Comment: Impunity can only be matched with impunity

This article originally appeared on Ibra’s Blog. Republished with permission.

Many of my friends and colleagues, especially my ‘twitter friends’ have been inquiring me of late, about my view of President Nasheed’s decision to disregard a summons by ‘Hulhumale’ Court’.

I myself have been pondering over it as my initial reaction was that President Nasheed should not have done it. However, when I looked at the issue dispassionately and in the context of many anomalies in the Criminal Justice System of the Maldives, the case does not appear to be so simple. In fact it is rather complex, and adds to the myriad of convoluted issues we are being forced to grapple with.

It is so complex that the 140 meagre characters that twitter gives us is barely enough to expound on this particular problem. At best, it is a unique and delightful academic issue to ponder. What I write below is not meant to be a legal discourse, but more an academic and intellectual approach to analyse a social problem.

It is not helpful to consider President Nasheed’s decision to ignore the court summons just by itself to fully understand the phenomenon. One needs to consider a host of other issues to grasp the enormity of the situation.

On the face of it, anyone who is summoned by the courts should willingly do so, and anyone disobeying an order by the court should rightfully be held in contempt of court and punished for it. This is necessary for the upholding of the rule of law.

However, one needs to also consider the basic assumptions underlying these powers of the courts and the reasons for granting the courts such powers.

Among many, the following assumptions are made in relation to the courts:

  • The courts will not act outside the jurisdictions granted to them by law, and any ultra vires orders by courts do not constitute a valid order which falls within the concept of contempt of court
  • The courts will apply same procedures to all, and are bound by law to do so, and will not be selective in the application of law and procedures
  • The courts shall not display any bias in any way towards or against any person, and most importantly will not be seen or perceived to be biased in any way

There are many other such assumptions, but I limit this discussion to the above three assumptions.

Firstly, on the matter of jurisdictions:

  • There is huge contention whether Hulhumale’ Court has been granted powers by the law to try any case whatsoever. The Constitution says very clearly that trial courts will be defined and created by Law. When Parliament created courts by the Judicature Act, there was no “Hulhumale’ Court” designated as a Magistrates Court.The Supreme Court itself is still sitting on the case of the validity of the Hulhumale’ Court. It was created by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), without authority derived from Law. Therefore the validity of any orders or judgments issued by this court is questionable, and the Constitution says no one has to obey any unlawful orders, i.e, orders which are not derived from law. Therefore, President Nasheed’s decision to ignore the summons has more than reasonable legal grounds.
  • The Judicature Act does make some provision for Superior Courts (Criminal Court, Civil Court, Family Court and Juvenile Court only) to appoint a panel of judges for some cases. Such panel has to be decided by the entire bench or Chief Judge of that court. In this case, a panel of judges from other courts was appointed by the JSC to Hulhumale’ Court. JSC does not have that authority by Law.If Hulhumale’ Court is legitimate, and is a Magistrate’s court, it would be the only Magistrate Court in Male’, and per the Judicature Act, would not have any other court to tie up to in order to convene a panel of judges. If it is considered part of Kaafu Atoll, then the panel should be convened from among magistrates assigned to Magistrate Courts operating within Kaafu Atoll, and the Chief Magistrate for Kaafu Atoll should convene the panel. The panel of judges convened now was convened by the JSC, and the panel includes judges from other atolls.
  • The Hulhumale’ court issued a travel ban order to President Nasheed, without ever summoning him to court, and in his absence, before any charges had been presented before him. No court has the power to issue such an order under any law. The court could have issued such a bail condition after the first hearing, if there was reasonable justification to believe President Nasheed might flee the country or he might present a security risk for the community through further criminal activity.

On the basis of the above, there is more than ample grounds to contend that the summons was issued by an Unlawful Panel of Judges, sitting in an Unlawful Court, which had already issued an Unconstitutional restraining order which was ultra vires

Secondly, on the matter of selective application of procedure:

  • Deputy Speaker of the Majlis Ahmed Nazim defied 11 summons and only appeared in court for the 12th summons. No action was taken against him.
  • An order for Abdulla Hameed (Gayyoom’s brother who now resides in Sri Lanka) to be brought to court was issued by the Criminal Court a long time ago. However the Court has not provided an English translation of the Court Order to be submitted to Interpol. Nor have the Police contacted Sri Lankan authorities to repatriate him under the bilateral agreement which allows that. It should be noted that Sandhaan Ahmed Didi was repatriated from Sri Lanka airport under the same agreement, without even a court order, or charges being laid against him.
  • There are numerous cases of prominent politicians and business tycoons disobeying court summons, and to date no one has been convicted for contempt of court for this offence. This leads to the argument that not appearing before the court on account of a summons is not an offence for which people are prosecuted even though it is a prosecutable offence. By past practice and hence precedent and customary practice, no one has to appear before the court every time a summons is issued.

