imran, who have travelled abroad to kill themselves and others in the name of Islam.

Several government officials were at yesterday’s rally, including the President’s Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza. Riza loudly accused Indian High Commissioner to the Maldives D.M. Mullay—a key figure behind India’s quick acceptance of Dr Waheed’s government as legitimate—of taking bribes to ensure GMR was awarded the Maldives airport contract.

Here’s Dr Waheed’s spokesperson Abbas Riza at the rally:

But, as is now coming to be expected, the government has stayed wholly silent on the rampant exploitation of religion for political purposes, further reinforcing the perception that it is complicit in this phenomenon and condone it as a valid political strategy.

It is still silent, for instance, on the Salafists’ call last week to have Maldivian girls declared women at puberty. A children’s Afternoon with Ali Rameez remains scheduled to go ahead on 15 November as planned, despite the fact that Ali Rameez is the man leading the call to end girl-childhood at puberty.

And, as we shall see on 15 November (also the date of the GMR ultimatum), there will be many parents who would take their children to this pop-singer turned ultra-religious conservative without pausing to think about what they are doing.

These people will represent the thousands of Maldivians who have already bought into the dogma, among others, that it is their religious duty to have their girl-children married off at puberty to men old enough to be their grandfathers.

The official silence over ‘religious scholars’ and their exploitation of Islam to suit various socio-political and economic purposes must end. Such voices must be strongly countered and condemned.

The long term consequences of their actions will not be seen only in the political economy, but in the Maldivian identity itself which has already changed so drastically in the last decade as to be unrecognisable.

From a laid-back island community of moderate and tolerant Muslims whose relationship with God was their personal affair, Maldives has become a highly radical and tense society in which a large percentage of the population is bigoted, intolerant and xenophobic.

Among them will be the few who will join the violent militants.

What is of equally great concern are the tens of thousands of Maldivians who fail to see these political prostitutes for what they are, and willingly give up their own human rights and dignity and deny others theirs in the name of Islam.

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)

Transport Minister sacked after extending Maamigili airport lease for 99 years

Minister of Transport Dr Ahmed Shamheed has been removed from his cabinet post on Thursday after announcing the extension of the Maamigili airport lease for 99 years.

The private airport is owned by Chairman of Villa Group and Jumhoree Party (JP) MP for Maamigili, Gasim Ibrahim. The airport had initially been leased to the JP presidential candidate’s Villa company for 30 years.

Dr Shamheed was nominated to the post by the government-aligned JP and is a senior member of the party led by the business magnate MP.

Shamheed told local media today that the decision to extend the lease had been made in an Economic Committee meeting last week.

“Documents to extend the lease of Maamigili Airport for 99 years were sent to the transport ministry by [former President Mohamed] Nasheed’s government. But the current government delayed the matter. The present government only endorsed the decision. It was decided by the NPC [National Planning Council] during the former government,” he was quoted as saying by newspaper Haveeru.

In addition to Shamheed, the Economic Committee consists of Minister of Finance Abdulla Jihad and Minister of Fisheries and Agriculture Ahmed Shafeeu, Housing Minister Dr Mohamed Muizzu, Environment Minister Dr Mariyam Shakeela and Tourism Minister Ahmed Adheeb.

“Transport Minster Dr Shamheed has been relieved from his duties today. Defense Minister Nazim will be the care taker until replaced by JP,” government spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza tweeted today.

He added that the cabinet seat will be reserved for the JP, currently the third largest party in terms of membership in the ruling coalition.

Riza informed Minivan News that despite Shamheed’s dismissal, the decision to extend the lease had not yet been reversed.

Maamigili airport was opened in October 2011 with JP Leader Gasim Ibrahim’s Villa ‘Flyme’ airline landing the first flight in the new airport at the Alif Dhaal atoll, which has a number of tourist resorts.

In recent weeks, Gasim Ibrahim has publicly alleged corruption in the sale of a 30 percent stake of the Addu International Airport Company Pvt Ltd (AIA) to business magnate ‘Champa’ Hussain Afeef’s Kasa Holdings.

In a letter to President Mohamed Waheed Hassan, Gasim insisted that the Addu airport should be developed by the Maldives Airports Company Limited (MACL) and went on to offer to reclaim land for the project free of charge “using my own dredger, employees and machinery with the government only providing oil.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Independent Institutions Committee disrupted after disagreement over summoning JSC

A meeting of Parliament’s Committee on Independent Institutions on Wednesday was disrupted due to heated verbal exchanges between Chair of the committee independent MP Mohamed Nasheed and Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s Parliamentary Group Deputy Leader Ali Waheed.

