Tag: minivan news

Thilafushi Corporation’s MD and board members dismissed

Thilafushi Corporation Limited (TLC) Managing Director Ilham Idrees and four other members of its board have been dismissed from their positions.

A statement released by the Privatization and Corporatization Board stated that Idrees has been replaced with Abdulla Saleeh Jaleel as TLC’s Managing Director. The Board did not provide a reason for the dismissal of any of the board members.

Ilham Idrees was appointed to the post by former President Mohamed Waheed Hassan during his term in office.

It further stated that board members Ahmed Rasheed Hussain, Adam Thaufeeq, Ali Rasheed Ibrahim and Ahmed Musthafa have also been dismissed.

The Privatization and Corporatization board – mandated with privatizing and corporatizing state enterprises, and monitoring and evaluating them – is compiled of seven members appointed by the President.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Coalition will overcome “ordinary” rifts: Gayoom

Ruling Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) leader and former President Maumoon Abdul Gayyoom has disregarded claims of rifts in the current government coalition as “ordinary”, expressing confidence that disputes will be sorted out in the near future.

Coalition partner Jumhooree Party (JP) had expressed dissatisfaction regarding the PPM’s failure to consult the party in compiling the state budget for 2014.

“It is understandable that sometimes, on particular matters, misunderstandings within a coalition may arise. That is how it happens in all parts of the world,” Gayoom said, addressing media upon return to the Maldives from a personal trip to Malaysia.

He stated that in general, the leaders of the coalition parties shared a “strong sense of unity and a spirit of working together”. He assured supporters that he would “wisely take on smoothing out any discord there may be within the coalition”.

While Gayoom speaks of solving issues within the coalition, his half-brother President Abdulla Yameen and JP leader Gasim Ibrahim – whose support was crucial in PPM winning the presidential election – have exchanged harsh criticism against each other regarding the proposed budget for 2014.

Deputy leaders of both parties have dismissed the claims that a rift existed within the coalition.

Upcoming elections

Gayoom further confirmed that as the main party in the coalition, PPM is currently working on assigning constituencies to the coalition partners for the upcoming elections, adding that it will be assigned as was agreed during the formation of the coalition for the presidential election.

PPM is competing in the upcoming elections together with coalition partners JP and Maldives Development Alliance (MDA).

PPM had promised the JP over 30 per cent of cabinet positions, parliamentary seats and local council seats in exchange for their support in the presidential election.

Earlier in November, Gasim expressed concern about the governing party’s failure to fulfill its promises to the JP, adding that it may be because the PPM “is hectically engaged in other government matters”. Stating that he did not believe Yameen or Gayoom would “deprive JP of benefits”, Gasim stated then that he had sent a letter to the PPM’s leader asking for clarification of what the JP is entitled to.

The fourth party in the coalition, religious conservative Adhaalath Party – after having recently dismissed rumours of it leaving the alliance – has announced that it will be contesting in the elections separate from the coalition.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP asked for cancellation of Nasheed trial: Adheeb

The ruling Progressive Party of Maldives’ (PPM) deputy leader and Tourism Minister Ahmed Adheeb has said the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) asked for cancellation of criminal charges against former President Mohamed Nasheed in exchange for MDP endorsing cabinet ministers.

Nasheed has been charged with the unlawful arrest of a Criminal Court chief judge Abdulla Mohamed. The case is still pending.

MDP International Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor has dismissed Adheeb’s claims, terming them “nothing but blatant lies”.

Adeeb alleged that the MDP had raised Nasheed’s personal interest over national interest in discussions held between the two political parties ahead of the parliamentary vote to endorse cabinet ministers.

The People’s Majlis voted to endorse President Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom’s cabinet yesterday. Six MDP members voted against a three whip line in endorsing eight ministers who MDP had rejected claiming they are ministers of “the coup government.”

Describing Nasheed as a man who “raised self-interest above all with no consideration towards national good”, Adeeb claimed that MDP had “reverted back to it’s old manners”.

“Instead of that exemplary behaviour, what we saw was that the party wants to revert back to its old manners and return to the past. Every time we tried to sit down with MDP and talk about endorsing our government’s ministers, they set the condition that we must recall the case against Nasheed. But we are not a government who will form commission upon commission and engage in digging up people’s past,” Adeeb said in a press briefing on Monday.