Based on the above, there is more than ample grounds for President Nasheed to claim that there is no need for him to appear before the Court at the Court’s convenience and his inconvenience. Further, there is a rightful claim that the court has already exercised bias against him and that it is unlikely that he will receive a fair trial. More importantly, the fundamental principal of equal application of law and procedure has been seriously compromised.

Thirdly, on the matter of bias:

  • Ample demonstration of bias has been made in the above paragraphs to start with
  • One of the three judges on the bench has wrongfully authorised detention of President Nasheed before, and can be considered as biased against him
  • One other judge already has cases of misconduct being investigated against him by the JSC
  • The third judge is reportedly a classmate of Abdulla Mohamed in the Mauhadh Dhiraasaathul Islamiyya
  • Thus there is a widely held perception that President Nasheed will not be accorded a fair trial. One of the Principles of Natural Justice is that not only should justice be done, but it must be seen to be done too
  • When over 2000 cases are waiting to be prosecuted (including murder, rape, child molestation, child abuse and other serious white collar crimes) at the Prosecutor General’s Office, one asks the question why has this case been expedited beyond normal protocol

Thus there are grounds to argue that a panel of judges who issued ultra vires restraining orders on no demonstrated reasonable grounds cannot be expected to give a fair trial or judgment.

Thus, it would appear to be a reasonable decision on the part of President Nasheed that since he is not being summoned by a legitimate court, by legitimate judges through legitimate procedures, he is unlikely to get justice; and that his appearance before the court will simply whitewash a huge injustice to him, and therefore he will not appear before the court and face the consequences and fight it in his own way.

This is just a very summary description of what I think are some relevant issues surrounding the situation.

The legitimacy of courts and their orders and decisions lie in the courts and their actions being within the framework of the law, which is applied equally to all. An ultra vires decision of the court is no different from a decision by an individual to disobey the decision of the court itself.

Hence my tweet : Impunity can only be matched with impunity.

When legal systems break down to the level we are seeing, laws are not worth the paper they are written on. Anarchy rules, which comes from a very primitive instinct within human beings : survive any which way one can.

We enact laws and try to uphold the rule of law to move away from this and live in a civilised fashion. For rule of law to be upheld, all public institutions and officials have to abide by it.

It is extremely fragile. If just one disregards the rule of law and the issue is not rectified quickly, it spreads rapidly like a cancer and destroys the whole system, paving the way for anarchy. I think we are fast approaching that point. The final signs, that of treating human life with impunity on account of difference of opinion is already here. The rest is likely to follow soon.

The outlook is appears to be rather bleak. But from a systems theory perspective, this had to happen. All vestiges which held the faulty system had to break before reformation could take place. There will be chaos. There already is. It may worsen. And then, if we are lucky, out of chaos will emerge order. But what kind of order it will be depends on which paradigm wins. At this point in time, I would tentatively suggest it may be religious extremism.

Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail of the former Chairman of the Constitutional Drafting Committee of the Special Majlis, responsible for drafting the 2008 constitution

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)

Contradictory findings in PIC’s report on February 8 crackdown

The Police Integrity Commission (PIC) has released the second of its three pending reports regarding police action around the contentious transfer of power in February.

The PIC states that it initiated the investigation due to allegations of police brutality when breaking up the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s demonstration on February 8, following the controversial resignation of President Mohamed Nasheed the previous day.

The PIC report on the events in Male’ on February 8 states that the investigation was carried out with a committee inclusive of all five members of the commission.

However, the report has two contradicting accounts, with President of the PIC Shahinda Ismail including her own findings in contrast to those of the other commission members.

The report states that the PIC looked into three main areas: whether police used disproportionate force in breaking up the MDP demonstration, whether individual police officers committed inhumane acts and acts of violence against citizens after breaking up the protest, and whether there were any police actions of the day which senior police officers must take responsibility for.

The investigation was carried out based on interviews, phone records, photos and video evidence.

Police acts within the law

PIC report contends that on February 8 , police acted within the boundaries of law and regulations.

It says that police acted in accordance with Article 6(4) and Article 6(8) of the Police Act and as protection from any danger that may ensue from the MDP demonstrations.

The investigation justified police action by stating that demonstrators had caused damage to property on their way to the MMA area, and that as there were large numbers of demonstrators, it may have led to unrest had the police not broken up the protest when they did.

The report further states that although sufficient warning had not been issued before breaking up the demonstration, police acted in line with Article 24 of the Freedom of Assembly Act as there was a small number of police officers controlling the demonstration which had a large number of participants, and any delays in breaking it up may have led to danger.

