Luxury eco-resort embroiled in “green-washing” dispute with “extortionist” NGO

Exclusive luxury resort Soneva Fushi is embroiled in an increasingly hostile dispute with Biosphere Expeditions, an international environmental conservation non-governmental organisation (NGO), over allegations of grant contract breaching and “green-washing”.

Soneva awarded Biosphere Expeditions a three year, US$79,000 Social & Environmental Responsibility Fund (SERF) grant to conduct coral reef research, give scholarships enabling research placements for Maldivian nationals, and provide educational materials to local school children, beginning in 2011.

Soneva maintains they have no legal obligation to continue the funding.

Biosphere Expeditions alleges Soneva was delinquent in making payments for the first two years of the contract and now refuses to pay the final grant installment, which has dramatically limited the scope of the project, the NGO’s founder and executive director Dr Matthias Hammer told Minivan News.

“Unfortunately, Soneva displayed a lack of co-operative spirit paired with a good dose of corporate arrogance and incompetence right from the start.

“Biosphere Expeditions tried to be sympathetic, realising that Soneva/Six Senses were in financial trouble and offering various deferred payment options,” Hammer said in a press release issued March 6, 2013.

“However, Soneva is now ‘flat out’ refusing to pay the remaining US$24,000 owed, claiming Maldivian laws don’t obligate them to pay, only that they make ‘optional donations’. This is nonsense. They are legally obligated to fulfill the contract we’ve signed.

“Soneva cannot argue the contract hasn’t been enforced, because they eventually paid the agreed upon amount for the two years,” Hammer told Minivan News.

Hammer further explained that Biosphere Expeditions was “perplexed” by Soneva’s behavior given the company’s eco-friendly claims. The NGO claimed to have filed a case with the Civil Court last week.

“We were initially happy to receive the SERF grant. They were the last sponsor we’d expect to behave like this given their reputation. Their actions don’t match up.

“They have tried every trick in the book: saying the payment has been made but is late, there are internal issues within the company, the Six Senses company is being split, and they don’t have the money,” Hammer said.

“Payments were always late and a drain on our resources.

“I have never come across anything like this in the last 15 years of my career in this field. Given Soneva’s green claims, I am astounded by this apparent case of green-washing and how Soneva is treating its partners in conservation,” the NGO stated in a press release.

Soneva hits back

Soneva’s founder, president, and chief executive officer (CEO) Sonu Shivdasani also spoke to Minivan News about the dispute.

“Our public relations manager Sophie Williams proposed funding the Biosphere Expeditions project, but ultimately this project had more public relations benefit than real substance in terms of community development,” he said.

“We do not have a charter together [for evaluating proposals], but we have the different environmentalists on staff, such as our marine biologist, our management team, and representatives from the host committee to discuss the project proposals.

“Soneva didn’t do exhaustive diligence, but our team had discussed the project and went ahead [with approving it],” Shivdasani stated.

He cited three primary reasons Soneva will not continue to fund the Biosphere Expeditions project: the company has limited funds to donate, the project did not meet Soneva’s standards, and the agreement with Biosphere Expeditions is not legally binding.

“In essence, Soneva/Six Senses donates .5 percent of total revenues for charitable projects, which comes to about US$300,000 from US$20 million annually,” said Shivdasani.

Shivdasani explained that given the recent sale of Six Senses and Soneva Gili, the amount of charitable donations dropped. Thus, the company had to review and reevaluate the charitable projects they were funding.

“In 2011, Eva sold Six Senses, because we wanted to focus on the one brand Soneva, with one owner, management company, and philosophy,” Shivdasani stated.

“[Downsizing] to one resort and the subsequent reduction in SERF allocations from US$300,000 down to US$120,000, meant we had to carefully review how to use this money to create maximum impact on the environment.

“Invariably we needed to cut US$180,000 from our annual donations. US$24,000 is quite insignificant in context. There are so many more worthy causes, we’d rather spend money on other things,” added Shivdasani.

Shivdasani also spoke about the timing of the first two grant installments.

“The Biosphere Expeditions program has been very piecemeal and due to the specific nature of payments, any delays should not have caused payment hardships with the world in deep recession in 2009 and 2010.

“This was the worst recession since World War Two. 2009 was a slow year. Revenues were down and cash flow was tight. I can’t see how Biosphere Expeditions was inconvenienced. We were careful about the timing of charitable payments,” explained Shivdasani.

Soneva also decided the Biosphere Expeditions project did not “pass muster”.

“Unfortunately, Biosphere Expeditions did not meet up with our strict standards and we felt there were more worthy initiatives to support,” Shivdasani said.

“The feedback from hosts (staff) trained on the [liveaboard] expedition was negative, they didn’t enjoy the experience. Furthermore, we felt the education campaign did not have much of an impact, while the scholarship program only benefited two Maldivians.”

Regarding Biosphere Expedition’s allegation that Soneva had breached the grant agreement contract, Soneva maintained they did not have a legally binding contract.

“Rather than a contract with the Biosphere Expeditions, we had a charitable ‘Letter of Grant’ dating back to 2010. This involved a schedule of donations from Soneva Gili, Six Senses Laamu and Soneva Fushi.