“Despite some MDP parliamentarians failing to work responsibly, the brave decision to vote in favour by some among those MPs who have deep-rooted love for the nation made it possible for all our ministers to become endorsed,” Adeeb stated.

“While I won’t accuse all of them, some among MDP attempted to inhibit the development we are trying to bring to this country, and to decrease investor confidence. However, the parliament vote has demonstrated the fact that our party is going steadily forward. That we will bring about the development that the citizens yearn for,” he stated.

Prior to Monday’s vote, President’s Office Spokesperson Ibrahim Muaz Ali had also expressed confidence that the ministers will receive sufficient votes from the parliament, saying at the time that “the government has a very good understanding with the leadership of MDP.”

He added then that the MDP had “put forward a number of suggestions”, but refused to reveal details of the discussion.

“Blatant lies”: MDP

MDP has meanwhile dismissed Adeeb’s allegations as “blatant lies”.

“Adeeb’s comments are nothing but blatant lies. To my knowledge, no one from this party has brought up some a topic or condition with any other person ever. We have set no conditions in discussions about ministers endorsement,” the party’s International Spokesperson Hamid told Minivan News today.

Hamid added that there has been “no formal negotiation between the parties, although there have been unofficial discussions between politicians from over the political spectrum”.

“Over a 1000 regular members of MDP have been placed in detention after the coup d’etat of February 2012, with a wide range of fabricated charges raised against them. I have heard of discussions about this matter between politicians of various parties. MDP does have an expectation that these people must be freed and allowed to return to their normal lives now that there is an elected government in place. They have done no wrong, and the charges against them were fabricated after they were arrested for exercising their right to demonstrate,” Hamid explained.

Former President Nasheed has also dismissed Adeeb’s allegations as false.

“To my knowledge, no such conditions were put forward. This is clear even from MDP parliamentary group’s whipline in the vote,” he is quoted as saying in local media Haveeru.

In Monday’s parliamentary vote to endorse ministers, MDP had enforced a three line whip against voting for 8 of the 15 cabinet ministers, while a free whip had been released in voting for the remaining 7.

A number of parliamentarians had breached the party’s whipline, resulting in the endorsement of all cabinet ministers. One of these members – Mohamed Rasheed – has since joined ruling party PPM.

The MDP leadership has announced that it will reveal the form of action to be taken against those who voted against the whipline after further investigation of the matter.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court orders JSC to halt transfer of judges

Supreme Court has released a mandamus order on Monday halting the judicial oversight body’s decision to shuffle ten superior court judges.

The order states the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) does not have absolute powers to transfer and promote judges.

Unless a court is liquidated no judge can be transferred to another court unless by the explicit decision of the Judicial Council, the Supreme Court said.

The Supreme Court has previously annulled the Judicial Council and taken over the council’s powers. The JSC has been notified of the move and hence is mandated to discuss any shuffle of judges with the Supreme Court, the order said.

“The Judicial Service Commission’s decision dated December 9, 2013 – where without any contribution of the Supreme Court – the JSC decided to transfer judges of the Civil Court, Criminal Court, Family Court, Drug Court and Juvenile Court from one court to another from January 1, 2014 is hereby overturned, and we notify Judicial Services Commission, concerned courts and other concerned authorities that it cannot be acted upon,” the order signed by Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain reads.

JSC disregarded Chief Justice’s objections

Earlier in December, the Chief Justice sent a letter to the JSC objecting to the transfer, presenting the same arguments as in Monday’s mandamus order.

The JSC had at the time decided to disregard the objections, saying it lacked legal grounds.

“Even under the constitution and the JSC Act, the commission is vested with the power to transfer the judges,” JSC representative from the parliament Ahmed Hamza said at the time.

“Order is baseless but will abide by it”

Hamza stated that the JSC still maintains that its decision is a legally justified one.

“When the next term of parliament begins, we will work on this matter from within the parliament. Meanwhile, the JSC’s position is clear: we maintain our stand that our decision to transfer judges is legal and within our powers,” Hamza told Minivan News today.

“By releasing this order, the Supreme Court has undermined the powers vested in the JSC by the constitution. I do not accept that the Supreme Court has the power to do so,” he continued.

“The Supreme Court usually overrules things when someone files a case there, not of their own initiative as in this instance. It is very surprising how this has come about.”