The PIC also stated that there were no incidents on February 8 that senior police needed to take responsibility for. It stated as reasons that there had been no prior knowledge of the protest being planned, that the intelligence department was not functioning at its best due to changes in management after February 7, and that after former President Nasheed’s statement in his resignation speech that his continuing to stay in power may cause harm to the citizens, there was no reason for police to expect his party to orchestrate such a demonstration against the new government.

Individual acts of brutality

The report however went on to say that individuals in the police force had committed acts of violence, inhumane acts, and used verbal abuse against demonstrators on February 8, acting against Article 54 of the Constitution of the Maldives, Article 7(a.11) of the Police Act, Articles 16(a), 16(d.2), 16(d.3), 16(d.5) of the Regulations for handling and use of weapons.

The report highlights 12 specific incidents, including video evidence and interviews proving inhumane acts of police against former President Nasheed, police brutality against MDP Chairperson Reeko Moosa Manik and member of parliament Mariya Ahmed Didi and video evidence of police beating 14 individuals with batons.

The commission states here its intention to further investigate these acts, and take legal action against the officers who were involved.

Contradicting viewpoints

President of the PIC, Shahindha Ismail, has however stated in the report that she sees acts of police on February 8 to have been against the law, and that she observed no valid reason for police to have broken up the MDP demonstrations in the manner the police did.

Ismail stated that while demonstrations were permitted in the MMA area, there was no evidence beyond that of statements by police officers to prove that any illegal acts had been committed, or that there was any intention to do so by the demonstrators.

Ismail further stated that the police broke up the protest without prior warning, acting against the orders of the officer in charge in the area, Inspector of Police Ahmed Shameem, order to ‘hold’ without advancing, and also against the advice of Maldives National Defense Force commanders. She said that the police had acted under orders from Unit Commander Seargant Mohamed Naeem.

Ismail described the acts of brutality noted in the PIC report as “targeted attacks to cause immense harm to certain people”, stating that these acts could not be seen as actions to protect anyone and should be further investigated and taken action against.

Ismail also states that Assistant Commissioner of Police Abdulla Fairoosh and then Acting Head of Police Specialist Operations Department Ahmed Shameem must be held responsible for not having carried out the responsibilities of their posts in a sufficient manner.

She also notes the accounts given to PIC investigations by Fairoosh, Shameen and Assistant Commissioner of Police Hussain Waheed, stating that providing false statements to the investigation is a criminal offence as noted in Article 62 of Chapter 3 of the Penal Code.

Ismail further states that Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz and Head of Police Professional Standards Directorate, Assistant Commissioner of Police Ali Rasheed, must be held accountable for failing to investigate the acts of police on February 8. She states that this failure is a breach of the constitution and the Police Act.

Recommendations to the Minister of Home Affairs

The PIC report presents two recommendations to the Minister of Home Affairs.

It calls on the ministry to order the police to investigate undue use of force with batons during February 8.

Noting that many officers during the February 8 had had their faces covered with hoods and helmets, the report additionally calls on the Ministry to establish a system in the police which would facilitate identification of police being investigated under similar situations.

Police Media Official Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef told Minivan News today that they are in the process of studying the PIC report.

“After studying it, if we find that any steps need to be taken, or any reforms need to be made, then we will work on that,” Haneef said.

Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz was not responding to calls at the time of press.

Minivan News also tried contacting the Police Integrity Commission, but was unable to get a response at the time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

India concerned over Maldives’ political instability, investment climate

The Indian government has expressed concern over continuing political instability in the Maldives, following the murder of Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) MP Afrasheem Ali this week.

In a statement on Thursday, India’s External Affairs Ministry said it had “consistently emphasised that peace and stability are necessary prerequisites to the firm implantation of democracy, as well as for the economic growth and prosperity of the people of Maldives.”

“We call upon all parties in Maldives to continue to work towards facilitating an early and commonly acceptable internal solution to the political impasse in the country. In this context, India urges the government of Maldives and all political parties to adhere strictly to democratic principles and the rule of law thus paving the way for the holding of free, fair and credible elections. Violence should find no place in democracies,” the Ministry stated.

India also called on the Maldivian government “to ensure a propitious climate for foreign investments, which have a direct bearing on the economic growth and development of Maldives.”

The latter remark comes after parties in the ruling coalition last month stepped up rhetoric calling for nationalisation of Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA), currently being developed and managed by Indian firm GMR in the Maldives’ single largest foreign investment.

Following the controversial transfer of power on February 7, President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan’s government has swung between issuing reassurances within diplomatic circles that Indian investments in the country would be protected, while locally stepping up nationalisation rhetoric.