On agenda for the meeting was a motion submitted by MDP MPs Ali Waheed, Hamid Abdul Ghafoor and Ahmed Sameer, who is also Vice Chair of the committee.

The motion was in reference to the establishment and continuation of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court and the appointment of judges to that court.

Speaking on the issue, Ali Waheed proposed to summon the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) to the committee, reports local media. However this proposition was not supported by MDP MPs Ahmed Sameer and Ahmed Abdulla.

Nasheed had responded that certain documents needed to be acquired by the committee before summoning the JSC, adding that there was “no need to rush the matter” since PPM MP Abdulla Yameen also agreed to summonthe commission.

Nasheed further said that the committee’s decision would “hold more weight” if all parties reached a consensus, adding that if this was the case the JSC would not face any difficulties in obeying the decision.

The official parliament website reports that it was been decided at the meeting that all documents prepared by the JSC regarding the Hulhumale’ court after 21 October 2010, any documents submitted to JSC regarding the Hulhumale’ court, the minutes of any meetings held regarding the appointment, transfer or any other matters that were in relation to judges, were to be obtained and further researched at the next meeting of the committee.

Ali Waheed alleged that PPM was attempting to prolong the Hulhumale’ court issue in the committee by not attending the meeting. He also said that the committee lacked “seriousness” when dealing with the matter.

He further alleged that there were “some persons within the MDP who wished to see [former President] Nasheed convicted”, saying that they would not stay by idly while Nasheed’s presidential candidacy was on the line.

Despite attempts by Sameer to escort Waheed out of the committee meeting hall, Waheed continued to pace around the room and make loud statements aimed at MP Nasheed.

The meeting was discontinued when Nasheed started responding in kind to Waheed’s loud statements, making it impossible for members in attendance to speak over the noise.

Wednesday’s meeting was attended by independent MP Mohamed Nasheed, MDP MPs Ahmed Sameer, Ali Waheed, Ahmed Abdulla, Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Rozaina Adam and Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) MP Riyaz Rasheed.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Desperately seeking justice

Abdul Ghafoor Mohamed was the Maldives Ambassador to the UN, defacto non-resident Ambassador to the US and one of the Maldives’ most experienced and respected diplomats. He resigned live on Al-Jazeera following February 7’s controversial transfer of power, expressing “certain moral and ethical concerns I had that surrounded the departure of the former President [Nasheed].”

More than eight months since the first democratically elected government in the Maldives was brutally cut short by a mutinous mob on 7 February, the country continues to be divided on intensely partisan grounds.

Emotion, rather than rational discourse, has become the mainstay of political debate, both in and outside of parliament. In the meantime, the country’s economy appears to be in freefall, violence and brutality is on the rise and social norms are declining. A country once hailed as a haven of peace, both by its citizens as well as visitors, is fast becoming a playground for drug peddlers, criminals, pedophiles, bootleggers and knife-wielding gangsters.

This is not the country I grew up in; nor is it the country I wish to bequeath to my children.

I write this, not because I wish to blame one or the other person or party for the plight we find ourselves in; nor because I have any definitive or fanciful solutions to the seemingly ceaseless arguments of right or wrong pervading through our society at this particular junction in our history. There must be, indeed, there has to be, a better way of resolving our differences, of rising above narrow partisanship, of being able to settle our political scores, while respecting the views of those who diverge from us in belief and conviction.

Almost four years ago, when we so eagerly adopted a new Constitution granting us many freedoms hitherto unfamiliar, both at the individual as well as at institutional levels, we rejoiced proudly at our ability to instigate change through discussion and debate, and transform our country from a 30 year authoritarian regime to a multi-party democracy peacefully through the ballot box. The whole world heaped unbounded praise on the good judgment of a small nation that had lit a beacon for peaceful democratic transition other small nations could hopefully emulate; Maldives was in fact regarded as a ‘success story’ by the United Nations and the international community – a ‘poster-country’ for peaceful democratic transition!

There was indeed a sense of poetic justice as the once all-powerful old ‘dictator’ humbly bowed down to the will of the people, and without much fuss handed over the reins of governance to a new democratically elected youthful leader, who in fact had been repeatedly incarcerated by his defeated predecessor for demanding greater political freedoms in the country.

On that joyous day, we all believed in the depths of our hearts and souls that a new era of political pluralism, with concomitant freedoms and longed for justice, had dawned on the shores of our beautiful isles; we were marching in step with civilization and progress.

Regrettably, our elation seems to have been short-lived.