“We could stop grant donations by giving notice, which Soneva did in the form of a formal letter in October 2012.

“We consulted our lawyers in Malé and they confirmed that three months was an adequate period of time to give notice to Biosphere Expeditions,” said Shivdasani.

He maintained that Soneva had no legal obligation to continue funding Biosphere Expeditions and that no case has been filed against the resort.

“Hammer is lying; no legal case has been launched against us. Our lawyers have not been notified of any case being filed in Male’. We are within our rights to stop funding.

“As of today’s date, we cannot contest any court case because Biosphere Expeditions have not put any case before us. No lawyer would want to represent someone who sends out press releases before lodging a case with the courts.

“If it was a legal contract, then we would have honoured it, but it’s within our rights not to continue.

“Soneva happily funded US$50,000-60,000 [of Biosphere Expeditions’ project], now it’s time to stop,” Shivdasani stated.

Soneva prides itself for being “an innovator in the field of responsible tourism, taking environmental and social responsibilities very seriously”.

Soneva states that its ‘SLOW LIFE’ philosophy “applies to everything” they do, with SLOW standing for Sustainable-Local-Organic-Wellness Learning-Inspiring-Fun-Experiences.

Thus, the Soneva SLOW LIFE Trust handles the Social & Environmental Responsibility Fund (SERF), which was created to “provide funding for a wide variety of humanitarian and environmental projects”.

Hostile exchanges

Communications between Biosphere Expeditions and Soneva have become increasingly hostile since the partnership agreement began, with numerous emails exchanged between Hammer and Shivdasani.

Following repeated correspondence requesting the agreed upon grant installments be paid, “Sonu said I was on a ‘high horse’ and ‘chasing the money’, all of which was in really bad taste,” Hammer explained.

“Soneva’s condescending top-down communication is a problem that comes from the very top [levels of management] and percolates throughout the company systemically.

“They think are a big powerful corporation and we’re just a small NGO.

“We shouldn’t be treated like this. Having jumped through all the hoops [to receive the grant] we bloody well expect the other side to pay what’s agreed,” exclaimed Hammer.

Hammer said that Biosphere Expeditions was surprised a luxury resort was “quibbling” over US$24,000.

“This is peanuts for them and we are not prepared to be treated like serfs or go away. By a funny coincidence that is what their grant 
is called: ‘Social & Environmental Responsibility Fund (SERF)’. I am only now beginning to understand its true meaning,” said Hammer.

Ultimately, Biosphere Expeditions has taken the stance that Soneva is not only violating the terms of their grant contract, but also guilty of “green-washing”.

“I can only conclude that Sonu Shivdasani and Soneva’s priorities are to maximise profits. They surely do not appear to be serious about conservation and the environment.

“It seems the company’s claims of ethical behaviour and environmental awareness are, sadly, simply marketing-driven lip service,” read the press release from the NGO.

Shivdasani maintains he has been misquoted by Hammer.

“The press release from Dr Hammer involves various threats of a slanderous nature. It is a sham. Hammer is not pursuing a legal case. If he does, Soneva has a very strong case,” said Shivdasani.

“Hammer is an extortionist. Someone needs to look into his operation. Is Biosphere Expeditions really a non-profit?” Shivdasani questioned.

The project

Originally, both Biosphere Expeditions and Soneva were partnered with the Maldives Marine Research Centre (MRC) of the Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture, Reef Check and the Marine Conservation Society “to study and safeguard the spectacular coral reefs and the resident whale shark population”.

The funding dispute between Shivdasani and Hammer has curtailed the project’s activities.

According to Hammer, scholarships for and hiring of Maldivians has been halted, educational leaflets will not be distributed, and research studies cannot continue, with coral reef studies being “slashed to one week”.

Earlier in 2012, the Soneva Group faced controversy when allegations that Shivdasani had engaged a PR firm to “spruce up” the image of President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik’s government were published in UK media.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Indian Prime Minister calls for “free, fair and credible” elections in the Maldives

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has highlighted “free, fair and credible” elections as the “best course” for overcoming political uncertainty in the Maldives.

In a statement, Singh – referring to last year’s controversial transfer of power –  noted that “there have been unfortunate problems in the Maldives after the February 2012 event.”

“We believe that the best course is to have elections to the office of the president, which are due in September, 2013,” Singh said.

“There should be free and fair elections, with an inclusive process, with all people participating in the process of electing the new President. I sincerely hope that the government and people of Maldives will overcome this atmosphere of crisis and uncertainty,” he said.

Singh’s comments follow the arrest last week of former President Mohamed Nasheed by masked police, acting on a court order issued by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Nasheed is being charged over detaining Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed, charges his party contend are a politically-motivated effort to prevent him contesting the 2013 presidential elections. Nasheed evaded an earlier court summons by seeking refuge inside the Indian High Commission for 10 days.

The Hulhumale’ court was created by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), which also appointed the three-member panel of judges overhearing the Nasheed trial. The JSC’s members include several of Nasheed’s direct political opponents, including rival presidential candidate and resort tycoon, Jumhoree Party (JP) leader Gasim Ibrahim.