However, Hamza stated that as the objection has come in the form of a Supreme Court order, the JSC will have to follow it.

JSC Member appointed from the public Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman stated that while the order held the same reasoning as the letter previously sent by Faiz, the JSC will abide by it as it has now come in the form of an apex court order.

However, commenting further in private capacity, Shuaib described the Supreme Court’s reasoning as “irrational”.

“The reasoning presented in the order itself is irrational, and off the topic. The only legal connection that they can show is Article 47 of the Judges Act. The thing is they are talking about the Judicial Council, which has been made void. How can they refer to something that has already been made void? The articles that the Supreme Court have pointed out in the order have nothing to do with the JSC,” Shuaib said.

Shuaib said that he does not accept the Supreme Court can adopt the duties of the Judicial Council after the council itself has been ruled void.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Committee to re-submit Penal Code in March

Parliament’s Special Committee for Penal Code Review has stated that the committee will complete work on revising the bill by early March.

The final draft of the penal code – which had taken seven years in the committee stage – was rejected in yesterday’s parliamentary sitting with 36 votes. MPs then voted to send the bill back to the drafting committee

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP and chair of the committee Ahmed Hamza told Minivan News today that the committee will send letters today to every individual member of parliament, asking them to submit any desired amendments to the bill by January 20.

On receiving the amendments, the committee will review them and decide on those to be accepted by January 30, after which the revised bill will be sent to the parliament floor for voting on February 5.

The committee will work with a representative from the Attorney General’s Office when reviewing amendments submitted by parliament members, Hamza said.

“The committee has decided today to work by this plan. My hope is that both the government and other members will send in all the amendments they want within this period of time, and that we will be able to complete this work. Our aim is to table the report by the time parliament reconvenes on March 1,” Hamza said.

Bill rejected by a narrow margin

Hamza said he was “astounded” by the rejection, given that the review committee which had passed the draft was representative of all the political parties.

Members from the government coalition parties had voted against the bill, with Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Ahmed Mahloof confirming to Minivan News yesterday that a coalition whip-line had been issued for the matter.

In addition to pro-government members, Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Abdulla Jabir has also voted against passing the Penal Code.

Jabir was not responding to calls at the time of press. However, he is quoted in local media as saying he had voted against the bill as he found it to be “too harsh”.

Two members abstained from voting on whether to return the bill to the committee.

MP Ibrahim Muhthalib refrained from voting, stating that “no human being has the right to rephrase divine laws in Islamic Sharia into separate articles in a law” and that he would abstain from voting on the matter as some scholars believe that participation in such an act may be blasphemous.

While voting records are not yet published on the parliament’s official website, an official confirmed that independent MP Mohamed Nasheed was the second member to have refrained from voting.

MP Nasheed was also not responding to calls at the time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Majlis endorses full cabinet

The People’s Majlis has endorsed all 15 of President Abdulla Yameen’s cabinet ministers.

Ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM), coalition partners Jumhooree Party (JP) and Maldives Development Alliance (MDA) as well as six members of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) voted to approve ministerial nominees.

The ministers were endorsed despite the Majlis’ Executive Oversight Committee’s decision to reject eight out of the 15 cabinet ministers on Saturday. The opposition majority committee said the eight were “ministers of the coup government” established after the controversial transfer of power in February 2012.

The MDP enforced a three line whip in rejecting the eight ministers, but had a free whip on voting for the remaining seven.

The six MDP parliamentarians who breached the three line whip are Abdulla Jabir, Zahir Adam, Ahmed Rasheed, Mohamed Rasheed, Abdulla Abdul Raheem and Ahmed Easa.

Two MDP parliamentarians – Ali Waheed and Alhan Fahmy – voted against all fifteen ministers.

Endorsement

During Monday’s vote, 73 out of 77 parliamentarians were in attendance.

Among the 15 cabinet members, Attorney General Mohamed Anil, Minister of Economic Development Mohamed Saeed and Minister of Environment and Energy Thoriq Ibrahim received the highest number of votes in endorsement, with each minister receiving 64 votes.

Minister of Education Aishath Shiham and Minister of Fisheries and Agriculture Mohamed Shainee received 63 votes each.

Minister of Youth and Sports Mohamed Maleeh Jamal received 58 votes, and Minister of Foreign Affairs Dunya Maumoon received 55 votes.