As we decline further into an abyss of political and economic disaster, following the abrupt and unceremonious regime change on 7 February 2012, many in the Maldives seem to be fast losing faith in the anticipated promises of democracy, in our politicians sworn to serve the people, and the independent institutions that were set up to protect the system.

Today, the people of Maldives, especially in Male’, yearn for some normalcy in their lives; to be able to send their children to school; do the shopping; cross the street safely; enjoy a ride around the island; above all, have their loved ones return home in one piece. Yet, unfortunately, normalcy for the people of Maldives appear to be increasingly elusive as the politics of vengeance, mutual distrust, personal enmity and party rivalries take precedence over every other national interest.

This is no better demonstrated than in the current efforts to convict the ousted President on charges of alleged abduction of a judge, whose ‘unorthodox’ rulings in the execution of his judicial duties, to say the least, is common knowledge.

It is not my intention here to vilify the said judge, but suffice it to say that there are many who believe, and seemingly justifiably so, that his continued stay as a judge is an affront to the ‘independence’ of any respectable judiciary. For them, he represents, in many ways, the worst and most manifest example of judicial abuse, in an already weak and compromised judicial system that has consistently been meting out systematic injustice, according to more than one international observer who have analysed and commented on the Maldivian judicial system.

Be that as it may, the arrest of the said judge by the then President was roundly condemned both nationally and internationally as legally untenable, the perceived moral imperatives of the President’s actions by some notwithstanding.

During the ensuing months since that fateful Tuesday, our country has been thrown into a seemingly never ending cycle of turmoil and turbulence. Our society has been brutalised, violence has become commonplace, respect for and confidence in the various state and government institutions and high ranking officials has never been so low. Indeed, even the very legitimacy of the newly sworn in President and his cabinet continues to be questioned by a considerable section of the Maldives polity, despite an internationally recognised Commission of National Inquiry having deemed the transfer of power as being legal and constitutionally mandated.

In the Maldives today where you stand on any conceivable issue of national significance depends almost entirely on with whom you party rather than on any sound judgments reached based on a rational analysis of facts. Truth, when it impedes the political interest, is summarily discarded.

Consequently, a government that had been formed on the claim of ‘national unity’, by stitching together a coalition of disparate political parties, appear to be going through a complete policy paralysis, as competing factions in the government fight for greater leverage on every issue. Many, in fact, are inclined to believe that this has become a one-issue government – that being the denial of candidacy for the ousted President in the 2013 presidential elections. Indeed, it seems that it is only on this one issue that the government is really united.

Little wonder then that the state’s decision to relentlessly pursue criminal charges against the former President, on charges of alleged human rights violations of an ‘innocent’ man, appears to meet with so much skepticism both within and outside the country. Justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done.

There are those who passionately argue that the former President must be tried and sentenced to jail for his alleged abduction of the judge. There are others who just as vehemently argue that his actions, even if wrong, were understandable, in the larger interest of establishing an enduring and robust judiciary, claiming the charges to be based more on political expediency rather than a quest for justice. Both claim to be seeking justice for the people of Maldives.

It is my belief that, taking into consideration the events that led to the resignation of the then President, the mayhem that followed and the current emotionally charged atmosphere in the country, not to mention the questionable reputation of our judicial system, the pursuance of criminal charges against the former President is unlikely to serve the best interests of our nation which we so dearly claim to love; indeed it could possibly result in even more injustices being heaped on the people of Maldives.

At a time when we are so desperately in need healing the many wounds pervading through our nation, it is even more imperative that the state should not try to further fan the fires of distrust, disharmony, hatred, instability, and even political insanity. Indeed, it is duty bound to make every effort in harnessing greater harmony, mutual trust and increased cooperation amongst the various factions of the community.

It is quite evident that whatever the eventual outcome of the on-going court proceedings against the former President, the country will be further split on party lines. A conviction and possible disenfranchisement of the defendant will provoke the ire and indignation of his intensely loyal supporters who comprise a considerable mass of the country’s voting population. An acquittal will be an equally devastating blow for the many who have been so vociferously demanding the former President’s incarceration in jail.

Indeed, whatever may be the final decision of the three magistrates entrusted to hear the case, it would be a lose – lose situation for the country as a whole. Instability will continue to reign supreme.

Even more sadly, the moral authority of any President elected in a presidential election that had disenfranchised the chosen candidate of the largest political party will be considerably compromised, both domestically as well as internationally.

No one can doubt the steep uphill battle ahead for any new President, whose first and foremost task on assuming office will be to begin the healing process for a nation that had been torn apart over the last few months. The new President will require much goodwill and trust, moral and material support, both from within the country and international friends.