JSC member Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman this week spoke out against the judicial watchdog, revealing that they had openly discussed in meetings their intent to ensure the elimination of the Maldivian Democratic Party and presidential candidate Nasheed from the upcoming elections.

Sheikh Rahman alleged that Chair of the Commission, Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed, had abused his post and powers as the chair to try and eliminate Nasheed from contesting the elections, and alleged that Adam Mohamed had “used the commission as a political tool”.

“The politics of the majority control the commission, hence the rule of law, due process and due diligence do not exist in the JSC,” Sheikh Rahman stated. “The commission has no amount of respect for constitutional principles.”

Nasheed was released from custody after the judges panel conceded to a four week delay before the next hearing. Nasheed’s legal team had requested the trial be delayed until after the September 2013 elections, a prospect to which the state prosecution said it had no objection, however the judges would only concede to a month’s delay.

The UK reacted to Nasheed’s release from police custody following the hearing, urging “all parties to remain calm and to act responsibly.”

Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister Alistair Burt called for a “fair and transparent trial”.

“Unless the chosen candidates of all parties are permitted to participate in the Presidential election scheduled for 7 September, the credibility of the outcome will be irreparably damaged,” Burt warned.

“We urge all involved to work together to find a solution which would allow for genuinely free, fair and inclusive elections and ensure all are able to campaign without hindrance,” he stated.

The UK Conservative Party’s Human Rights Commission (CHRC) meanwhile expressed “grave concern” over Nasheed’s arrest, echoing the former President’s concerns that “court proceedings against him were without any legal basis and were aimed at barring him from running in the presidential elections that have been scheduled for September this year.”

“Concerns have been raised by a range of organisations about whether Nasheed can expect a fair trial, with his supporters asserting that the whole process is politically motivated. The court that he will face has been specially constituted for the purpose, implying strong political interference. Human rights organisations across the world see this as another instance of selective justice being carried out by the current Maldivian administration,” the Commission stated.

Chair of the CHRC, MP Robert Buckland, said that the commission was “ deeply concerned about the safety of former President Nasheed, and urges the Maldivian authorities to postpone legal proceedings against him and to allow free and fair elections to take place.”

“Such instances of selective justice are just one of a number of serious breaches of human rights in the country. The Commission has previously heard evidence from a number of experts who share concerns about this action being politically motivated,” the CHRC stated.

“It is vitally important that all candidates of political parties are able to participate in the upcoming elections if the Maldives wants the international community to see it as a free, fair and inclusive election. Targeting of MDP members and their families will seriously undermine their ability to fight the upcoming elections on an equal footing and the CHRC will put pressure on the government to call for the release of falsely accused MDP supporters,” the CHRC stated.

Despite now widespread international criticism of the politicisation of the JSC, and calls from Home Minister Mohamed Jameel that the case against Nasheed be concluded “before the approaching presidential elections, in the interests of the nation and to maintain peace in it”, President Mohamed Waheed has persistently denied government interference in the judicial process.

“My government has upheld the rule of law and respected all independent institutions. I am pleased to note that unlike in the past, within the last year, the President has not interfered in the work of the judiciary, the police, or the independent commissions,” Waheed said, in a recent statement.

“Upholding the rule of law means nobody is above the law. I would like to assure the people of Maldives that the law and order will be maintained.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Fire breaks out at Sakeena Manzil property in Male’

Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) firemen were called to the Sakeena Manzil building in Male’ earlier today (March 9) after a fire broke out at the property.

Local media reported there had been no injuries as a result of the fire, which had been extinguished by4:oopm today.

The MNDF were reported by local media to have geared up two ‘known’ activists of the government-aligned Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) with gas masks and oxygen tanks at one point, before leading them into the burned building.

The office had been used by PPM in previous instances, and had also been used by the former PPM deputy leader for his own personal business, local media reported.

According to Sun Online, the two PPM activists went inside the building to retrieve some ‘very important objects’, but it was not clear what those objects were.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Translation: PPM MP Abdulla Yameen’s testimony to CoNI

This article was first published on Dhivehisitee. Republished with permission.

Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Parliamentary Group Leader, 2013 Presidential candidate and half brother of former President Gayoom, Abdulla Yameen, testified to the Commission of National Inquiry (CoNI) on 30 April 2012 regarding the end of the first democratically elected government of the Maldives. This is a translation of parts of the testimony dealing specifically with the events leading to and on 7 February 2012, as told by Yameen.

PPM began leading demonstrations or protests when Abdulla Ghaazee [Abdulla Mohamed of Criminal the Court] was arrested. Our primary concern rose from seeing then president Nasheed increasing his political power in the Majlis. That’s why PPM decided to protest. These sentiments are shared by other political leaders working with us. We all believed President Nasheed was trying to consolidate all powers in his own hands. Article 115 of the Constitution gives the President certain authorities. President Nasheed was exercising more power than we found acceptable—more than is acceptable in a democracy—to create positions and to amend laws that restricted his powers. He was doing all this in the Majlis to usurp all powers into his own hands.

