JSC asks Supreme Court to look into legality of Hulhumale Magistrate Court

Former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team has stated that neither the Attorney General’s Office nor the Prosecutor General’s Office presented any arguments to confirm the legality of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court at Sunday’s hearing at the High Court.

Member of the legal team, Hisaan Hussain, however stated that the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) had used the opportunity to present its case.

At a press conference held Sunday, Hisaan further stated that they felt it would be unjust for the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court to be presiding over any case after Nasheed’s case was temporarily halted over allegations of the court being unlawfully established.

JSC lawyer Abdul Fahthah stated in court today that the JSC had lodged a case at the Supreme Court on the same morning asking the court to look into the matter of the legality of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Meanwhile, the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court has stated that along with Nasheed’s trial, the trials of the other four persons regarding the arrest of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed have now been temporarily halted.

In addition to Nasheed, former Minister of Defence and National Security Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfanu, former Chief of Defence Force retired Major General Moosa Ali Jaleel, retired Brigadier General Ibrahim Mohamed Didi and Colonel Mohamed Ziyad are also being tried individually for the same case.

The Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court held the first hearing of Nasheed’s case on October 9. The second hearing had been scheduled for November 4, which was cancelled following the injunction granted Sunday morning by the High Court.

Nasheed’s legal team has previously raised concerns about the legality of the Hulhumale’ court, citing Article 141 (a) of the Constitution and Articles 53 (b) and 62 of the Maldives Judicature Act.

Minivan News was unable to contact the PG Office and the AG Office at the time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: An eye for an eye

In times of huge social stress, societies look for extraordinary solutions to growing social problems. The economic and social collapse in the Weimar Republic, after the First World War, helped the Nazi ideology to flourish in Germany.

In the post-coup Maldives, the issue of escalating violence and violent murders have encouraged many to look for quick fixes that may reverse this frightening trend.

The death penalty is gaining ground as a proposed solution to the current problems of the Maldives. The media reports that the government has announced its intentions to introduce a bill ‘to guide and govern the implementation of the death penalty in the country’.

But, before we resort to such drastic measures, it may be prudent to pause and consider if capital punishment would prove to be the miracle cure that the nation is looking for.

‘An eye for an eye’ or ‘a tooth for a tooth’ has a comforting simplicity. It seems an elegant equation which promises unequivocal justice. But, here’s the rub: capital punishment is an ethical quagmire and justice, in any comprehensive form, may be the last thing it is equipped to deliver.

Justice and the death penalty

The question of justice is an appropriate starting point when considering the death penalty. It is often argued that life imprisonment is not an adequate punishment for a killer, that the crime of taking a life should forfeit the killer’s own fundamental human right to live.

However, the sentencing of the death penalty works on the premise that a fair, transparent and comprehensive process of justice has preceded the verdict. This pre-requisite must surely raise alarm bells in the minds of thinking Maldivians.

The Maldives is not a just state. There is a general consensus in the country that the justice system needs drastic reshaping for it to function in a fair and just way. The long list of human rights abuses in the last 30 years through to the present time has been well documented. In the name of law and order, people are beaten, pepper sprayed, and tossed into prison with impunity. Amnesty International reports the existence of ‘a human rights crisis that has gripped the country’ since the February 7 coup.

Selective justice is the other complicating factor in considering the death penalty in the Maldives. Justice has become a political game. Trials of the regime’s political opponents are given prominence, while thousands of more vital cases pile up on the scrap-heap that is the present justice system of the country. Meanwhile crimes committed by police officers who went on a binge of destruction and violence on February 7 are tidily packed away into the background. There is a general acceptance that the agenda of the regime, in collusion with the MPS (Maldives Police Service) and MNDF (Maldives National Defence Force), is perilously political. The possibility of this regime adding the death penalty to its arsenal is a daunting thought indeed.

The judiciary in the Maldives is the embodiment of all these perversions of justice and more. Controlled by the iron grip of an authoritarian regime for over thirty years, the judiciary has not even allowed justice to be seen to be done. In a country where people boasts about having the highest ratio of doctorates per head of the population, and one of the highest literacy rates in South East Asia, the competence and qualifications of Maldive’s judges remain akin to the apothecaries of the Dark Ages.

