Tag: minivan news

Court imposing 8pm-8am curfew on released protesters

The Criminal Court has released the majority of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) demonstrators arrested over the weekend, on the condition they abide by an 8pm-8am curfew for one month.

The court release all but five of the 36 people arrested during demonstrations on Friday. One of the seven people arrested on Saturday has been released, while the others were yet to appear before court at time of press.

Those arrested included former Transport Minister Adil Saleem, who had his detention extended for a further five days.

Police Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef confirmed that the 8pm to 8am curfew was being issued by the courts, but referred Minivan News to the courts when asked if this conflicted with the constitution’s provision for freedom of assembly.

“We are not trying to stop people from protesting, we have no issue with that,” he said.

One protester who was arrested on Friday afternoon and released the following day told Minivan News that the court had released him “on the condition I stay at home between 8pm-6pm, and don’t go near crowds.”

The protester said he had attended the protest on Friday after the MDP’s ‘Kula Yellow’ Facebook page claimed – incorrectly – that the protest “was being livecast by the BBC and CNN.”

He said he was watching a female protester – Laisha Abdulla – being arrested, when somebody stepped on his slipper and caused him to lose it just as police pushed the crowds back.

“I asked for my slipper back, but when I went to get it I was arrested and charged with beating police and obstructing police duty,” he claimed.

The protester was taken with a group of 17 people on a police launch to the island of Dhoonidhoo, and put in a cell with 40 people “and three toilets”.

Those arrested were given a bottle water on the way, roshi and mashuni for Ramazan breakfast, and juice and fishcakes two hours later. At midnight they were given a lunch packet, three dates and a carton of Milo, he said.

“We were kept outside [the cell] until 3:30-4:00am. The next day at 1:30pm we were brought to court handcuffed,” he said. “The police were saying things like ‘Where’s your Twitter now?’, and saying that it would be another 30 years before [Nasheed] was able to return to power.”

Of the group arrest, 5-6 were detaining for a further five days – including Adil Saleem.

“I saw him in prison. He had an IV drip in his arm, and said he had internal bleeding after being hit in the stomach with a police radio,” the protester said.

One demonstrator was detained for a further 15 days “for apparently beating the Deputy Police Commissioner.”

While inside, the protester said he met a person who had been accused by police of throwing rocks at the government-aligned VTV television station in April.

“He asked for help as he’d been in there for five months with no court order or sentence,” the protester said.

Police Spokesperson Haneef denied knowledge of such a case, and said that all such allegations “should be brought to the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) or the Police Integrity Commission (PIC). We are following police procedures and the constitution.”

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Youth Wing President Shauna Aminath, who was arrested and released the previous week, was given similar orders by the court not to attend protests for a month.

“Police came into a peaceful crowd [on July 13] and pulled me out,” she told Minivan News. “Mariyam Mohamed grabbed my hand and held on. We were both arrested.”

On the charge sheet, police accused her of moving police barricades, crossing the barricades, disrupting police duty, using foul language towards police, and inciting other people to disrupt the peace in the area, she said.

They confiscated her cell phone, and made her to do a drug test: “I said I had not been arrested for a drug offence, but anyway I did it.”

Those arrested for demonstrating were put into the same cell as “murderers, prostitutes and drug dealers”, she said. “I don’t go to protests to be arrested – it is a nuisance, I have work to do. The police and government are using the courts to intimidate pro-democracy demonstrators.”
Home Minister Mohamed Jameel has meanwhile called on demonstrators to use the country’s independent institutions rather than take to the streets and demonstrate.

“It will have long term effects on the Maldives’ economy, because there is a possibility that tourists may decide that the Maldives is no longer safe and peaceful,” Jameel told local newspaper Haveeru.

“The people during former President Mohamed Nasheed’s tenure took to the streets after the situation became really dire. But attempts were made to seek solutions from the relevant institutions,” he claimed.

Laisha Abdulla’s arrest on Friday:

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Need for a domestic legislation on peaceful assembly

Police-public clashes have once again occupied centre stage in the Maldives. Over 100 people are believed to have been arrested in the ‘direct action’ protests organised by the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) since 8 July. Several reports of police brutality and excesses have once again come to the fore.

The police authorities allege that the ongoing protests are not peaceful gatherings as many demonstrators attacked policemen and carried out other criminal offences too. MDP meanwhile maintains that the protests themselves are “largely peaceful” and that the police are carrying out discriminatory attacks against its MPs, journalists and harassing and intimidating the protestors.

Whether the police exercised their discretion to use force appropriately and in due consideration with the constitutionally-guaranteed right to assemble needs to be seen against the existing laws and procedures regarding peaceful assembly in the country.