If our presidential elections do not receive the unequivocal stamp of approval as being free and fair, both nationally as well as internationally, there will always be a cloud of doubt hanging over the legitimacy of the new President. That would be a shame the people of Maldives should not have to bear, nor a burden we should impose on a newly elected President.

I believe our country currently face a very particular and unique situation in its short democratic history, in which the people of the Maldives desperately deserve the opportunity to have their say in determining whether or not the former President’s actions were justified, even if legally suspect. Let the people decide!

It is for all these reasons, in the larger interests of the future of our small yet beloved nation, that I would urge the State to cease the on-going prosecution of the former President on criminal charges. This becomes even more critical when there appear to be near universal agreement on the systematic weakness of our judiciary and its questionable competency to provide justice.

A long time ago, when I was still a young and impressionable student, a professor of mine once advised me that regret is something we should not waste our time on; we can never change what happened yesterday, but we can do something today to help shape our tomorrow, he said. Much has happened in the Maldives during the recent past, many of which perhaps regrettable, yet today unchangeable.

It is time for us to move forward, learning from our past, with confidence in a future shaped by our own actions taken today in the larger interest of our country, as the people of Maldives so desperately seek justice.

Abdul Ghafoor Mohamed was the former Maldives Ambassador to the UN and defacto non-resident Ambassador to the US.

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)

Q&A: Kirsty Brimelow, QC

Kirsty Brimelow QC is one of three UK legal experts on former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team. The new government has pursued criminal charges against Nasheed for his decision to detain Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, Abdulla Mohamed, charges Nasheed contends are a politically-motivated attempt to prevent him from contesting the 2013 Presidential elections.

Brimelow is an experienced criminal law specialist with expertise in international human rights, and has worked in a number of small island states including Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago.

JJ Robinson: How much background knowledge did you have on the political situation in the Maldives prior to deciding to join Nasheed’s defence team?

Kirsty Brimelow: Very little other than the usual views of the Maldives as beautiful islands for romantic holidays – I had never been here before. I had heard about the climate change aspect of Maldives at the time of the Copenhagen summit – it was something I remember reading about. I thought that it would be terrible if Male’ was under water in 20 years.

JJ: How much had you followed the February 2012 transfer of power?

KB: No I hadn’t followed it. When I was contacted [to join Nasheed’s legal team] I looked it all up. I don’t know if it was reported in English newspapers. I don’t remember reading anything about it. At the time the news was dominated by news of Syria and starvation in the world’s youngest democracy, Sudan. I think they dominated the headlines, and the London Olympics more than anything else that was going on.

JJ: What was behind your decision to join Nasheed’s legal team?

KB: As an international lawyer there is a real interest in how rule of law operates in different jurisdictions. In recent years I’ve done a lot of work in small island states – I am Legal Advisor to the Constitution Commission of Fiji, I worked in Trinidad and Tobago as part of the team defending the chief justice, and was appointed Counsel to a Commmision of Inquiry into a massive international fraud inquiry in Antigua. I have also worked in Jamaica.

I suppose I am interested in the Maldives as a new democracy, and how that struggle is being played out. I am also really interested in the Maldives both as international and human rights lawyer. I have real interest in fairness of procedures and that there are independent and impartial judges. No court system can operate if you have biased judges, or judges who are of a standard such that justice cannot be carried out.

JJ: How much do you know about the Maldivian judiciary and its condition?

KB: I’ve read a couple of reports which have the same conclusion – that the judiciary is not functioning at a level that can deliver justice. But I read these reports as background – I have really been concentrating on this specific case.

JJ: The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) have made a case on the basis of challenging the legitimacy of the Hulhumale Magistrate Court where Nasheed is being tried, rather than defending the specific charges against him. Do you think this is a good approach, and can you argue that in court: “I don’t respect your legitimacy, your honour”?

KB: There are different arguments going on at the moment. The high court application [regarding the legitimacy of the Hulhumale Court] is a legitimate argument accepted as such by the Attorney General. It is a jurisdictional public law matter now removed from criminal law.

The validity of the jurisdiction of courts is fundamental – people can’t just set up their own courts because they feel like it, and they can’t just put in who they like as judges of that court. It has to be done in a transparent and independent way in order for the courts to have any respect.

JJ: Why should courts care about the respect of the public?

KB: The general public in any democratic society cares about its justice system because that underpins its democratic society. If you think your justice system is corrupt – that whatever evidence you have when you’re in court will be ignored because you have a corrupt system – then that is bad for democracy.