No doubt it is easier for a government to influence the course of ‘justice’ if the judiciary is kept in a state of perpetual ignorance. But, in the process, it has lost any credibility in the eyes of Maldivians and international observers. A litany of wrong doings, including frightening ethical and moral lapses, hangs around the neck of the Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, Judge Abdulla Mohamed. Notwithstanding, the regime has seen it fit to keep him in his job.

However, in issues of the death penalty, even the world’s most advanced legal systems risk fallibility. This is why many of them reject the death penalty as a solution to societal violence. In the case of the Maldives, multiple reports, including the work of legal expert Professor Paul Robinson, have shown the legal system to be ‘systematically failing to do justice and regularly doing injustice’.

The country also lacks the trained personnel and the technology that underpins reliable criminal investigations. One of the gravest dangers of capital punishment is its potential for miscarriages of justice. With the justice system so compromised, legalising the death penalty in the Maldives would be as dangerous as giving a box of matches to a toddler in a room packed with gun powder.

The death penalty as a deterrent

The jury is still out on the question of whether the death penalty acts as a viable deterrent for murder and other violent crimes. The screeds of research and literature regarding the pros and cons of the death penalty match the strong emotional responses that the issue evokes.

However, a wealth of research indicates that the death penalty can contribute to more violence through a ‘brutalization effect’ on the public; it desensitizes people and increases the chance of the general public accepting violence as a way of solving problems. In this context, it is pertinent to note that murder rates in death-penalty states in America are consistently higher than the murder rates in non- death penalty states.

Research also suggests that there is an ‘imitation effect’ where people believe that if their leaders can legitimately kill people, through legalising capital punishment, so can they. This is extremely significant to the Maldives. The present surge of violent murders has taken place since the February 7 coup where members of the security forces participated in what many commentators described as ‘widespread brutality’.

There is a wealth of evidence to bring the culprits to justice, but nothing has been done and it would seem, can be done – if the status quo is to remain. In this atmosphere of state – condoned violence-and the moral and ethical disorientation it creates – is it any wonder that the criminal elements of the society are thriving?

Changing the paradigm

When governments are faced with harrowing internal problems, for which they have no creative answers, their first reaction is to shift the public focus away from the real issues. This is often done through the introduction of contentious topics of debate either in parliament or the media. The intention is to shift the focus from the real problems and engage the populous in heated debate which diverts the energy and attention from the real problems that the government is not equipped to cope with.

It is important, therefore, that we identify where the focus of our debate should be. Experience teaches us that ‘miracle cures’ for entrenched societal ills do not exist. It is convenient to think that capital punishment will halt the escalation of violent murders, but at the very best, it will turn out to be the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. Positive change requires more than a law. It requires more than political rhetoric. It requires more than clever manipulation to hide egregious social issues, by highlighting others.

Rather than a law legitimising the death penalty, our society needs the rule of law. The rule of law in the Maldives has been described by one cynic as ‘a cancer patient kept alive by drug.’ When the law enforcers who have promised ‘to protect and serve’ wear balaclavas to beat and brutalise people, it is not hard to surmise that Maldives, especially Male, is a ‘frontier town’ where the rule of law has been hijacked by the rule of might.

We need the leaders of the nation to show the people that they are honest, just and capable. The economic collapse of the country is not the only sign of the regime’s inability to lead. The murder of Dr Afrasheem Ali is a huge tragedy, regardless of what side of the political divide we have positioned ourselves. It is an execution style murder, accomplished with such brutality, that even the young and the able-bodied are questioning their safety; the old and the disabled having long blockaded themselves behind doors. These are all tragic, but the greater tragedy is the lack of an appropriate response by the government.

We need justice to function as a powerful and active force in the daily lives of our people. The most stable and safe societies in the world are those where the people feel the presence of a strong sense of justice. This stage of stability is not achieved overnight, nor is it arrived at by the threat of more punishment. It is the end product of enlightened and fair governance, which in turn produces a strong sense of nationhood based on shared values and aspirations. When justice falters, society collapses.