From then onwards, trust was an issue amongst us. It was getting very serious. All us political people, especially PPM, became convinced that these efforts were an attempt to completely sideline the Constitution and just take all three branches of power into his hands. We saw the arrest of Abdulla Ghaazee as a manifestation of this. For Nasheed, some parts of the criminal justice system were a problem. This, therefore, was an attempt to meddle in it. We, the PPM, decided then that we would not let it happen. Arresting a judge, the chief judge of the criminal court, that’s one thing. There was, at the same time, also the problem of interfering with the judiciary.

In all this, my position as a member of parliament worked to our benefit: we got the opportunity to run a parallel assessment of the situation, an oversight type of exercise, from within the parliament. We summoned Abdulla Ghaazee to the National Security Committee. I don’t know the date, but it was some months before he was arrested. It was in relation to a complaint filed by MDP. I was the Chair.

The issue was why Abdulla Ghaazee’s court was releasing major criminals. Abdulla Ghaazee came with tons of documents showing how cases had been filed, reasons for release—he brought some very confident print-outs. Here you can really register their dissatisfaction, unhappiness, with Abdulla Ghaazee. We had the benefit of being in possession of this knowledge.

We also summoned Moosa Jaleel to the Committee. Sorry, Moosa Jaleel was summoned to the 241 Committee, and so was Police Commissioner Faseeh. We wanted to find out the details of Abdulla Ghaazee’s arrest.

Because we were privy to this sort of information, we did not in any way want to tolerate the level of interference Nasheed was planning to run in the judiciary. We absolutely did not want to accept that. So, to free the judiciary—and because this is symbolised by Abdulla Ghaazee’s arrest—we, the PPM, took the initiative and began these protests. Other opposition parties, and the Madhanee Itthihad too, participated. We did this work for, if I recall correctly, 21 days.

In the midst of this, I went to Singapore for about a week, partly because a family medical trip had been planned. I came back on the night of the sixth.

These protests and all, they were not intended for bringing down the government. Nor were they held in anticipation of it. We wanted to continue, relentlessly continue, the protests until Abdulla Ghaazee was free. That’s why we began the protests and we were not going to stop until it happened.

So, I came back on the night of Sixth [February] around 11:00. I knew there were two protests on two sides but, that night, I did not feel like participating in either. I just wanted to retire for the night, so I went home and slept.

Around daybreak, the house phone rang persistently. A servant answered, and brought the phone upstairs. Our party Deputy Leader Abdulraheem wanted to speak to me urgently.

When I returned the call, he updated me on the situation.

“Police, from among the security forces, were protesting at the Republic Square.” Until then, I had no idea.

“Various political leaders are making statements. A senior figure from PPM should do the same. Why don’t you go on VTV to make a statement advising, or encouraging, police and military to remain within legal boundaries? Or, if you prefer, a crew is ready to be dispatched to your house.”

I decided to go to VTV. I got ready for the statement. The anchor introduced me, ‘I am in the studio with the Mulaku Atoll Member…’

At that moment, the CEO of VTV Khaleel, no Ameen, came in.

“Stop. Don’t show Yameen yet. We have already been attacked once this evening. From what we know, an MDP group has left the Republic Square and come into the inner city. If Yameen appears on VTV, we’ll be attacked again. I’d really appreciate if you didn’t do this,” Ameen said.

So I didn’t get a chance to speak. I even remained in their waiting room for a while, to give an interview when things subsided. After about fifteen minutes, they decided it was unwise for me to give an interview right then, in case of further damage to their studio.

I spent altogether about half an hour at VTV, went home, and watched television. I had overheard in VTV that a police/military confrontation was imminent. I watched until it was over in the morning, then went to bed hoping for a couple hours’ rest. But I couldn’t sleep for long. By some time past nine, I think, I was up.

I had two missed calls from Ibu, Ibrahim Mohamed Salih, Hinnavaru MP and MDP Parliament Group Leader. That was between nine and ten. I can’t tell you the exact time.

“Yameen, President Nasheed has decided to resign,” Ibrahim Mohamed Solih said to me on the phone.

“What you can do is ensure his personal protection, personal security. Guarantee it,” he continued.

“I have heard what you are saying. But President Nasheed is… I would like to hear it from President Nasheed himself… otherwise…”

“I will arrange it. President Nasheed will call you shortly,” he said.

But that call did not come that soon.

Around 10:00am, from what I recall, I received an SMS from Indian High Commissioner, ambassador Mulay. “It’ s urgent, a time of national crisis”, he said.

Mulay requested a meeting. A little background on this – I meet Mulay on his request from time to time to discuss political issues. He had requested a meeting before I left for Singapore, too.

“Perhaps when I return,” I told him. I was taking a daytime flight.

So, when he requested the meeting on this day, I agreed. When I went to see the him it was between 11:00 and 12:00. Again, I cannot tell you the exact time. The High Commissioner was alone in his office.

“Yameen, can you negotiate a three-day period for Nasheed in which to sort all this out?” Mulay said.

“What do you mean?” I asked.