The freedom to assemble peacefully has been guaranteed as a fundamental right under Article 32 of the 2008 national constitution. Notably, the right has been guaranteed to all and does not require prior permission of the stat

e. However, this is in contradiction to the domestic “regulations on assembly” which were drafted in April 2006, and later ratified under the General Regulations Act 2008. The regulations required three organisers of public assemblies to submit a written form 14 days prior to the gathering to the Maldives police. Only in April 2012 did the High Court struck down this requirement (among others) as being unconstitutional. The Court also struck down the police authority to deny permission, upholding thereby the principle that the police role is simply to facilitate peaceful assembly.

Despite the frequency of public protests particularly since the democratic transition of the country in October 2008, it is surprising that the government has so far not amended the regulations in tune with the constitutional safeguards. The continuing discrepancy between the two suggests that police powers during public protests remain ambiguous, and that the constitutional safeguards against restriction of the right (Article 32) as well as protection of right to life (Article 21) and prohibition of torture (Article 54) are unlikely to be reflected in their behaviour.

Against this, the police are free to use their discretion on the amount of force necessary in such situations. Their discretion has been found to be excessive in the past.

For instance, the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives’s (HRCM) investigation into the police action in controlling the MDP protests on 8 February 2012 was found to be excessive and unnecessary. The HRCM noted that the level of threat posed by the protestors was disproportionate to the force used under Article 14 of the Police Act according to which police may use amount of force necessary to ensure compliance of its lawful orders. It was also noted that the police did not follow properly the protocol as laid down in Regulation on Use of Force and Firearms. Against the requirement, protestors were not given sufficient warning before force and weapons were used to disperse the crowd.

All this suggests an urgent need for domestic legislation on peaceful assemblies, one that can strike a balance between protecting individual rights and ensuring public safety. Such a legislation must provide a clear definition of the term peaceful assembly, the kinds of public gatherings that are covered under peaceful assembly, procedure for conducting/organising a peaceful assembly, rights and duties of organizers of such public events, rights and duties of participants of a public assembly, duties of the police including bases on which the police might disrupt or terminate a public assembly and liability in case of any violations of the law.

Such a legislation should be governed by three key principles, as enunciated in the OSCE Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and endorsed by the Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association, Maina Kiai in his report (21 May 2012), considered as best practice vis-à-vis regulation of public assembly – presumption in favour of holding assemblies, state’s duty to protect peaceful assemblies, and proportionality.

Together, these impose a positive duty on the state to put in place adequate mechanisms and procedures to ensure that this freedom is enjoyed in practice. This means that any restrictions placed in the interest of public safety must not impair the essence of the right. In this regard, best practice is considered to be one that discourages seeking prior authorisation for holding a gathering, and one that avoids blanket time and location prohibitions, for instance.

This also entails a duty on the state to train law enforcement officials appropriately in policing public assembly with an emphasis on protection of human rights. The Special Rapporteur notes that the pretext of public security cannot be invoked to violate the right to life, and that any resort to physical means must be rational and proportional. Crucially, it is the responsibility of the national authorities to support any claim of proportionality by relevant facts and not merely suspicion or presumptions.

Lastly, an important best practice emerging in the field of public assembly is allowing human rights defenders to monitor public assemblies. For instance, the London Metropolitan Police invited Liberty, an independent human rights organisation, to act as independent observers while policing a Trades Union Congress march in London in 2010. Such monitoring may itself deter human rights violations, and crucially, make it easier to establish facts amidst allegations and counter-allegations, as is currently underway in the Maldives. This further places an obligation on the state to undertake capacity building activities for the benefit of NGOs and human rights defenders to monitor assemblies.

The right to freedom of assembly is an essential component of democracy that facilitates political mobilization and participation. States have an obligation towards creating an environment conducive for the exercise and enjoyment of this right. A domestic legislation incorporating clear definitions and best standards is the first step towards fulfilling that obligation, and an urgent need in the Maldives frequently disrupted by public protests.

Devyani Srivastava is a Consultant for the Police Reforms Programme (South Asia) of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative

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)

Commission has interviewed 224 witnesses: CNI

The Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) told reporters today that it has interviewed 224 witnesses in its ongoing investigation to determine whether President Mohamed Nasheed resigned “under duress” on February 7.

The commission aims to complete interviews of remaining 60 witnesses by the end of July and hopes to publish its report by August 31, commission member Dr Ibrahim Yasir Ahmed said.

The CNI was recently reconstituted to include a foreign judge and a member to represent former President Nasheed after the Commonwealth raised concern’s over the body’s impartiality during its first iteration.