More than ever, we need to realise that a nation cannot function effectively, if its wealth is monopolised by a privileged few. Discounting a short period of time between 2008 and 2011, the state Maldives had grievously failed to address the needs of it citizenry. Research shows that a low standard of living is not as socially damaging as a huge disparity between the ‘have’ and ‘have nots’. When we view the dystopia we have created, it is important to remember that a community is only as strong as its weakest link. Social problems such as crime, violence and drug-abuse often surrounding the disfranchised and the alienated, affect the whole society. This is especially problematic in a geographically small place such as the Maldives.

The people and the society they live in are entwined in a complex web of interrelationships. Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote that, ‘Society is inside of man and man is inside society… The fish is in the water and the water is in the fish’. We need to examine the water that is inside the fish in Maldivian society. When we do so, how can we escape the gloomy conclusion that the water inside the fish is exceptionally murky? The lack of honest leadership with a view for the betterment of its people, the collapse of the justice system, the lack of personal freedom and democratic rights, as well as the abuse of human rights with impunity, have all contributed to this.

Until the water clears, the death penalty is simply another dangerous tool in the hands of the wrong people.

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)

Indian investors concerned about government’s political interference: Business Standard

Indian companies operating in the Maldives are expressing concerns over political interference they claim is derailing their substantial investments in the country, reports India’s Business Standard publication.

Officials involved in the Apex Realty housing development project – a joint venture between developers SG18 and Indian super-conglomerate TATA – told the Standard that the government was attempting to take over the site in Male’ given to the company, with the intention of building a new Supreme Court.

After being elected in 2008, former President Mohamed Nasheed moved the Supreme Court into the opulent palace of his predecessor, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, opting for the less lavish building of Muleaage as the Presidential residence.

“A recent meeting held with the Maldivian Housing Minister is said to have ended abruptly with officials from the firm and the Indian High Commission being asked to leave,” the Standard reported.

President Mohamed Waheed’s Media Secretary, Masood Imad, confirmed to the publication that the meeting had taken place, and said the minister had given them time, even though it was “unannounced”.

“I am told that the meeting continued for about an hour. TATA Housing officials were raising issues that were not in the contract but the Minister accommodated most of the issues. Most of the issues discussed were procedural,” Masood was reported as saying.

A source involved in the deal confirmed to Minivan News that the government had offered land in Hulhumale’ to the developers as an alternative to the agreed site in Male’. However, the same source said the developers felt the change would affect the financing of the project.

Minivan News was awaiting a response from the Indian High Commission at time of press.

GMR grievance

Indian infrastructure giant GMR has also raised concerns about the new government’s handling of its concession agreement to manage and develop Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA), signed with the former administration.

The company has previously sought to downplay its issues with the government in the media, however “public statements and press conferences of some government ministers and coalition party leaders are clearly aimed at arousing public sentiments against GMR and creating undue challenges for us,” the company told the Standard.

“To gain political advantage, some elements of the government itself have started hampering the smooth functioning and development of the airport,” the company added.

Moreover, the government was passing new laws and policies that were harming its interests.

“GMR was granted required approvals and licenses to operate Arrival Duty Free on December 30, 2011. We made huge investments in development of arrival duty free area. However, the government later revoked the licence citing that earlier the licence was given in error,” the company told the Standard.

“Similarly, On April 23, 2012, the GoM (Government of Maldives) passed an amendment to Business Registration Bill to restrict any foreigner to carry on Duty Free business, cargo clearance business, and bonded warehouse business at the airport. This step is clearly directed against GMR.”

The comments follow a US$2.2 million bill handed to the government’s side of the airport contract – the Maldives Airports Company Limited (MACL) – following a third quarter in which the airport developer deducted its contractually-mandated airport development charge (ADC) from concession fees due the state.

In the first quarter of 2012 the government received US$525,355 of an expected US$8.7 million, after the deduction of the ADC. That was followed by a US$1.5 million bill for the second quarter, after the ADC payable eclipsed the revenue due the government.