Democracy can’t survive with a corrupt justice system. I think people do care about that. But obviously the select people who want to keep it corrupt, don’t.

JJ: This is the first time there has been foreign legal representation applying to appear in the Criminal Court, as far as I’m aware. Are you allowed in?

KB: At the moment there is apparently a policy that says you have to be Maldivian and/or married to a Maldivian to appear in court. It is very restrictive. It is going to be a matter we are going to challenge.

It obviously depends on the particular country, but most small island states have developed a system where foreign lawyers are able to practice within that system on a case by case basis. For example I have appeared [in court] in the Caribbean. The reason is that the smaller the place the smaller the pool of lawyers, and the bigger the case, the more political difficulties and influences that could be brought to bear on people from that society. So if you bring someone in from outside it can bring the balance back.

It is also a good way to increase knowledge and expertise. For example my knowledge is based on international human rights law, whereas if you are practicing in a small state you don’t have that comfort of being able to specialise. International law is not foreign law – it is part of the law of the Maldives, and to develop it you need that knowledge running through [the system]. The way you do that is allow international lawyers.

The Maldivian lawyers I’m working with are keen to make the application so that I could represent President Nasheed in court together with them. It would be their application on my behalf.

JJ: Dhivehi can make the country quite inaccessible to outsiders – to what extent is that a challenge in this case?

KB: Of course it’s a challenge and as to how it would operate [in court], nobody’s ever tried it before. As far as I understand English is widely spoken fluently, and i’m told many Maldivians prefer to speak English. Obviously it would have to be translated in court – but that happens in many jurisdictions with no difficulty. I don’t see it as meaning that the position would be impossible – there would have to be systems in place.

JJ: The judges on the panel hearing Nasheed’s trial were appointed by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), and include two of Nasheed’s direct political opponents – Jumhoree Party Leader Gasim Ibrahim and Speaker of Parliament, Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP) MP Abdulla Shahid. In this environment, and given the politicisation of the case, is it reasonable to expect that Nasheed can have a fair trial at all in the Maldives?

KB: I think at present if the trial were to go ahead in the Hulhumale Court, as presently constituted, there are real issues as to whether there is any chance at all as to whether Nasheed will have a fair trial. There are real issues and real concerns.

JJ: What is the approach then? The MDP has challenged the court’s legitimacy, but what about defending Nasheed’s decision to detain the Chief Judge of the Crimnial Court? Would you advise defending these charges or lean towards challenging the court’s legitimacy?

KB: Nasheed at his recent rally said that based on the evidence served against him, he should be acquitted.

The trial has two aspects: there are real issues as to fairness and those aspects fall into two categories, which relate to the court itself, which will be argued further, and the second aspect relates to the ability of President Nasheed to properly defend himself. I can’t go into details because those submissions have not been made to the trial court.

JJ: How similar are the challenges in the Maldives compared to other small island states?

KB: Each place is very different – but a common thread is the real difficulty getting a neutral tribunal to consider the evidence. Most countries have a problem where so much is in the newspapers already that people have formed opinions by the time the matter comes to court. In fact the trial is run in the newspaper, usually against the defendant, who isn’t in a position to present his defence in the newspaper as well, so it becomes one-sided and by the time the case comes to court people have the view that the person is guilty.

That would not happen in a larger jurisdiction where there are all sorts of laws to prevent people coming to court with a closed mind. That’s a problem here.

The Maldives has specific problems, such as those documented issues in relation to the judiciary, and those issues are quite extreme and are not found in many other small island states I’ve worked in. Many of those states such as Jamaica have a strong judiciary.

JJ: What would be some of those concerning issues?

KB: I don’t want to be upsetting the trial. I can quote from the reports though. Things like the statistics of those serving in the judiciary with criminal convictions and so on. It must be a concern to a fair minded observer as to what sort of justice is being dispensed if you are appearing before someone with criminal convictions, for example. That kind of thing is what I mean.

JJ: To what extent do you think the trial of Nasheed could be a catalyst for judicial reform in the Maldives?

KB: I think it is an important trial for the Maldives, and it could be a catalyst for reform in that the issues which are being raised are fundamental to a functioning justice system, and they are serious, so it should at the very least trigger debate in parliament in a democratic country.

There has to be a robust system which will regulate judges objectively, so someone coming to court can have faith in the system. If there is no check on judges in terms of their independence and honesty, as well as ability, then the courts just simply become a means of reaching a preordained result that everyone has already predicted.

Then quite simply it is not a justice system – it is a figleaf. Everything else flows from that – stability, fairness in terms of elections, parliament; if you’ve got a vacuum in your justice system you quite simply don’t have democracy.