“I believe that if you personally face the security forces and the public, and give them your word, they will accept it. So why don’t you speak to them and tell them that Nasheed sent you to hear and note to their grievances and to assure them that if they gave him three days, all their grievances would fully and exhaustively addressed.” Mulay laid out his idea.

“That a very unreasonable request,” I said to the High Commissioner. “I don’t represent President Nasheed. And, I don’t agree with your belief that the security forces will listen to what I have to say. Nor can I see in what capacity I would be going there. And, I doubt if President Nasheed has suggested this. Ibrahim Mohamed Solih rang me this morning and indicated President Nasheed intended to resign. But President Nasheed haven’t confirmed yet.”

“MDP leader Didi is here. Would you mind negotiating with Didi?” the Indian High Commissioner asked me at this point.

“Negotiate what?” I asked him. “I find it a difficult, but since Didi is already here, I might as well meet him. No problem.”

“Shall I invite Thasmeen? Shall I also get Gasim here?” Mulay asked. He also answered himself.

“I think if PPM and MDP are represented, we can continue this discussion even if Thasmeen and Gasim aren’t here.”

So I agreed.

As he entered, Didi said in Dhivehi, “I have credentials to negotiate on behalf of President Nasheed.”

“Negotiate what, Didi?” I asked. “And, how do I know that you have your credentials? Do you have a letter?”

“No, I don’t have a letter,” Didi replied.

“Why don’t we speak in English, Mulay is here too,” I said to Didi. Mulay was sitting right across from me.

“I have told Didi to establish his credentials,” I updated Mulay on my discussion with Didi. “I know Didi is the party leader, but I don’t know he is an envoy of President Nasheed. He has to establish his credentials.”

Mulay agreed.

Didi called President Nasheed from his hand phone. From what I have learned since, listening to an interview Didi gave later, Nasheed did not want to talk with Didi much at that point. He asked to talk with me instead.

Didi handed the phone over to me.

President Nasheed and I had a conversation. I found him to be very cool, collected, even jolly. There did not seem to be any problem at all.

“Yameen, I have decided to step down. I have decided to resign. I am not the kind of person who wants to remain in power against the pulse of the people. I don’t want to rule by force,” he said.

“But,” he continued, “I am going to go to the President’s Office shortly—I have already invited the press—and I will resign in front of them. So I am going to the press now. If you are thinking of addressing the rally, I would like it if you did so after my announcement to the press.”

He himself said he had invited the press.

“I am going to the President’s Office to resign in front of the press,’ that’s what he said.

He even joked a bit, and said to me in English, “Yameen, you are still my friend.”

Still in English, he said,“Please ensure my personal security.”

I assured him that, but I also adde it was not advisable given the atmosphere on the island.

“My idea is to resign and head to my family home or to my wife’s residence,” he said.

“It may not be safe,” I replied. “Even if the security forces give you protection, the island is in a uproar. Why don’t you go to Arah [Presidential retreat island] or somewhere for two or three days with whomever you want? Or by yourself, if you like? That’s an option too.”

“I will talk to the security forces and with my party about your personal security and all of those things”, I added.

“If you are still my friend,” I asked him, “why then did you arrest me extra-legally two or three times for no reason?”

“I was arrested twenty-seven times,” he responded.

“How come? What? It was my brother that arrested,” I said.

“Yameen, these things happen in politics,” he said. So, I also saw Anni’s serious side.

In my assessment of the conversation there was absolutely nothing to indicate that he was that under stress. He laughed and joked. As I said, I found him a very collected person.

“I will see to the personal security issue and try to make sure no harm comes to you,” I assured him.

As soon as Didi came in, he had told me about a phone call from Ibu.

“I told him I am in a discussion with Yameen and Ambassador Mulay, so he hung up,” Didi told me. But I later heard Didi saying in an interview that Ibu told him on the phone about Anni’s decision to resign.

This [resignation] is not something I came to learn the next day. I was told this earlier the same morning. He did not confirm it to me later as I was told he would. Then the discussion with Mulay occurred.

“He has offered to resign,” I told both Ambassador Mulay and Didi at the end of the phone call with President Nasheed.

“He is going to meet the press in a few moments to announce it. So what is there to negotiate?” I said.

“In that case, shall I invite President Waheed to arrange for the oath of office and such?” Mulay responded.

“Sir,” I said, “Isn’t it too early for that? Anyway, that’s Waheed’s decision.”

That’s how the meeting ended.

My assessment of it is that President Nasheed and Mulay had a discussion about the grievances that they [security forces] might have, and wanted me to take down those grievances to get a three day respite for President Nasaheed. They thought if I were to give my word to the security forces and the public, they would listen to me. That’s how the day’s discussions went. Unfortunately, before room could be made for negotiations, President Nasheed voluntarily tendered his resignation.

**********

Did I have any information about President Nasheed making a concentrated effort towards judicial reform?