Nasheed’s representative to the CNI, Ahmed Saeed, said the commission had received overwhelming support from all sectors of society, including security forces, former government officials and civilians.

However, the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) and the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) had not responded to requests to share information, Saeed said.

Dr Fawas said Raajje TV was the only television station that had not shared video footage with the commission so far.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Government sheds pretence of reconciliation with charging of Nasheed: Eurasia Review

The new government of the Maldives has shed all pretence of reconcilliation with its levying of criminal charges against former President Mohamed Nasheed, writes Dr S Chandrasekharan for the Eurasia Review.

“If sentenced Nasheed and Tholiath will face a jail term or banishment for three years and or a fine of MVR 3000.

It looks that the government has shed all its pretences of going for reconciliation with the ousted President Nasheed and with this, the initiative taken by India in starting the “All Party Road Map Talks” is also dead and buried. It should also be clear to the policy makers in India that President Waheed and his government have no intention of holding early elections as promised earlier.

This also coincides with the week long direct action protests by MDP protestors led by Nasheed that had often resulted in regular and in some cases brutal confrontation between the Police and the demonstrators. The MDP claims that over a hundred of its protestors have been arrested. One graphic picture in the media showed a bald headed protester being hit on his head by a lathi by the police.

As if to rub salt in the wound, Home minister Jameel said that it is a “historic criminal trial” and the first step towards the national healing process. We have seen the healing process in the last seven days with the law and order situation getting more serious with each day of protest.

It looks that prosecution will be one of the means that is being adopted to prevent Nasheed from contesting the next presidential elections. It may be recalled that in the internal poll held to select the presidential candidate by the MDP, Nasheed obtained over 31,000 votes.

The deputy head of the PPM which is literally running the government, Umar Naseer expressed his confidence last month that former President Nasheed will see his imprisonment before the scheduled elections in July 2013 (note the date).

The powerful Adviser to the President Dr. Hassan Saeed also in a similar vein said that he “does not believe that Nasheed will be a free man during the time of next Presidential elections.” Is it not ironic that it is the same Saeed who in his capacity as Attorney General in Gayoom’s regime had way back in 2005 filed a complaint against Judge Abdulla on allegations of misogyny, sexual deviation and also throwing out an assault case despite the confession of the accused? ? It is Abdulla’s detention in late January that triggered the prosecution case against Nasheed.

It is said that the final report by the newly reconstituted Commission of National Enquiry will be delayed by a month. The new committee has begun its enquiry with two new members, one a nominee of Nasheed and another a Judge (Justice Selvam) Singapore.

The time line produced by the old committee before the new one was constituted has created an avoidable controversy. It is alleged by the MDP that this report was an attempt to prejudice the work of the new committee. A rejoinder to the time line produced by the MDP- the “Ameen- Aslam” report has resulted in an expected reaction of the government terming it as a “terrorist Act” and both Ameen and Aslam are being prosecuted as terrorists! Ameen was the National Security Adviser during Nasheed’s tenure and he is fully aware of the circumstances under which Nasheed resigned.

It is back to the Gayoom days when Nasheed was prosecuted under terrorism laws when he protested against the government in a public place!

Nasheed’s recent statement in US that tourists should boycott Maldives has caused a near panic in the country. This will hurt the country a lot more than even the ongoing violent street protests. An emergency resolution has been introduced in the Majlis on 7 July by a few members to discuss the tourism boycott call.

What is surprising is that Nasheed is still able to organise protests on a massive scale and it looks that he is determined to fight on. The Maldivian Government under President Waheed appears to be equally determined to put down the protests and go ahead with the prosecution of Nasheed without leaving any space for reconciliation. This is a dangerous trend.”

Read more

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

UN Office for Human Rights expresses concern over use of excessive force against demonstrators

The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has expressed concern over violent protests and use of “excessive force” against demonstrators.

At a press briefing on Tuesday, Spokesperson for High Commissioner Navi Pillay, Rupert Colville, observed that “instances of apparent brutality have been captured on camera. These include the seemingly deliberate and uncalled-for use of some kind of spray on former President [Mohamed] Nasheed, and the driving of police vehicles at high speed into crowds of protesters.”

“Such actions deserve immediate investigation, and firm action should be taken by the authorities against those responsible for excessive use of force,” stated Colville. “We appeal to all parties to refrain from violence and create conditions for political dialogue and reconciliation.”

Police initially denied pepper-spraying former President Nasheed during a rally on July 14.

“Maldives Police did not use any excessive force nor was pepper spray directed to anyone’s face,” police said in a statement.