Minister of Tourism Ahmed Adeeb received 45 votes, with Minister of Defence and National Security Mohamed Nazim, Minister of Transport and Communication Ameen Ibrahim and Minister of Housing and Infrastructure Mohamed Muizzu each receiving 44 votes.

Minister of Finance and Treasury Abdulla Jihad, Minister of Islamic Affairs Sheikh Mohamed Shaheem Ali Saeed and Minister of Health and Gender Aishath Shiham received 43 votes each.

Minister of Home Affairs Umar Naseer got endorsed with the least number of votes, receiving only 41 in favour from a total of 73.

Pre-vote Debate

The Speaker allowed one member from each party to speak on the parliament floor about the report prepared by the Executive Oversight Committee.

Progressive Party of Maldives MP Abdul Raheem Abdulla called on the parliament to endorse all members, specifically calling on opposition members to follow “the courageous example set by [MDP] Presidential Candidate Nasheed. He said that Yameen’s cabinet is compiled of the most capable selection of ministers that the country has seen to date.”

Jumhooree Party (JP) MP Ilham Ahmed stated that the constitution demands that all ministers be endorsed. “There will be no reasons for regret by endorsing this cabinet. In any case, if there arises a need, the parliament has a mechanism through which we can hold ministers accountable. Jumhooree Party will not shy away from taking action against any cabinet member, whichever party he may come from, should he do something that may cause a loss to citizens,” he stated.

Maldives Development Alliance (MDA) MP Ahmed Amir stated that “it is unacceptable to not be able to endorse ministers without appeasing a particular individual”, and alleged that the Government Oversight Committee had not acted justly in reviewing the cabinet appointees.

Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) member Riyaz Rasheed added that there is no appointee against whom questions of capability can be raised. He added that the parliament should not set any conditions when voting to endorse ministers.

Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Mohamed ‘Colonel’ Nasheed said that the party will endorse members as appointing ministers is the mandate of the President. He added that the party would employ a moderate approach in holding the government accountable.

Independent MP Ibrahim Muhtholib stated that all 15 ministers met the qualifications required in a cabinet appointee. He alleged that the committee had failed to present sufficient reasoning for their refusal to endorse over half of the cabinet.

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik stated that the party’s members would vote to endorse those they saw fit, and not the rest.

“There needs to be an opposition that holds the government accountable, and today that role is ours. We are a responsible party and we will do what it takes to hold the government accountable, even if it means bringing citizens out on to the streets [to hold demonstrations],” he stated.

“MDP stands strictly against coup d’etats. And even if a baaghee [traitor] changes their clothes and comes infront of us, we can see that they still have the characteristics of a baaghee.”

Background

The Executive Oversight Committee – compiled of a majority of 6 MDP members from a total of 10 – previously decided to reject endorsement of eight ministers.

The committee rejected endorsement of Nazim, Adheeb, Shaheem, Shakeela, Ameen, Jihad and Muizzu on the grounds that they were “coup ministers” as they had served in the previous Waheed administration.

The committee also rejected Home Minister Umar Naseer saying that various speeches given by him at political rallies made it “evident that he will not be loyal to Yameen”.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Penal Code returned to drafting committee

Parliament has sent the Penal Code back to the special committee tasked with revising it with a majority of 61 votes. While three members voted against re-sending it to committee, two abstained from the vote.

The final draft submitted to the parliament floor was rejected by 36 votes out of the 72 members present in Sunday’s session, after which a vote was taken whether to send it back to committee for review.

Members from the government coalition parties voted against the bill, with Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Ahmed Mahloof confirming to Minivan News today that a coalition whip-line was issued for the matter.

The Penal Code was submitted to the floor after seven years of review in the committee, having been initially submitted in 2006.

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ahmed Hamza – Chair of the Penal Code review committee – stated that the reason for the long duration of review is primarily due to the long periods required for reviewing and commenting by state institutions including the Attorney General’s Office and the Ministry of Islamic Affairs.

The bill, if ratified, will replace the 52 year old penal law which is currently in effect.

The Penal Code and religion

Much of the arguments presented against the Penal Code revolved around the concepts of religion and Sharia law not being “sufficiently reflected” in the final draft.