You have to have a robust system to deal with complaints [against the judiciary]. In international law and particularly the Convention of Civil and Political Rights it sets out that privileges and immunities for judges can only go so far, and that they are not meant to stretch to afford protection ‘no matter what’.

My interest is in fair trial procedures, and that fair trial rights are upheld. There are real issues in this case, which is why I’m part of the legal team.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MPs express concern over Addu airport bidding process, while AIA MD Shahid denies corruption allegations

Jumhoree Party (JP) Leader, MP, and chairman of the Villa Group of businesses, Gasim Ibrahim, denied in parliament today that he had spoken against the sale of shares of Addu International Airport (AIA) with the intention of buying shares himself. He claimed he had done so “in the best interests of Addu and the country.”

“If Gasim wanted shares, Gasim would have bid for them,” Gasim said in response to some MPs, who had alleged he was himself interested in buying the shares.

Referring to his offer in his letter to President Mohamed Waheed Hassan to reclaim land for the project free of charge “using my own dredger, employees and machinery with the government only providing oil,” Gasim said that the costs of the work would come up to US$7 million.

“I am very concerned that they have gone ahead and sold the shares without even considering the offer of free aid of this size,” Gasim said.

Gasim further stated that although he did want to see the Addu airport developed, the shares had not been sold in the right manner, adding “things won’t go very well” due to how the shares had been given away.

JP MP Alhan Fahmy echoed Gasim’s statement that he, too, wished to see the Addu airport developed, but that he was concerned with how the sale of shares had been carried out. Fahmy said that 30 percent of shares being sold off for MVR 60 million (US$3.89 million) was “nothing but daylight robbery”.

“The shares have been sold far too cheaply. Our problem is that they’ve done this while there are many other ways obtain the funds needed for development,” Fahmy explained.

A number of MPs from the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) stated that the party supported the concept of privatisation, adding that the development of the Addu airport was originally an MDP initiated plan. They, too, however, expressed concerns over how the bidding process had been carried out.

MDP Parliamentary Group’s Deputy Leader Ali Waheed criticised Gasim Ibrahim for his “lack of conviction” when speaking about the issue in parliament.

Waheed said that Gasim had not dared to criticise the government even after it had sold the shares, despite Gasim’s allegations that major corruption had been involved in the deal.

Referring to Gasim’s common name “Buruma” (‘drill’), Waheed said, “There is no use for a drill without electricity”, alleging that the JP leader had been “too cowardly” to even speak of the issue openly during today’s parliamentary session.

“Cowards need not contest in the coming presidential elections,” Waheed further declared.

Gan Airport development to start in January: Shahid

MD of AIA and STO Shahid Ali said in a press briefing on Monday that the Addu Airport development work is set to begin in January.

Ali said that the pre-bid meetings had been held with the three shortlisted contractors and that the bids were scheduled to be submitted by November 28.

The development plans include an extension of the runway, repairing of the apron, placing an extra layer of tar on the runway and setting up a sea plane base.

He also stated that contrary to general speculation, the airport had not been “sold”, but rather shares from the company AIA that had been sold to KASA Holdings.

He also refuted allegations of corruption, saying that KASA Holdings had been given higher priority since it was a local company and that all proceedings had gone through the bidding process in a matter which was completely free of any corruption.

“It is often said now that 30 percent of the airport has been sold to a private party. The truth is that 100 percent of the land of Gan, the infrastructure of the airport and its facilities are with the government, because Gan Airport Ltd is a company which is 100 percent owned by the government. So all the assets are owned by them. Then this company has leased the airport to AIA for 50 years,” Ali explained.

Ali said that therefore it was clear that selling 30 percent of the shares of AIA, a joint company formed by the Gan Airport Ltd, STO and the Maldives Airports Company Ltd, was not a sale of the airport itself.

Leave politics aside

Addu City council has released a statement welcoming the signing of the contract which they said would lead to the development of the Addu airport.

The statement further notes “the importance of leaving politics aside and for the good of citizens in letting the venture bring positive changes to Addu’s economy.”

Meanwhile, MDP released a statement on Monday urging “not to let political feuds, political needs and power play interfere in important work directly related to the development of Addu City citizens, and generally all Maldivian citizens.”

The statement also condemned Gasim’s threats against Shahid Ali, stating “This party calls on political leaders to refrain from making unlawful threats through the greed for power and political wants.”

In a uncommon move, 18 citizens from Addu held a press conference on Monday, speaking in support of the Addu airport development.