Yes, but I only learnt of that after the government had ended. I didn’t know about it before because I had been away for the most critical seven or so days of this. I was in Singapore for personal health reasons. I did not have an opportunity for spontaneous exchange of information. So, actually, I learned about President Nasheed’s intention to establish a Judicial Reform Commission—or in whatever name it maybe—only after the government changed. It was on the 8th that I came to know he had entertained such ideas. The hope was that, if the 7th had not become such a fearful day, it would have been commissioned as such. But I learned of this afterwards. On the eighth.

Likes(2)Dislikes(0)

JSC Chair refuses to be answerable to parliamentary oversight committee

The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) has informed Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid on Wednesday that it will not be held answerable to the Majlis’ Independent Commissions Oversight Committee.

As the country’s judicial watchdog, the JSC has been summoned by the commission concerning the appointment of judges in the trial against former President Mohamed Nasheed.

Nasheed is being tried over his controversial detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed during the final days of his presidency.

In response to a summons from the parliament committee, JSC Chair and Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed responded in a letter stating that the JSC refused to discuss any matters concerning the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, as it related to an ongoing case.

According to local media, the letter stated that the commission would not abide by the parliament summons, citing a Supreme Court ruling that nobody could influence an ongoing case. The letter justified refusing the commission’s request by noting that the Supreme Court ruling also stated any decisions made against the ruling must be considered void.

JSC is legally required to attend committee: Parliament Speaker

Meanwhile, Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid, who is also a member of the JSC, has responded to the letter stating that the JSC is legally required to attend and be answerable to its oversight committee.

In the letter, Shahid quoted Article 99 of the Constitution of the Maldives and Article 69 of the Parliament Regulations, adding that as per the constitution, it is parliament which has legal powers to decide on matters concerning independent institutions of the state.

“The Judicial Services Commission, established under Act 10/2008, is required under that law and the Constitution of the Maldives to be answerable to the parliament. Hence, it is mandated to attend the parliament and the relevant permanent parliamentary committee, and to be answerable and accountable for any work that they are doing, or have done,” local media quoted the letter as reading.

Shahid added that as he is incidentally also a member of the JSC, he held no reluctance to attend the parliament committee, even if in a personal capacity, to be held answerable for decisions made by the JSC.

Commission must be answerable to parliament: JSC Vice Chair

JSC Vice Chair, Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Didi, has meanwhile spoken out against the commission’s official response to parliament, stating that its refusal to attend the Independent Commissions Oversight Committee was not a decision of the majority members of the commission.

“From what I know, only three commission members attended the meeting where this decision was made. That doesn’t even meet the minimum required quorum to make a decision,” Didi stated.

“I, myself, could not attend the meeting because of the extremely short notice we were given,” he continued.

“All and any member of the commission must be accountable and answerable to the oversight committee at any time. No one can refuse to do so. As a member of the JSC, I am perfectly willing to attend the parliament meeting and answer to any questions they put to us,” Didi stated.

JSC members summoned

Following the JSC’s official refusal to attend, and the responses in conflict to that decision from the commission’s Vice Chair Abdullla Didi and Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid, the parliament’s Independent Institutions Oversight Committee has once again summoned individual JSC members to a meeting scheduled for Thursday night.

JSC members summoned to the meeting are Vice Chair Abdulla Didi, Speaker Abdulla Shahid and member appointed from the public Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman.

Sheikh Rahman on Wednesday publicly aired concerns about the politicisation of the commission, alleging that the commission had ‘handpicked’ magistrates for Nasheed’s trial and openly planned to eliminate him from the September 7 elections.

JSC has used the same justification to refuse to answer the parliamentary oversight committee in November 2012.

The oversight committee has previously determined that the JSC’s creation of the Hulhumale Court – in which Nasheed is being tried – is illegitimate. However this was overruled four to three by the Supreme Court bench, on request of the JSC. Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed – the JSC chair – threw the casting vote.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police arrest man on suspicion of assaulting Mariya Didi

A 26-year-old man has been arrested on suspicion of assaulting Maldivian Democratic Party MP Mariya Ahmed Didi, a year after the alleged assault took place.

Police Spokesperson Chief Inspector Hassan Haneef told local media that the man was arrested on 4 March 2013 in relation to the assault that took place on 7 February 2012.

According to local media, police have been investigating the videos of the unrest that followed the controversial change of power in February 2012.

The police have been criticised by various institutions for a failure to investigate several incidents that took place on February 7 and 8, 2012.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

President wanted “credit” for Maamigili Airport lease extension: former transport minister

Former Minister of Transport Dr Ahmed Shamheed has criticised his removal from cabinet last year following the decision to extend the lease of Maamigili Airport by 99 years.

Shamheed has claimed that he was dismissed by President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik following the approval of the airport lease extension because the president wanted to take credit for the decision.  The lease was given at the time to the Chairman of Villa Group, Gasim Ibrahim.

Last month, the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) began an investigation into the 99-year lease of the airport. According to the ACC President, Hassan Luthfee, the investigation is still ongoing.

Despite the investigation, President Waheed inaugurated Maamigili Airport last week (February 28).

Shamheed claimed that the decision to extend the airport lease had been made whilst former President Mohamed Nasheed had been in power, and that the decision was not one he had made on his own.

“It was the economic committee who had decided on the lease, I never decided on my own. It was initiated by the committee actually, that is how it started,” Shamheed alleged to Minivan News.