Jumhooree Party (JP) MP Ibrahim Muhthalib stated that “no human being has the right to rephrase divine laws in Islamic Sharia into separate articles in a law” and that he would abstain from voting on the matter as some scholars believe that participation in such an act may be blasphemous.

Maldives Development Alliance (MDA) MP Ahmed Amir echoed Muhthalib’s concerns and added that penalties on crimes which have a hadd [fixed punishments specifically mentioned in the Quran] sentences in Sharia Law are what most people have found concerning about the bill.

MP Ibrahim Riza who voted to send the bill back to the review committee said that the bill included some penalties which contradicted Sharia law mandates.

Religious conservative Adhaalath Party Sheikh Ilyas Hussain has also previously in March criticized the bill in sermons saying it will “destroy Islam”, prompting a parliamentary inquiry.

“If it is passed, there is no doubt that there will be no religion in this Muslim society that claims to be 100 percent Muslim. There will be no Islamic punishments. Refusing to incorporate even a single hadd is destroying Islam,” he had said then.

However, presenting the bill to parliament today, Hamza stated that in light of academic and technical expertise of the committee members, irreligious effects in the penal code have been brought to a minimal level.

“We are aware that various scholars from around the globe have commented on this work by Professor Paul Robinson,” Hamza said, referring to the legal expert from University of Pennysylvania Law School, under whose leadership the first draft of the Penal Code had been prepared on the request of then Attorney General Hassan Saeed in January 2006.

“Keeping this in mind, we took care to use our academic and technical capacity to minimalize any irreligious effects that might have been in this bill’s initial draft. Man-made laws are always less perfect than divine laws,” he stated.

The other main reservation put forth by members is the short period of time given to review the bill and submit amendments in.

The committee opened up the draft for amendments from December 24 to 26. On Saturday, December 28, the committee announced that no amendments had been submitted within the given timeframe.

Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Abdulla Mausoom, JP MP Shifaq Mufeed, PPM MP Ahmed Nihan voiced concerns about the short period of time given for review when speaking to Minivan News today.

Mausoom said that besides the time limitation, he also noticed double penalties for the same offence in the bill, and that is why he voted to return the bill to parliament.

“The penal code is as thick as a generic A4 ream of papers. It is unrealistic to ask us to read and comment on it in such a short time. What we have now is a penal code that has existed for very many years. When we pass a new one, I do not wish it to be one that calls for amendments to be submitted every other day. We are not of the mindset that we want to reject it, but we want enough time to review it in light of the Maldivian people’s way of life, Islamic Sharia and existing laws,” Shifaaq stated.

Meanwhile Nihan described the bill as “a rushed job done to bring an end to years of it being pending in committee”.

“There isn’t a single member in the committee who has actually read this bill. How can anyone spend time on it when there are so many other important bills that also call for our attention, as well as the annual budget? It has to come with enough time allowance for us to submit amendments,” he stated.

Bill review

The review committee’s Chair Hamza maintains that the government was given sufficient time and opportunity to submit all and any desired amendments to the bill.

“Voting records show that it was members of the government coalition who rejected this bill. We provided sufficient time allowances for them to submit amendments. We have even included 12 of the amendments submitted by the Attorney General,” Hamza explained.

“In fact, we worked at length both with former Attorney General Azima Shakoor and current successor Mohamed Anil. We also gave opportunities for political parties to submit amendments, where even PPM sent in submissions. I do not understand why it was rejected after all of this. I am astounded. I sincerely hope the government will explain its reasons for rejecting the bill in the form of an official statement,” he continued.

“I do not see how it will be possible to ever pass the new Penal Code if it is to be left as everyone’s lowest priority. Members need to make time and work to pass this bill at the earliest. I have now scheduled a meeting of the committee for tomorrow. I personally hope to review this, open it up for amendments, incorporate what we will from those and have it resubmitted to the parliament floor by early March next year,” Hamza said.

Responding to members’ criticisms, Hamza pointed out that members had not asked for additional time for reviewing the bill during today’s parliament session, and had instead voted to return it to committee.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Judges not informed of impending shuffle

The Judicial Services Commission’s (JSC) Secretary General Abu Bakuru Mohamed has said the commission has not informed ten superior court judges about their impending transfer on January 1, according to local media.

The JSC decided to shuffle the judges in December “in a bid to strengthen the judiciary.” However, Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz objected to the decision claiming the commission does not have the authority to shuffle judges.