However a video released of the incident showed a riot police officer reaching over a crowd of people surrounding Nasheed and spraying him in the face. Nasheed turns away as the spray hits him, and is taken away by his supporters, but later returned to the protest.

President’s Office Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza said the government had no comment on the matter as it was under investigation, “and in due course the Human Rights Minister [Dhiyana Saeed] will address the concerns.”

The UN Office for Human Rights also noted the criminal charges that had been brought against Nasheed concerning his detention of Chief Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed during his final days in office.

“We… stress that any such matters must be handled with full respect to the due process rights and fair trial safeguards guaranteed by the Maldives’ Constitution and international human rights treaty obligations,” Colville stated.

In a statement, the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) criticised the charges as “politically-motivated, and designed to remove the current regime’s political opponents from the public sphere.”

“International bodies including the UN Human Rights Committee and the International Committee of Jurists have also voiced serious doubts as to the independence and impartiality of the judiciary; showing that it will be impossible to conduct a fair trial,” the party said.

During the Maldives’ defence of its human rights record before the UN Human Rights Committee earlier this week, a panel member noted the “troubling role of the judiciary at the center” of the controversial transfer of power on February 7.

“The judiciary – which is admittedly in serious need of training and qualifications – is yet seemingly playing a role leading to the falling of governments,” he observed.

In a preliminary statement following the Maldives’ appearance, the Committee said it was “deeply concerned” about the state of the judiciary.

The State has admitted that this body’s independence is seriously compromised. The Committee has said the judiciary is desperately in need of more serious training, and higher standards of qualification. As 6 of 7 Supreme Court judges are experts in Sharia law and nothing more, this court in particular is in need of radical readjustment. This must be done to guarantee just trials, and fair judgments for the people of Maldives,” the Committee stated.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

UNHRC expresses concern over threats to civil society organisations: MDP

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has highlighted concerns raised by the UN Committee on Human Rights (UNHRC) that civil society organisations in the Maldives have allegedly received threats after submitting evidence to the inter-governmental body.

According to the MDP, the warning came during the closing stages of the Committee’s consideration of the Maldives’ report on its implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel and State Minister for Foreign Affairs have spent the last few days defending the country’s human rights record before the committee, which received a series of reports critical of that record from numerous local and international organisations.

An emergency point of order was raised by the Vice Chair of the Committee during the closely stages of the committee hearing.

The committee had, the Vice Chair said, “received extremely worrying reports that civil society groups in the Maldives which gave information for this meeting have been the subject of threats as a result. This includes the worst kind of threat – the threat to life,” the MDP cited in a statement.

Reprisals against such organisations and individuals for cooperating with international human rights bodies was a serious concern, the panel noted, and urged the government to ensure civil society was protected.

The MDP noted that with the statement, the Maldives had joined other States to have received such warnings including Bahrain and Sri Lanka.

President’s Office Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza told Minivan News that the government had “received complaints” from former Maldives High Commissioner to the UK, Dr Farhanaz Faizal, “that she has been receiving death threats, and we have brought this to the attention of the High Commission in London and the police.”

Minivan News was awaiting clarification from Dr Faizal at time of press.

Helios submission

Separately, Minivan News obtained an email sent by President’s Office Media Secretary Masood Imad to the Helios Life Association, a Swiss-based NGO which submitted a report to the UNHRC claiming that “the growing political and institutional influence of radical Islamic groups has undermined the Maldives’ progress towards realisation of rights guaranteed under the ICCPR.”

The Helios report noted that “this growing radicalisation resulted in the creation of a coalition of political parties in December, called the 23rd December Coalition for the Defence of Islam.

“As well as extremist religious elements, the 23rd December Coalition comprised of a range of political groups and individuals linked to the country’s former autocratic leader, Mr Maumoon Abdul Gayoom. The Coalition had been formed in direct opposition to the observance of international human rights law, particularly to the undertaking given at the UPR process that a national debate will be held on ending forms of punishment not consistent with Article 7.”

The report drew the Committee’s attention to the visit of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, to the Maldives and the vitriolic reaction to calls she made for a moratorium of the flogging of women for extramarital sex.

“The [December 23] Coalition proceeded to carry out a coup d’etat on February 7, which was executed by elements of the army and police loyal to Mr Gayoom, his close allies and former members of his government, and other parts of the 23rd December Coalition, following a call by the then Vice‐President, Dr Mohamed Waheed, to ‘defend Islam and the Constitution’”, the Helios report alleged.

“The coup saw elements of the police and army threaten the Maldives’ first democratically‐elected President, Mr Mohamed Nasheed, his family and colleagues from the ruling Maldives Democratic Party (MDP), with physical harm or worse unless he resign by a certain time.”