Combined with the third quarter payment due, the government now owes the airport developer US$3.7 million.

The US$25 ADC, stipulated in the developer’s concession agreement signed with the Nasheed government, was to be levied on all outgoing passengers at INIA.

However, the former opposition Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) – now part of the coalition government – in late 2011 filed a successful case in the Civil Court challenging the legality of the charge on the grounds that it was a tax not approved by parliament.

Nasheed’s government instructed MACL to deduct the ADC from the concession fees due the government while it sought to appeal. However soon afterwards Nasheed resigned in controversial circumstances, handing power to his Vice President, who swiftly replaced much of the government with appointments from the former opposition.

Speaking to the Standard, Masood said that the government “will not target any investment, Indian or otherwise unduly. The assurances given by the President securing foreign investments in Maldives are valid and stand true.”

However Attorney General Azima Shukoor told media this morning that “After the necessary research, we have said that the GMR agreement causes financial loss to the state.”

She expressed confidence that the government would win the case in the Singapore court of arbitration, the next hearing of which is to be held on November 19.

“I would like to point out that the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) still hasn’t finished the complete investigation into the GMR matter. This also presents difficulties for us, she said.

“I have met with the heads of ACC and Auditor General two, three times. I can’t say anything about the investigations. But I haven’t heard back anything after I shared the information I had available with them.”

Other elements of the government have also persistently called for the airport’s nationalisation.

DQP Leader Dr Hassan Saeed, now Waheed’s Special Advisor, at the launch of a book (in Dhivehi) last month criticising the airport development, said that the “only way to reclaim the airport from GMR” was to invalidate or cancel the concession agreement.

Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel – also a DQP member – said at the launch that it was the “duty of the most capable people in the country” to step forward and help “liberate” the nation from “grave problems” during the current “difficult times”.

The religious Adhaalath Party, likewise aligned with the current government – in September called for a “national jihad” to nationalise the airport development.

Another government-aligned party, the Jumhoree Party (JP) headed by resort tycoon, media owner and member of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) Gasim Ibrahim, has also called for the nationalisaiton of the airport.

In September Gasim urged the government in to reclaim the airport, even at a cost of US$700 million, as it was worth “a thousand times more”.

Gasim’s comments followed GMR’s decision to suspend the credit facility for his Villa Air airline, due to unpaid bills totaling MVR 17 million (US$1.1 million) for fuel, ground handling and passenger service fees.

In late September GMR sponsored the inaugural Maldives Travel Awards, held on Gasim’s Paradise Island resort.

Paradise won the title of ‘Leading Business Hotel’, while Gasim’s Villa group of companies also picked up an award for ‘Leading Domestic Airport’. Gasim himself received a ‘Lifetime Achievement’ award.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Bill on death penalty drafted, unclear on action on past sentences: AG Shakoor

Attorney General (AG) Azima Shakoor stated on Thursday that the government’s bill on implementing death penalty would be made public early in the coming week.

Speaking at a press conference in Velaanaage, Shakoor confirmed that the AG’s office had completed drafting the bill, which was now in the final stages of discussion. She confirmed that the bill would be made public on the office’s website in the coming week, stating the matter “is very much connected to public sentiments and a large number of people feel this matter needs a fast solution”.

Saying that “it was a pity” that three weeks had passed in the drafting stage, Shakoor said that unlike most other bills, the death penalty implementation bill was going through processes of in-depth research and further discussions among a high-level group appointed by the government.

According to Shakoor, the research took much longer than the state had expected, adding that the AG office had included the legal systems of Medina, Egypt and America in its research.

“I would like to point out that the death penalty is still implemented in over 50 countries across the world even today. Not all of these are even Islamic states. Nor is murder the only crime for which the sentence is given. For example, some countries sentence people to death for being caught trying to bring in narcotics to the country. We are considering all of these points and have made a comparative legal assessment,” Shakoor explained.

Other crimes besides murder which are punishable by death according to Islamic Sharia include apostasy, adultery, sodomy, rape and high treason.

“We need to conduct an academic exercise since we are trying to do this through a rather weak penal code,” Shakoor said.