Although only two days remain for the shuffle to take effect, JSC SG Mohamed has failed to inform judges or explain reasons for the delay, local media have said.

Meanwhile, JSC Members Shuaib Abdul Rahman and MP Ahmed Hamza have confirmed to Minivan News the JSC will stands by its decision to shuffle judges and has called on the SG to facilitate its implementation.

“Informing the judges is an administrative work and the responsibility of the Secretary General. I believe he will abide by the commission’s decision and notify judges prior to their date of transfer. The transferred judges must report to work at the courts where they have been transferred to starting from January 1,” Hamza stated.

The JSC has so far transferred ten Superior Court judges to other courts of the same legal calibre, including the transfer of controversial Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed to the same position at the Drug Court.

JSC Senior Legal and Complaints Officer Hassan Faheem Ibrahim also said that notifying judges is the responsibility of the SG, and so he is unable to comment on the matter.

Controversy around transfer of judges

Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain termed the JSC’s decision “unlawful.” He sent a letter to the president of the judicial watchdog Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed stating that the commission did not have the legal authority to carry out such transfers without deliberation with the Judicial Council – a council compiled of the seven judges of the Supreme Court.

Judge Adam Mohamed himself is reported to have expressed disapproval with the decision of the remaining commission members to transfer judges and to have walked out of the commission meeting.

The commission, however, decided with majority votes to go ahead with the transfers, stating that the Chief Justice’s objection lacked any legal grounds.

“Even under the constitution and the JSC Act, the commission is vested with the power to transfer the judges as we have,” member Hamza said at the time.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MP Hamid files complaint against Chief Justice

Opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor has submitted a complaint against Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain at the judicial oversight body Judicial Services Commission (JSC) over the Supreme Court’s decision to annul articles of the Parliamentary Privileges Act.

In November, the Supreme Court struck down four clauses in the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act including Article 11 (a) which states that an MP cannot be summoned to court during Majlis work hours.

At the time, the Criminal Court had sentenced Hamid to six months in jail for failure to attend a separate trial on refusal to provide urine. Hamid had contended the hearings were scheduled during Majlis work hours, in violation of the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act  and as such he was not obliged to attend the hearings.

Hamid had been under house arrest but was jailed following the Supreme Court’s verdict. However, the High Court struck down the Criminal Court’s sentence and set Hamid free.

In his complaint, Hamid said the Supreme Court’s verdict had caused him injustice.

“When the Supreme Court released constitutional ruling number SC-C/2013/28 on November 12, 2013 regarding a number of parliamentary privileges, Chief Justice of the Maldives Supreme Court was aware that at the same time, I,  a member of Parliament, was under house arrest regarding a case on parliamentary privileges. At a time when there were public allegations that the Criminal Court had then acted towards me against parliamentary privileges, the Chief Justice failed to consider the injustices that may be done unto me by releasing the prior-mentioned ruling at such a time,” Hamid’s complaint stated.

A statement released by the MDP states that if the said act was done “deliberately and knowingly” by the Chief Justice, it was an injustice caused to Hamid. It then said that if, however, the Chief Justice was unaware of the facts when the Supreme Court released the ruling, it is then proof that he is “unfit for and incapable of fulfilling his mandate”.

Head Judge of the High Court Panel that overturned the Criminal Court’s sentence, Judge Yoosuf Hussain had said at the court hearing that the Parliamentary Privileges Act at the time of sentencing still had a clause stating that members of parliament cannot be summoned to court in a manner that will inconvenience their attendance to parliament meetings.

Judge Hussain said that due to this reason, Hamid’s failure to attend hearings cannot be judged as having been without a justified reason.

He further stated that the lower court had failed to follow due process to be observed in the instance that a court summons cannot be delivered to a person, and if their families refuse to accept the summons on their behalf.

The judge said that as a result of this failure, the High Court does not believe the lower court had grounds to act against MP Hamid in this instance.

JSC Member appointed from among the public Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman stated that he is unaware of the complaint yet.

“After a complaint is submitted to the JSC, it will be looked into by the legal section. Once they complete the process, it will come to the commission members along with their legal opinion. So it will take some time before we see this complaint,” he explained.

Senior Legal and Complaints Officer Hassan Faheem Ibrahim said that the legal department has not received the complaint at the time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)