The citizens welcomed the selling of shares to KASA Holdings, stating that it was not a sale of the airport itself. They further said that the citizens of Addu were happy that although the airport has so far remained the same, development work is scheduled to begin early next year.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Former President Nasheed denounces DQP’s economic criticism of GMR contract

Former President Mohamed Nasheed on Sunday slammed a pamphlet released by the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) which claims to detail the financial loss caused to the country through leasing the international airport to Indian infrastructure giant company, GMR.

“I assure you that no loss at all would be caused to the Maldivian people through having a foreign company manage the airport,” Nasheed assured the crowds of over 1500 supporters gathered at Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s rally grounds Usfasgandu on Sunday night.

During his speech, Nasheed broke down the figures published in the book titled “Loss and Challenges of the long-term leasing of Male’ International Airport to GMR” written by current Special Advisor to the President, Dr Hassan Saeed. He further emphasised the inconsistencies that those figures held in comparison with the values he put forth with reference to external sources and the GMR contract.

“I am inclined to think that these people who have written this book must have studied their mathematics in an opium field in Afghanistan’s Kandahar. There is no other way that they could have gotten their arithmetic so completely wrong,” Nasheed said.

Nasheed said that while the book cites the MDP government’s estimation of a profit of MVR 45 billion in the next 25 years if GMR managed the airport, it went on to state that if the government took over management, they stood to receive a profit of MVR 60 billion (US$3.9 billion).

Elaborating on what the book had provided as backing for the said claim, Nasheed said “The first estimate they’ve made is that airport growth will increase by 25 percent every year. However, the IFC, World Bank, and other relevant international entities tell us that the rate of growth will be between 3.5 and 4.5 percent.”

“What is being said here is that the number of people coming to our airport far exceeds the number of tourist beds in the country. Even taking this to account, I see that they have sneaked in MVR 12 billion (US$778 million) to reach this 60 billion,” Nasheed said.

Nasheed added that the book had failed to consider the expenses that the Duty Free shops would pose, instead noting only estimated earnings.

“Usually expenses add up to 75 percent of earnings. Therefore, MVR 19.5 billion (US$1.26 billion) has been sneaked in to reach that 60 billion figure,” Nasheed stated.

“They also say that GMR is to invest MVR 4.8 billion (US$311 million) [over the lifespan of the contract] but I can without a doubt tell you that in accordance with the contract, GMR is to invest MVR 8.9 billion (US$577 million),” he further said.

Nasheed also pointed out that while the book claimed the government would finance the airport through a direct loan, they had omitted payment of any interest on the loan.

“In their accounting, they have not put down any expenses for the Maldives Airports Company Limited (MACL). These expenses are at least a MVR 110 million (US$7.14 million) per year, so again MVR 2.7 billion (US$175 million) needs to be taken out from this said MVR 60 billion.”

“In conclusion, the actual figures show that if MACL manages the airport, the government will receive MVR 18 billion (US$1.16 billion) over the next 25 years. Whereas if GMR manages it, the government will receive MVR 45 billion (US$2.92 billion) – that is MVR 1.6 billion (US$103.7 million) per year,” stated Nasheed.

Nasheed further claimed that under the contract, the Passenger Service Tax (US$18 US from foreigners and US$12 from locals) which used to be paid to MACL was now paid directly to the government.

“Thus in addition to the figures I’ve just shared, an additional MVR 324 million (US$21 million) will go into the government budget,” Nasheed claimed.

“No truth in government’s claims to nationalise airport”: Nasheed

Nasheed said that statements regarding “reclaiming” the airport from GMR were “highly irresponsible”, stating that such words from a government could cause irreparable damage to the country.

“Most of us citizens will doubtless understand that putting up banners with slogans all over the streets of Male’ and raising voices against India holds no benefits at all for the country,” Nasheed said, criticising the current ‘Airport Week’ being marked by the unity government parties.

Nasheed further alleged that airport nationalisation was a topic currently being used by political actors for their own personal interests .

“They are talking about the airport, and the religion of Islam, nationalism, national heritage and patriotism for the sole purpose of pulling the wool over people’s eyes and to orchestrate the coup,” Nasheed continued. “Even today they are not really trying to take the airport back from the GMR. This talk about the Adhaalath Party and Waheed’s government nationalising the airport has no amount of truth in it,” he said.

“I remember one mutinying officer on February 7 saying that he was there because the MDP government had sold the airport his father and grandfather had built. I want to say that the airport is still there. The only difference is that it roof is no longer leaking,” Nasheed said.