“If this can be done before the penal code pending in parliament is passed, it might be best to include this as part of that code. Right now, we have drafted this with the thought that if the penal code gets passed up front, then this can be passed as a separate act on death penalty.”

Shakoor said that the bill was important as the current practice was to charge murder convicts under Article 88 of the existing penal code.

Article 88 of the Penal Code states that disobedience to order is a crime, while Article 88(c) details that if the result of violating the article leads to a death, the case should be dealt with according to Islamic Sharia.

Shakoor provided details of the drafted bill, stating it would be looking at the investigation stages, prosecution stages, sentencing and the implementation of sentences.

“The act looks into deciding on the number of judges who will sit on the sentencing panel. Furthermore it considers the rights of the family, the rights of the murder victim, the rights of the victim’s family, the final rights of the convict during sentencing,” Shakoor stated.

Responding to a question regarding how those sentenced to death prior to the bill being ratified would be dealt with, Shakoor said “it is difficult to give a straightforward answer as the final discussions on the bill have not yet been completed.”

“We too believe that answers to that must come to light through how this bill is composed. However, I believe that a solution must be provided even for past cases. So the act will be drafted to reflect that. You can see for yourselves once the bill is made public,” Shakoor replied.

“When an act is passed which explicitly spells out implementation [of the death penalty], then I believe the benefits of it must be carried to even past cases.”

Among a number of other cases, a young couple charged with the murder of lawyer Ahmed Najeeb were sentenced to death by the Criminal Court in July, a few days after the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) asked the Maldivian state to enact legislation to officially abolish the death penalty. The statement said “the state itself has admitted that capital punishment does not deter crime.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP gathering calls for judicial reform ahead of Nasheed trial

Maldivian Democratic Party on Tuesday night held a march around the capital island Male’ calling for judicial reform ahead of the next hearing of former President Mohamed Nasheed’s trial, scheduled for November 4.

Over 500 protesters marched around Male’ with banners and placards displaying messages on the importance of judicial independence and holding the judiciary accountable.

A number of leading MDP figures joined the march, including former Minister of Environment and Housing Mohamed Aslam, MP Ilyas Labeeb, former Ministers of Education Shifa Mohamed and Musthafa Lutfi, former Minister of Foreign Affairs Ahmed Naseem and former Minister of Home Affairs Hassan Afeef.

Some of the messages on the banners observed by Minivan News said: “Do not destroy justice for the sake of political gain” and “No one will benefit through spoiling the judiciary.”

The protest march began in front of the MDP office on Sosun Magu and protesters walked on the streets of Male’ despite the rainy weather. The march stopped at some street junctions where party leaders gave speeches to the gathered crowds. Speakers included Musthafa Lutfi and Shifa Mohamed.

MDP Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Gafoor said that a main focus of the protest was asserting that the judiciary too must be held accountable.

The three judges presiding over the Nasheed case have continued to refuse to attend parliament committee meeting despite repeated summons.

Trial against Nasheed

On October 9, the police presented Nasheed to the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court for the first hearing on the case concerning his arrest of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

He was arrested on the island of FaresMathoda on the previous day and held in the Dhoonidhoo Detention Facility until the hearing, prompting protests by hundreds of his supporters.

After the first hearing, Nasheed was released from custody, though they maintained the previously imposed travel ban, requiring him to get a special permission from the courts prior to any travelling.

Nasheed alleged that the Prosecutor General’s sole purpose was to bar him from contesting in the upcoming presidential elections, stating, “If, as the President of the Maldives I arrested the Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, then it is not as small a crime as is stated in Article 81 (of the Penal Code). The Prosecutor General’s only objective is to ensure that I cannot contest in the next presidential elections. To do so, he has identified an article which would provide just the required period of detention to cancel my candidacy.”

Nasheed’s legal team has previously raised concerns about the trial, stating that case proceedings were against laws and norms. They raised questions about the legality of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court and procedural issues with the three judge panel presiding over the case.

While the next hearing has been scheduled for November 4, two among Nasheed’s lawyers have been barred from court.