In the email sent to the Helios Association, Imad asks the organisation’s President, Dr Anna Barchetti Durisch, for the “names and positions” of the report’s authors, and whether a delegation from the organisation had visited the Maldives to assist in the drafting.

Speaking to Minivan News, Imad said that the picture on the front of the report – consisting of several police officers holding a baton to an old man with a bloody head injury – was a “fake picture” that had been photoshopped.

As for the report’s content, “much of it is biased. It sounded like a joke to me,” he said.

Pictured: The Helios report cover image the government alleges is fake.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Jameel and Dunya to defend Maldives’ human rights record at UNHRC

The Maldives’ government will on Thursday defend its human rights record to the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) in Geneva.

The delegation will be headed by Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel, former Justice Minister under the 30 year rule of President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and co-author of a pamphlet entitled ‘President Nasheed’s devious plot to destroy the Islamic faith of Maldivians’, published in January 2012 while in opposition.

Dr Jameel will be accompanied by State Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dunya Maumoon – Gayoom’s daughter – as well as the Maldives’ Permanent Representative in Geneva, Iruthisham Adam, Counsellor Marc Limon (formerly of PR firm Hill & Knowlton), Third Secretary Muruthala Moosa, and four interns: Marie Gabrielle Glock, Katherine Hamilton, Jessi Challis and Rinaldo Foncesca.

The UNHRC has already identified key issues to be taken up with the Maldives, concerning its International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) commitments. A document outlining these issues – drawn from the country’s Universal Periodic Review (with submissions from government, HRCM and civil society), was published in August 2011 – prior to the controversial change of government and fresh allegations of police brutality and attacks on journalists.

Issues identified in the 2011 document include counterterrorism measures, commitment to reducing discrimination (including on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, and religion), and prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.

One specific issue identified was the move in parliament to make the enforcement of the death penalty mandatory where such a verdict is upheld by the Supreme Court, which would place the Maldives in breach of its ICCPR commitments.

Dr Jameel last week stated he was willing to implement death penalty in his capacity as Home Minister. Supreme Court Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz also said he was willing to enforce such verdicts, as the Maldives struggles to come to terms with a sudden wave of violent crime and murder this year.

The ICCPR document asks whether prison personnel responsible for the death of Evan Naseem – a watershed moment in Maldivian political history that sparked democratic reform – had been investigated, and faced justice.

The document challenges the Maldives’ commitment to combating domestic violence and sexual assault in general: “According to information before the Committee, in the absence of a confession, a man can only be convicted of rape if there are two male or four female witnesses to the act. How does this comply with the Covenant?”

It also asks the Maldives to clarify its position on corporal punishment, whereby flogging sentences are routinely given for offences under Islamic sharia. The topic is sensitive in the Maldives, with UN Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay widely condemned in the Maldives following her call in parliament for a moratorium on the flogging of women as punishment for extramarital sex.

The UN document – produced in August 2011 – also calls on the government to clarify matters surrounding the nine-day detention without charge of MP Abdulla Yameen, then “leader of the opposition”, and challenges the government on issues relating to prison conditions, overcrowding, and lack of a legal aid scheme.

The document calls for the government to explain the country’s treatment of migrant workers, and in particular, “explain the measures being taken to deal with the trafficking of individuals from Bangladesh and India, who are mainly trafficked into the State party for labour and commercial sex exploitation.”
The document also requests the Maldives justify its reservation to article 18 of the ICCPR concerning freedom of religion, specifically the practice of religions other than Sunni Islam by the country’s largest population of foreign nationals.

It also calls on the Maldivian government to respond to allegations of “widespread harassment and intimidation” of journalists.

On June 4, well-known blogger and journalist Ismail ‘Hilath’ Rasheed had his throat cut in what appeared to be the first targeted assassination attempt of a media figure in the Maldives. Rasheed, who had been attacked multiple times prior to the attempt on his life, survived, and has since fled the country. Rasheed claimed he was attacked by radicalised gang members who were operating with the consent of “senior political and religious figures.”

Government response

The government of the Maldives responded to the list of issues earlier this month, ahead of its session with the committee later in July.

It acknowledged “efficiency and effectiveness” challenges with the local Human Rights Commission (HRCM).

“Notwithstanding, the government believes that HRCM already possesses necessary human and financial resources. It is worth noting that at a time of severe
economic difficulties in the Maldives, the HRCM has a budget of 22 million rufiyaa ($1.4 million – an extremely large sum considering the small economy and small population of the Maldives) and a staff of over 50 officials,” the response noted.