Nasheed ended his speech sharing his wish that the airport was developed by a capable company and that it would in future become the best of its kind across Asia.

Minivan News tried contacting Hassan Saeed, but he was not responding to calls at time of press.

DQP Secretary General Abdulla Ameen, President of the Adhaalath Party (AP) Sheikh Imran Abdulla, and Minister of Islamic Affairs and AP Member Sheikh Mohamed Shaheem Ali Saeed were also not responding to calls.

The Adhaalath Party has previously called on President Mohamed Waheed Hassan and other coalition parties to not conduct any communication with GMR which might disrupt the government’s push for airport nationalisation, a push it praised as “national jihad”.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Good governance and the judiciary – lessons to be learned

“The true administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good government.”

– inscription on the Supreme Court building of New York

Simple and fundamental as it is, this inscription, totally captures the idea that I am trying to convey. That is, good governance is impossible without a strong, independent and fair judiciary. Hence, we need to pay serious attention to this for future development of our country.

Examples around the globe abound, supporting the profound words in the inscription.

First, let us look at the fashionable phrase “good governance”, introduced by a World Bank study in 1989, linking governance with development. Despite different, closely-related definitions, most believe that good governance should encompass certain characteristics such as people’s participation in the governing, consensus, equity, transparency, efficiency, accountability, responsiveness and judiciary.

Of all these characteristics, this article will concentrate on the importance of the judiciary in good governance: the inter-relations and the effects on each other.

One of the important features of the judiciary is its independence. An independent judiciary is of utmost importance for good governance rule. A case in point is the classic example of Somalia, which is categorised as a “failed state.” At the centre of this failure lies governance.

The failure of governance in Somalia is closely tied to the relationship between the judiciary and government. For example, in 2004, the then-President had the power to appoint and dismiss judges as he pleased. This signifies a non-independent judiciary, which is over-powered by the executive. Another crucial factor that contributed to the collapse of the state was the government’s failure to uphold the constitution. It merely paid lip-service to the constitution.

The process works the other way too. For example, research on Africa shows that corruption and weak administrations weaken the regime. This, in turn, weakens all the laws, whether good or bad. In short, the absence of good governance gives way to weak laws. If laws and regulations do not exist or are weak, the three powers start running the government with their “thumb”. This means authoritarian rule, which could hinder development.

Corruption within the judiciary can be seen in the Peoples’ Republic of China where it is a serious threat to good governance as it leads to courts being unresponsive to the country’s complex society and undermine the legitimacy of the law and government. The problem in China is the deeply-rooted concept that laws must be used to strengthen state capacity and fulfill political ends.

Another case where judicial corruption prevails is Indonesia, where the Supreme Court’s integrity value has ranked amongst the lowest. The result is that the public does not see the Supreme Court as the provider of justice, and instead, the public perceives it as part of the rule of law problem which provides a serious drawback to good governance.

In Pakistan, governance failure, among others, is at the heart of the country’s constraints to growth. This is, partly, due to the less independent nature of the judiciary in which the courts do not protect the lender against the loan-defaults who do not pay their loan, or from ambiguous land titles constraining mortgage financing and construction activity.

Nepal is a case where constitutional structures are not sufficient to create an independent, impartial and accountable judiciary. Some scholars believe that planning and visionary leadership are instrumental for meaningful and lasting changes to take hold. Simply taking action against a few judges is not adequate.

In Mexico, the confused state of the judiciary effects the government in a negative way. Here, the problem is the existence of suspicion between legal thinking and politics.

Now, what lessons can we learn from the very limited examples given above, and from some others?

  • Lesson 1. The judiciary should be independent of the executive and the legislature. It should not be influenced or over-powered by the executive or the legislature; or even a former executive and his/her cronies. However, this does not mean that the judiciary is above the law or outside the law.
  • Lesson 2: We should have a judiciary in which people have trust and faith, as in the case of our “Big Brother” India whose Supreme Court is said to be “one of the most powerful institutions of its kind” in the world. The importance of this is that the judiciary has performed well, sustaining the trust of the people in its independence.
  • Lesson 3: We should use democracy to fight judicial corruption and not judicial corruption to undermine democracy, as in Chile where, after the military dictatorship, the role of democracy was used as a punishment and a preventive mechanism to hinder exceptional emergence of judicial corruption.
  • Lesson 4: Corruption in the judiciary should be gotten rid of before its roots dig even deeper into our behavior, making it the accepted norm.

The way forward: Let’s fight to reorganise the judiciary to pave the way for good governance, without which there is no hope for our country. We might as well sink into the beautiful, deep blue Indian Ocean.

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)