Meanwhile, following an application for a temporary injunction by Nasheed’s legal team, the High Court has declared that it will hold the next hearing of the injunction case on the same day coinciding with Nasheed’s next hearing at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Maldives turns full circle, writes Nasheed in FT

Most people know the Maldives for its luxurious honeymoon suites or “How to spend it” beach villas, writes former President Mohamed Nasheed for the UK’s Financial Times.

But I write this article having spent a night in an altogether different class of accommodation: a Maldivian jail cell. I am no stranger to these institutions, having spent much of my adult life in incarceration, punishment for advocating democracy in my country, an Indian Ocean archipelago of 1,192 islands.

Most recently I was jailed in 2006 when the Maldives was ruled by the dictator Maumoon Gayoom. I faced terrorism charges for giving a speech against corruption, which the regime claimed “terrorised” listeners. After 28 years in power, Mr Gayoom had finally consented to hold a multi-party presidential election and I feared I would be barred from standing. Under pressure from street demonstrations and international protest the regime relented, and I became my country’s first elected president in 2008.

Today things have turned full circle. Once again, I have been jailed. Once again, an authoritarian regime,effectively controlled by the old dictator, is pressing politically motivated charges against me. Once again, I may be prevented from competing in a presidential election, which must be held by the end of next year.

The Maldives, a youthful, Muslim country whose people rose up and shook off decades of authoritarian rule, provides an important lesson for democrats in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and other countries caught in the Arab uprisings. Even after the revolution, the old guard can linger on and suffocate fledgling democracy.

On Sunday I will face an extraordinary court, established especially to hear my case. I am to be tried for abuse of power, in particular for the arrest of a corrupt judge, who was an ally of Mr Gayoom. My conviction is a foregone conclusion. Mohamed Waheed, my former vice-president, may decide to pardon me, but only in a way that ensures I remain barred from seeking office next year. The Maldivian people are seeing their economy collapse and their election stolen from them. If the world is watching, it is seeing a young Muslim democracy fail.

I hope the international community pressures the Waheed regime to make good on its promises: to bring human rights abusers in the security forces to book; to cease the harassment of peaceful political activists; and to allow internationally monitored elections in which all candidates are allowed to stand.

Whether I win or lose is irrelevant. What is important is that a genuine election is held, and the will of the Maldivian people – not the military’s force of arms – is the final adjudicator of my nation’s future.

Read more

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MPs claim bill on the right to remain silent contradicts constitution

Parliament has divided opinions on the Bill on the Right to remain silent submitted by independent member of parliament, Mohamed Nasheed.

The bill had its second reading in parliament on Tuesday, following the first reading on October 3. During the ensuing one hour debate, Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MPs mainly spoke against the bill, while most MPs aligned with the ruling coalition supported the bill and advocated for it to be expedited.

“The right to remain silent is a fundamental basis on which the criminal justice system in many other countries are built upon. They do not have to explicitly define this in their laws as it is already well established in their respective societies,” Nasheed explained in parliament today.

“Our case is different. We first heard the phrase ‘the right to remain silent’ with the ratification of the 2008 constitution,” Nasheed said, adding that unlike other countries, Maldivians did not have any local material to refer to for better understanding of the right.

He said that the bill therefore aimed to define clearly what comes and what does not come within the boundaries of the right to remain silent, where this right can be applied and the legal outcomes that may ensue.

No threat to MPs

A number of MPs, some from the ruling coalition parties and some independent, spoke in favour of the bill. They insisted that narrowing the right to remain silent would assist in police investigations, thereby contributing to bringing down crime rates.

Some MPs stated that this bill only caused inconvenience to criminals, explicitly stating that it posed no risk to MPs and politicians.

Independent MP Ahmed Amir said that the MPs themselves needed to prove to the nation that all of them were people who refrained from getting involved in criminal activities, asking “Why then must we be concerned about this bill? I do not believe any member here needs to be concerned about this bill.”

Amir said the parliament had narrowed the same right in the Act on Sexual harassment against children, adding “why then are we so reluctant to pass an act to narrow down this right as a whole? That this may cause a loss to us, or the nation, is in my view an irresponsible stance to take.”