The Maldives had made considerable progress on issues of gender discrimination, the government stated, and towards addressing domestic violence with the introduction of a relevant bill.

On the subject of discrimination based on sexual preference, the Maldives had no specific law banning homosexuality, the government noted, however “article 10 of the Constitution of the Maldives states that the religion of the State of Maldives is Islam and Islam shall be the one of the basis of all the laws of the Maldives. Therefore, no law contrary to any tenet of Islam shall be enacted in the Maldives.”

“This excludes the possibility of enacting any law protecting the rights of persons based on their sexual orientation,” the government stated, adding that 23 people had been formally charged for homosexuality between 2007-2011.

With regard to article 18 on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, “the reservation states that the application of the principles set out in article 18 will be without prejudice to the Constitution of the Maldives,” the government stated.

“Chapter II of the Constitution on fundamental rights and freedoms does not include, among the rights guaranteed, freedom of thought, conscience and religion.”

Regarding concerns over the introduction of the death penalty, the government noted that the referred bill was a proposed amendment to the Clemency Act “which will make performing the death penalty mandatory in the event it was upheld by the Supreme Court.

“The amendment is proposed in an effort to stop crimes of murder and violence. The death toll in the Maldives has increased recently to a level of great concern and it is in the view that if death penalty or capital punishment is enforced it would reduce crime rate,” the government stated.

While corporal punishment was not explicitly prescribed in the penal code, it was administered for “certain offences prescribed in Sharia.”

“The government is, however, looking at ways to ensure that the punishment is not applied in a discriminatory manner. At present, women are far more likely to be publicly flogged than men – mostly because of outdated court procedures such as reliance on confessions rather than forensic evidence – though as noted above this is changing,” the government stated.

Yameen’s detention on the Presidential retreat at Aarah by the government of President Mohamed Nasheed “acted in contravention of the prescribed 24 hour rule and did not follow due process in dealing with political opponents on a number of occasions,” the government stated.

“Mr Yameen Abdul Gayoom‟s arrest and detention – by the police on an isolated island [Aarah] without access to a lawyer or to his family, were arbitrary and unlawful,” the government said.

On human trafficking, the government outlined measures it was taking to address international concerns and provide support for victims, including “a 24/7 toll-free help line to be announced shortly.”

“Language training is to be provided for the staff of Department of Immigration and Emigration and Labour Relations Authority (LRA) or translators are to be placed at borders to assist in identification of victims and providing necessary assistance to the victims,” the government stated. The country recently appeared on the US State Department’s Tier 2 Watch List for Human Trafficking for the third year running.

The government denied harassment and intimidation of journalists. Instead, “media freedom has remained steady with the constitution protecting freedom of expression but also restricting freedom of speech contrary to the tenets of Islam.”

While the government blocked websites controversial to Islam, ”the government is working to ensure the media is free to tackle any subject. It was by the current administration of President Dr Waheed Hassan who took office in February 2012 that Maldives National Broadcasting Corporation was handed over to the Parliament-created Maldives Broadcasting Corporation that had ended executive control of the media.”

A number of NGOs, including Redress, the Helios Life Association, the International Disability Alliance (IDA) and social services veteran and former State Health Minister Mariya Ali have submitted reports and evidence to the panel, which is to be webcast live.

Minivan News will review these submissions this week ahead of the Maldives’ appearance in Geneva.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Sharia and the death penalty

This article first appeared on Dhivehisitee. Republished with permission.

On July 1, a Maldivian lawyer was brutally murdered, his body stuffed into a dustbin.

On June 4,  militant Islamists tried to murder Hilath Rasheed, the country’s only openly gay rights activist and a rare voice advocating secularism in the Maldives.

On 30 May,  a 65-year-old man was killed on the island of Manafaru by robbers after his pension fund.

On the same day, in Male’ a 16-year-old school boy was stabbed multiple times and left to bleed to death in a public park.

On April 1, a 33-year-old man was stabbed to death in broad daylight by two men on a motorbike.  On February 19, a twenty-one-year-old life was taken in a case of ‘mistaken identity’.

Amidst the increasing violence and decreasing value of life, calls for restoration of the death penalty are growing. It is normal for a society experiencing unprecedented levels of crime to demand the death penalty as a solution. In the Maldives, however, the whole debate is framed within the precincts of religion, touted as a return to ‘Islamic justice.’

This is not to say other ways of looking at it are completely absent from the discourse. There’s Hawwa Lubna’s examination of the death penalty within a rule of law framework in Minivan News, and Mohamed Visham’s somewhat confused and confusing analysis of its pros and cons in Haveeru, for example. Such discussions are, however, pushed to the fringes as the theme of ‘Islamic justice’ takes precedence.