“It do not think it was the 99-year lease that was the problem, I heard from people close to him that he thought he should be the one making the decision. He thought he should take the credit for that.”

Shamheed was nominated to his former ministerial post by the government-aligned Jumhooree Party (JP) – of which Gasim is the party’s president.

Speaking back in November 2012, the former transport minister told local media that the documents to extend the airport lease for 99 years had been sent to the transport ministry by Nasheed’s government.

“The current government delayed the matter. The president government only endorsed the decision. It was decided by the NPC [National Planning Council] during the former government,” he was quoted as saying in local newspaper Haveeru.

President Waheed inaugurated Villa International Airport in Maamigili Island in south Ari Atoll on February 28.

Speaking at the ceremony, Waheed thanked Chairman of Villa Group, Gasim Ibrahim, before stating that he was greatly honoured to inaugurate the airport.

The main objective of making the airport an international airport was to improve the country’s transport system and the tourism industry, Waheed said during the ceremony.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“JSC politicised, trying to eliminate Nasheed and MDP from elections”: JSC Member Shuaib

Judicial Services Commission (JSC) member Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman has spoken out against the judicial watchdog body, declaring it as politicised and attempting to eliminate former President Mohamed Nasheed from the September 7 elections.

The JSC has not only created the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court in which the former President is being tried, but has appointed the three-member panel of judges overhearing the case. The JSC’s membership includes several of Nasheed’s direct political rivals, including Jumhoree Party leader and resort tycoon Gasim Ibrahim, one of Nasheed’s rival presidential candidates.

Sheikh Rahman, the member of the commission appointed by the public, said political influence of the commission had heightened after Gasim had been appointed.

He is the second JSC member to blow the whistle on the Commission, echoing the concerns of JSC member Aisthath Velezinee who was stabbed in the street in early 2011.

Sheikh Rahman made the remarks during a live appearance on local TV channel Raajje TV, just over a week after UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul also aired concerns over the JSC in a statement following a fact finding mission to the Maldives.

Speaking on the show, Sheikh Rahman said the JSC had openly discussed their intent to ensure the elimination of the Maldivian Democratic Party and presidential candidate former President Mohamed Nasheed from the upcoming elections.

Sheikh Rahman alleged that Chair of the Commission, Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed, had abused his post and powers as the chair to try and eliminate Nasheed from contesting the elections, and alleged that Adam Mohamed had “used the commission as a political tool”.

“The politics of the majority control the commission, hence the rule of law, due process and due diligence do not exist in the JSC,” Sheikh Rahman stated. “The commission has no amount of respect for constitutional principles.”

“It is common now to hear a lot of MDP and Nasheed bashing in commission meetings. This was not how things usually were before. I believe politically biased comments like this have increased since Gasim joined the JSC as a representative of the parliament,” Sheikh Rahman continued.

“Gasim even went to the point of asking the UN Special Rapporteur Knaul when she held a meeting with us to state in her report that it was MDP who torched the courts. I heard him say exactly that,” Sheikh Rahman said.

JSC Chair abuses power to continue running unlawful Hulhumale’ Court

Sheikh Rahman further revealed that the JSC had “handpicked” magistrates to preside over the case against Nasheed, for his detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

He said that the JSC’s intention in assigning the case at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court to the three specific magistrates was for the explicitly stated purpose of “sentencing Nasheed”.

According to Sheikh Rahman, the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was initially established through misinformation and manipulation of the commission on the part of JSC Chair Adam Mohamed.

“The Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court is actually abolished automatically with the concept of judicial districts coming into effect upon the ratification of Judicature Act on 10 August 2010. And yet, they continue to run the court,” Sheikh Rahman stated.

He went on to say that as the constitution defines Hulhumale’ and Villingili as parts of the capital Male’ city, there was no authorisation to set up separate magistrate courts on these islands.

Sheikh Rahman alleged that despite these facts, JSC Chair Adam Mohamed had invoked the theory that Hulhumale’ and Villingili were separate islands and were therefore qualified to have their own magistrate courts.

Appendix 2 of the Constitution of Maldives which defines administrative divisions, states that Male’ is inclusive of Villin’gili and Hulhumale’.

Sheikh Rahman revealed that he had, as a member of the JSC, submitted a complaint to the commission to review the decision regarding the court on the grounds that it was unlawfully established. He stated that his attempts were in vain as Chair Adam Mohamed had once again abused his powers and refused to schedule the matter during the commission sessions.

Sheikh Rahman stated that he had made multiple requests for a decision on the Hulhumale’ Court, all of which was rejected by the chair. He confirmed that he had not received any written or official responses to the motions he submitted on the matter.

“Another false justification that Adam Mohamed used is that the matter cannot be discussed in the commission as it referred to an ‘ongoing case’,” he said.

UN Special Rapporteur Gabriella Knaul also criticised the ‘arbitrary appointment’ of judges to Nasheed’s case. She also stated that the Hulhumale’ Court did not have the constitutional mandate to oversee the specific case.