Meanwhile, DRP MP Mausoom stated the importance of expediting the bill, pledging complete support to the draft bill.

“At a time when we started moving towards democracy, one reason which led to a number of citizens expressing discontent with a democratic system is that the rights of criminals began exceeding those of regular citizens,” Mausoom said, stating that it was of extreme importance that the bill on the floor be sent to the relevant committee and passed at  the earliest.

PPM MP Ahmed ‘RedWave’ Saleem also supported the bill, and put forward his opinion in parliament.

“On judgement day you cannot exercise the right to remain silent. If you do, your organs will speak for you. However, organs cannot speak today, and so we must speak with our own tongues. If police ask you if you have committed a crime, you can simply say no even if you have committed it, so what is there to be afraid of?” Saleem said.

Addressing the MDP MPs Saleem said, “I want to tell my MDP brothers that this poses no threat to them, only to criminals. There is no threat to any politicians either.”

Contradictions with the Constitution

MPs who spoke against the bill pointed out that the bill directly contradicted articles in the constitution.

Article 20 of the proposed bill states that should a person choose to remain silent, after which sufficient evidence is provided in courts to prove without doubt that he is guilty as accused, then his decision to remain silent can be viewed as further proof against him. It further says that this is because instead of trying to prove his innocence, the accused had chosen to remain silent.

MDP MPs Ali Riza and Ali Waheed stated that this article was in direct contradiction to Articles 51(a), 51(c), 51(d), 51(e), 51(h) and 52 of the constitution.

Ali Waheed further stated, “I do not believe that any Act has the power to completely turn around a right guaranteed in Chapter 2 of the Constitution.”

From the government coalition parties, Jumhoree Party MP Abdulla Jabir also spoke against the proposed bill.

“We have heard in the past that two or three people would be arrested, tortured, forced to confess, and then claiming the investigation to be completed, these people would be sentenced undeservingly. Are we to move back into that again?” he said.

Jabir stated that he would not support the bill as he felt it would bring back the culture of torture, forced confessions and convictions of the innocent.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Rainbow Warrior visiting Maldives as part of two month Indian Ocean tour

The Rainbow Warrior – flagship of environmental NGO Greenpeace – is visiting the Maldives as part of a two-month tour of the Indian Ocean.

“Greenpeace has come to the Indian Ocean in order to learn about fishing activities in the region, and to talk to communities, governments, officials and the tuna fishing industry, with the intention of working together to combat overfishing and to stop destructive and illegal fishing,” the international organisation stated.

During the vessel’s visit to the Maldives, the crew will document the pole and line fishery in the southern atoll, hold a one-day conference on sustainable tuna, involving political, fishing and commercial sectors joint monitoring and surveillance with the Maldivian coast guard in Maldivian waters. The vessel will be opened to school children in Laamu Gan.

Executive Secretary of the International Pole and Line Foundation (IPNLF), Athif Shakoor, who is coordinating the Greenpeace visit, told Minivan News that the Rainbow Warrior’s visit was significant for the Maldives, as was the organisation’s endorsement of pole and line fishing methods.

“Pole and line fishing is more sustainable and central to employment in many communities,” he explained.

As a sustainable fishing method, pole and line fishing could be marketed as a premium brand and the higher prices passed to the fishermen, Shakoor said.

Minivan News has previously reported that retail premiums for pole and line-caught fish were being largely absorbed by the supermarket chains that sold them, leaving Maldivian fishermen to compete with the technologically-advanced and substantially less sustainable fishing vessels of other nations.

In October 2011, Minivan News reported concerns from fisheries authorities and industry that the country was effectively “under siege” by the vessels of other nations – particularly the French and Spanish – which had ringed the Maldives’ Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) with ‘Fish Aggregation Devices’ (FADS).

Fish such as tuna are naturally attracted to the floating object, such as a buoy, typically fitted with a sonar device capable of determining the quantity of fish below, and a satellite uplink that communicates this to the nearby fishing vessel. The vessel’s net does not discriminate between the predators and scavengers attracted by the target fish population around the FAD.