My question is, how Islamic is this call for ‘Marah Maru’ [death for death]? Is revenge what underpins provisions for the death penalty in Sharia?

The Qur’an mandates that everyone has a right to life, unless a court of law demands killing: “Nor take life — which Allah has made sacred — except for just cause.”1

What is not being said in the Maldivian debates on the death penalty is that although the Qur’an provides for situations in which the death penalty can be imposed, all such situations are carefully laid out with stringent evidentiary requirements that discourage carrying out a death sentence.

And, in all situations where capital punishment can be imposed, it offers alternative punishments that allow the death penalty to be avoided. 2

Among the three types of crimes for which the death penalty can be imposed in Sharia–hudud, qisas, and the ta’zir– murder belongs to the Qisas category. Qisas are offences proscribed by the Qur’an or Sunnah, but are subject of personal claims, rather than offences against Islam. Qisas deals with murder or bodily injury. The Qur’an allows retaliation against the individual who commits a Qisas crime, but also clearly demonstrates a strong preference for forgiveness.3

We have often heard in the current Maldivian debate the call for an ‘eye for an eye’, a ‘life for life’, citing the Qur’an; what we do not hear is the rest of the verse.

We ordained therein for them:

“Life for life, eye for eye,

Nose for nose, ear for ear,

Tooth for tooth, and wounds

Equal for equal.”

But if Anyone remits the retaliation

By way of charity, it is

An act of atonement for himself.

And if any fail to judge

By (the light of) what Allah

Hath revealed, they are

(No better than) wrongdoers. 4

The law of equality

Is prescribed to you

In cases of murder:

The free for the free,

The Slave for the Slave,

The woman for the woman.

But if any remission

Is made by the brother

Of the slain, then grant

Any reasonable demand,

And compensate him

With handsome gratitude 5

The right for the family of a murder victim to demand harm is balanced by the opportunity for family members to accept payment, or diya, for their loss instead of demanding that the perpetrator be punished. This is reflected in the fact that, generally, the Qur’an expresses a preference for diya over qisas 6 It says, for instance, that the Muslim who chooses diya will be rewarded in heaven:

It is part of the Mercy

Of Allah that thou dost deal

Gently with them.

Wert thou severe

Or harsh-hearted,

They would have broken away

From about thee: so pass over

(Their faults), and ask

For (Allah’s) forgiveness

For them; and consult

Them in affairs (of moment).

Then, when thou hast

Taken a decision

Put thy trust in Allah.

For Allah loves those

Who put their trust (in Him) 7

The question is, when Sharia so emphasises forgiveness over punishment, why is the emphasis of the Maldivian death penalty debate on punishment over forgiveness? In the murder of lawyer Ahmed Najeeb, for instance, the breathtakingly rapid investigation and court case revealed that two members of Najeeb’s eight inheritors chose diya over death, preferring not to take a life for a life.

When, according to the Qur’an and Sunna, diya is the more honourable choice, why was the choice of these two relatives Najeeb not highlighted in the national discourse as motivated by ‘Islamic values’ and, therefore, praiseworthy?

Why is ‘truly Islamic’ justice only portrayed as ‘an eye for eye, a life for a life’?

Not only is the reluctance to punish found in the Qur’an, it is also the case in the Sunnah. A’isha, the wife of the Prophet said, for instance, to:

avoid condemning the Muslim to Hudud whenever you can, and when you can find a way out for the Muslim then release him for it. If the Imam errs it is better that he errs in favour of innocence…than in favour of guilt.8

There is another narrative from the Prophet’s life that demonstrates he actively encouraged his followers to ward off punishment by looking for uncertainties that would create reasonable doubt, making the punishment impossible.

Maa’iz b. Malik was a person who presented himself to the Prophet, confessing Zina and requesting purification with the hadd. His story is scattered through the books of Hadith in numerous narrations. The Prophet repeatedly told him to go back and seek Allah’s forgiveness. After he kept returning, the Prophet made a number of attempts to make sure there was no doubt. He sent his Companions to Maa’iz’s people to inquire if he was known to be insane. He was informed there was no evidence of insanity nor was was he known to have any defect in his mind. He then asked them whether he was intoxicated, and the Companions smelled his mouth and informed him that they could not detect any signs of alcohol on his breath. Only then did the Prophet implement the hadd of stoning. In additional narrations of this same story, the prophet asked Maa’iz some specific questions to avert possible doubt:

“Perhaps you only kissed her or flirted with her or gazed at her.” Maiz replied, “No”. He then asked, “Did you have physical intercourse with her?” He replied, “Yes,” and only then was he ordered to be stoned.9

Quite clearly, Islamic justice is based on the ethos of forgiveness rather than punishment.