Former JSC member Velezinee also repeated her concerns about the politicisation of the JSC at a recent press conference held to share her remarks on the preliminary findings of UN Special Rapporteur Gabriela Knaul.

Incumbent JSC Member Gasim Ibrahim, meanwhile called Knaul’s findings ‘lies and jokes’ at a JP party rally.

The Hulhumale’ Court meanwhile on Wednesday refused to delay Nasheed’s trial until after the elections, despite the prosecution stating they had no objection to such a decision.

Gasim Ibrahim was not responding to calls at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Uncertainty over 2011 case of British couple killed in resort quad bike accident

The Criminal Court has said it still requires statements from the parents of a British couple killed in a quad bike accident at Kuredu Island Resort in 2011.

Swedish national Filip Eugen Petre, a son of a shareholder in Kuredu Island Resort, is currently facing trial for his alleged role in crashing a quad bike carrying British nationals Emma and Jonathon Grey at Kuredu on August 6, 2011.

The case is at a stand still as the court awaits responses from the parents of the deceased, regarding the preferred form of punishment for the accused.

However, both police in the UK and the respective families of the deceased have both insisted that the families decision has been submitted and then re-submitted to the court.

Earlier today, Director of the Department of Judicial Administration Ahmed Maajid, contacted the Criminal Court media official on behalf of Minivan News for more information on the case.

“The Criminal Court media official, Mr Manik, told me that the trial hearings are now over. However, the court is currently awaiting statements from all of the family members regarding the preferred form of punishment for the accused. Only then will there be a final verdict,” Maajid claimed.

In October, 2012, Maajid told Minivan News that the court was awaiting a response from only of the victim’s family in regard to the accused’s punishment.

“A Criminal Court media officer tells me that what remains in the case is to obtain the word of the family of one of the victims, as to whether they want a sentence of execution, or blood money or to forgive,” Maajid told Minivan News back in October.

Minivan News attempted to contact the Criminal Court media official today, but he was not responding to calls or text messages throughout the day.

Maajid, when asked to clarify the information in relation to the previous comments made by courts, said that the official from the Criminal Court had later found more information regarding the case.

“Criminal Court has said they have a statement from the mother of the deceased man. But they have not received one from the father of the man, or either of the parents of the deceased woman,” Maajid claimed.

Under Islamic law, the family of the victim is given the option to sentence the accused to execution, blood money or to forgive them.

A relation to the deceased told Minivan News today that their statements had been submitted multiple times on different occasions to the courts.

According to the relation, the last the family had been told by the court was that the final verdict of the charge would be delivered at the next scheduled hearing.

“On the last hearing, which was held on February 27, closing arguments were given by the state and the defense. The judge has stated that the final verdict of the charge would be delivered at the next scheduled hearing.

“Furthermore, in the same hearing the court indicated that, they would contact the families of the deceased if they find there is a need to do so,” the relative said the family had been told.

UK police re-submit family requests

In October 2012, UK police were made to resubmit requests from the relatives regarding the punishment.

A relation of the Grays confirmed to Minivan News in October 2012 that neither victim’s family had received any official notification from the Maldivian courts themselves.

The UK police however, through a family liaison officer, confirmed that their Maldivian counterparts were informed “months ago” of the families’ preferred sentence.

“The police have said that they are going to re-submit the issue to the Maldives police today,” claimed the relation.

“That’s what is holding up the case right now, [the police] do not seem to have forwarded this information to the courts.”

The relative added that while they did wish to see some form of punitive sentence for the driver if he was convicted, they did not want any severe or long-term action to be taken against the defendant.

“He’s just a young guy. We don’t want to see his life ruined,” the relative said.

Jonathan Grey’s mother Cath Davies told UK-based newspaper the Halifax Courier in March 2012 that the prospect of Petre facing the death penalty was “shocking. It’s absolutely horrendous.”

Previous hearings

In previous hearings, the prosecution claimed that the charge of ‘disobedience to order’ Petre stands accused of resulted from his decision to carry people on a vehicle which was not intended for passengers.

The prosecution contended that his criminal action began from the moment he allowed the couple to ride with him on the vehicle.

Presiding Judge Abdul Baary Yousuf declared in court during earlier hearings that Petre’s lawyer had himself confessed during the trial that his client had driven the quad bike carrying Emma and Jonathan Gray as it crashed on the tourist property.

As a result of this confession, the judge said the state did not have to produce any evidence to prove Petre was the driver of the vehicle during the collision.

Representing the prosecution, State Attorney Aishath Fazna also contended that because Petre had “confessed” to driving the quad bike, she did not believe the state had to produce evidence to support this assumption.

However, Petre’s lawyer Areef Ahmed responded at the time that his client had not directly confessed to driving the quad bike and argued that his client continued to deny the charges against him.

Areef additionally claimed that the judge could not declare a verdict regarding the alleged confession said to have been during the previous hearing.

Areef contended that his confession could be withdrawn before the case reached to a conclusion, but the state attorney argued that after confessing in the trial, there was no way it can be withdrawn.

Petre’s lawyer has also contended that his client could not be charged under Islamic Sharia because his client is non-Muslim.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)