The local canning industry has also expressed concern about being unable to buy fish at a competitive price from local fishermen, who were instead selling their catch to canning conglomerates in Thailand, which were then labelling and exporting the product as a ‘Maldivian’ pole and line product with little oversight of the supply chain.

The Rainbow Warrior

The first Rainbow Warrior was bombed by French agents in 1987 while it was in New Zealand preparing to lead a flotilla of ships in protest against French nuclear testing. The explosion killed a Greenpeace photographer.

After two years of international arbitration the French government was ordered to pay Greenpeace US$8.159 million.

The second Rainbow Warrior vessel was commissioned in 1989. In 2005 the vessel ran aground on a coral reef in the Philippines while inspecting it for coral bleaching, and was ordered to pay US$7000 for the damage caused. Greenpeace paid the fine but claimed the Philippines government had given it outdated navigational charts.

The third – and current – Rainbow Warrior is 57. 92 metres in length, can accomodate 30 people, has a large conference room and helipad, and is powered by five sails with a backup diesel electric engine.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Reconciliation out of question amid continuing instability: Eurasia Review

The CNI report absolving the present government, its security forces and the politicians of any wrong doing must have come as a big shock to former President Nasheed. It was unexpected and unreal. This should again prove to Nasheed that in politics idealism does not pay, writes Dr S Chandrasekharan for the Eurasia Review.

The immediate reaction of Nasheed was one of disbelief. He said that: “it left Maldives in a very awkward and in many ways a very comical situation when toppling the government by brute force is taken to be a very reasonable course of action.”

Nasheed’s hopes that elections will be held early will not be fulfilled when the present government under President Waheed and former president Gayoom who is the adviser from behind the scenes will ensure that Nasheed is prevented at any cost from contesting the next elections.

In this, it appears that the judiciary will also go against Nasheed with a vengeance. It is known that the judiciary in the current dispensation is the weakest link in Maldives. One should read in detail the book by Aishath Velezinee –“The Failed Silent Coup,” that describes how the judicial commission with outside help managed to make incompetent judges get permanent positions in the judicial system!

Nasheed made the biggest mistake in allowing this fraud to be perpetrated when he was in a justifiable position to take action. Instead he overreached subsequently in arresting the Chief Criminal Judge Abdulla which finally resulted in the coup.

Nasheed should take note of the following:

1. The present government is stacked with pro Gayoom people in important positions and will do everything to marginalise Nasheed and his MDP. One should look at the following list of people in important positions in the present government. They are all Gayoom’s people!

  • Dunya Maumoon – Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Gayoom’s daughter)
  • Ghassan Maumoon- Minister of State for Human Resources (Gayoom’s son)
  • Abdul Samad Abdulla – Minister of Foreign Affairs (PPM member)
  • Abdulla Jihad – Minister of Finance and Treasury (Gayoom’s former Finance Minister)
  • Mohamed Waheed Deen – Vice President (Gayoom’s former Attorney General)
  • Azima Shakooru – Attorney General (former Attorney General under Gayoom in 2007)
  • Mohamed Husain Sharif Mundu – Minister of Youth Affairs (PPM Spokesperson)
  • Ismail Shafeeu – CoNI co-chair (Gayoom’s former Minister of Defence and National Security)
  • Ahmed Mujuthaba – Mediator in all-party talks (Gayoom’s former Minister of Tourism)

Waheed’s government will not go for any dialogue unless it is on their terms. There are pious hopes from analysts in India, the media and even some from the Indian establishment that dialogue is the best way forward to resolve the present crisis in Maldives. Soon after the CNI report, the MDP made an offer to join the present coalition government. This was summarily dismissed both by President Waheed who was outside the country and the government spokesman Abas Adil Riza who derisively rejected it with his comment that the “attempt of MDP to join the government lacked sincerity.”

Reconciliation is therefore out of question and there should concerns for continuing instability in Maldives. The brutal killing recently of PPM MP Dr Afrasheem, considered as an Islamic moderate, should be cause for concern.

Full story

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)