This understanding of the Sharia is being left out of the Maldivian debate – as it was left out of much of Western discourse on Sharia in the last decade – by those calling for an end to the moratorium on the death penalty. It is a suspension that has lasted from 1953 till now, and one that more closely reflects the Quranic understanding of Sharia.

Given that all parties pushing the death penalty are framing it as re-introduction of an ‘Islamic justice’ system, it is wrong that they are all ignoring the emphasis that the system places on finding alternatives to taking a life for a life.

It raises the question of whether the real motives behind the call for the death penalty are political rather than a desire for justice itself, Islamic or otherwise.

Leading the call are the usual suspects – prominent legal players such as Attorney General Azima Shukoor, Prosecutor General Ahmed Muizz and Home Minister Mohamed Jameel Ahmed – who have all expressed their desire for restoration of the ‘Islamic justice’ of the death penalty. And the Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz has – incredibly – described the beleaguered Maldivian justice system as capable of meting out capital punishment justly.

For politicians, imposing the death penalty at a time of unprecedented violence such as now provides the opportunity for appearing tough on crime – always a vote-attracter among a population battling with rising crime rates, especially when a crucial election is nigh. Their assumption is that if the State were only brave enough to take upon itself the power to kill, everyone else would cease to do so.

Furthermore, it provides a rare and valuable opportunity to flex political muscle at a time when the government is weak and its legitimacy is in question.

For the Islamists, it is the means with which to enforce a particularly harsh interpretation of Sharia on the Maldivian people in the name of Islam.

Given the situation, it is shocking that no member of the community of ‘Islamic scholars’ in the Maldives have come forward to emphasise understandings of Sharia and Islamic jurisprudence that highlight forgiveness and mercy as virtues much more deserving of Allah’s approval than revenge – even where justified by law.

Does the lack of an alternative view mean that in the last decade or so Islamists have established such a hegemony over Maldivian religious thought that it prevents any other views from being offered to the public?

Does it mean there are no ‘Islamic scholars’ in the country with an understanding of Islam that is not Islamist?

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)

High Court orders police to investigate allegations made to ACC regarding High Court judge

An ongoing legal dispute between the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) and Malaysian mobile security solutions provider Nexbis escalated this week, after the High Court ordered police to investigate claims made to the ACC that Chief Judge of the High Court Ahmed Shareef met officials from the company in Bangkok.

The dispute concerns the deployment of a border control system, specifically the installation of an electronic border gate system in Male’s Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA), bringing technological upgrades such as facial recognition, fingerprint identification and e-gates to the Maldives.

The project stalled after the ACC alleged corruption in the bidding process, leading to a ongoing series of high-profile court battles.

In May 2012 the project was brought to a standstill by a High Court injunction and a raid on immigration offices by ACC staff. At the time the Rf 10 million (US$650,000) first phase of the border control project had been completed, according to local media reports.

Nexbis has threatened legal action against the Maldivian government should it incur losses for the work already done on the project, and earlier this month filed a case with against the ACC accusing it of breaching article 141 of the constitution, stipulating non-interference in judicial matters by public officials, and article 42, entitling the company to a fair trial.

The Supreme Court in late June meanwhile dismissed the High Court’s injunction against the continuation of the project, on the basis that the bench overseeing the case had been unlawfully reconstituted. Immigration Controller Dr Mohamed Ali told local media at the time that the department was trying to interpret the order, which he contended “doesn’t make sense”,

In the most recent development Nexbis denied allegations – submitted to the ACC and published in Haveeru – that Chief Judge Ahmed Shareef had returned home from a conference in Singapore after spending a week in Bangkok, where he was alleged to have met Nexbis representatives.

Nexbis denied that any such meeting took place, and this week filed a case in a bid to stop the ACC from publicly sharing information on the investigation while the matter was in court, and seeking an apology for the damage to its reputation.

Asking police to investigate the allegations made to the ACC, the High Court meanwhile stressed in a statement this week that “no individual Judge can simply influence a decision of the Court, as all cases at the High Court are presided by a minimum three Judges bench and a ruling is only made by the majority of a particular bench.”

The accusations sent to the ACC were an “extremely irresponsible act with intentions to deceive and manipulate the truth,” the Court’s statement read.

The Court contended that the ACC’s investigation of the judge would amount to a conflict of interest, as the ACC was investigating a case it had itself filed in court.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)