Last week, GMR’s Airports CFO Sidharth Kapur told Indian television channel CNBC that the dispute could affect the country’s investment climate.

“While we have invested both debt and equity into this project, these kind of problems naturally affect the investment climate of any region,” said Kapur.

Discussing the GMR case last week, the Maldives National Chamber of Commerce and Industries (MNCCI) assured Minivan News that investor confidence was not being harmed, though the body did describe the investment climate as “challenging”.

India meanwhile recently granted the Maldives a further US$25 million as part of a US$100 million standby credit facility agreed during last November’s official visit from Prime Minister Manmoham Singh.

The deal represents the third instalment of the credit facility, with the previous two instalments having amounted to US$50 million. The previous tranche of US$30 million was released following President Waheed’s first official visit to India in May.

The assistance comes at a time the Maldives is facing a crippling financial position.

Minister of Finance Abdulla Jihad told parliament’s Finance Committee that this year’s budget deficit is set to be double the original estimate of MVR 3 billion (US$195million).

Jihad told Parliament’s Finance Committee that state spending this year, MVR 9 billion (US$590 million), had outstripped earnings by 28 percent.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Road to reconciliation has to be smooth

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has to be congratulated for the belated decision to return to Parliament and the reported interest in reviving the all-party talks. Already, Parliament has reconvened and the government parties, it can be expected, will process the suggestion for reviving the talks once President Mohammed Waheed returns home from his US trip.

The MDP’s participation in Parliament and promise to rejoin the talks – the latter reportedly indicated to PPM parliamentary group leader Abdulla Yameen by none other than former President Mohammed Nasheed – are clear on specifics. The party wants both Parliament and the political negotiations to address reforms to ‘independent constitutional institutions’ as indicated by the report of the Commission of National Inquiry (CoNI).

The report, as may be recalled, had upheld the constitutional validity of power-transfer effected on President Nasheed’s resignation on February 7 and had recommended on issues of common concern, over which there has been across-the-board unanimity of sorts. There are differences over phraseology and details – as between the need for ‘institutional reforms’, as sought by the MDP and ‘institutional empowerment’ – but no political party in the government has seriously contested the need for a re-look at the independent institutions and their functioning.

In fact, parties are also united on the need for looking at the CoNI recommendations in this regard. It is not impossible to achieve much of this before the deadline possibly set by the presidential polls due this time next year, if political parties put ‘national interest’ and ‘national reconciliation’ ahead of petty political agendas and electoral tactic in the coming weeks and months. After all, the very same players could give themselves a new Constitution some four years back the same way, and there is no reason why they could not do so again.

It is all written into the script of dynamic democracies, all through. Rather, for democracies to retain its characteristics, they have to have dynamic processes of consultations, accommodation and readjustments. By the same token it is not about what has not been achieved at any given point in time but what has been achieved still – despite the inherent contradictions, constituency interests and political compulsions of the stake-holders. It thus implies that the proposed reforms need not be sweeping and all-serving. It can make a start, but with a clear idea as to which road would have to be travelled further, not again and again. This requires a sense of accommodation.

Boycotting courts

It is in this context the recent MDP national council’s decision “not to observe the authority” of the courts sends out a jarring note. It flows from the criminal case against President Nasheed and others, on the charges of the Maldivian National Defence Force (MNDF) illegally detaining criminal court judge Mohammed Abdulla on January 16. Citing the party decision, President Nasheed stayed away from the suburban Hulhumale court trying the case on October 1, and proceeded on a campaign tour of the southern atolls.

The court has since directed the police to produce President Nasheed on Sunday. Nasheed’s lawyers also did not appear before the three-judge trial bench. While directing the police to produce President Nasheed, the court has observed that he has not given any reason for not participating in the trial. It is anybody’s guess why the police did not restrain him from leaving Male for the southern atolls with more than adequate pre-publicity and in full glare of the media when he was under ‘island arrest’ ahead of the commencement of the trial.

Translated, the term ‘island arrest’ means that an accused in a criminal case has to stay put in the island where the trial is taking place and appear before the courts whenever required. It may sound an archaic part of legal procedures, suited to the times when inter-island and inter-atoll transport facilities were inadequate, and may be among the provisions requiring a review – either by the judiciary on its own or by the legislature, or both. Such a review could also be considered for such penalties as ‘banishment’, still contained in the Maldivian penal laws.

Yet, near-similar provisions exist elsewhere too, where an accused in criminal cases are directed by courts to leave, or not leave, the jurisdiction of such other courts of police stations and also report to them periodically, pending the conclusion of the trial. The possibility of the accused exerting influence over the witnesses is often cited as the reason for such directives by the court. The alternative to such ‘bail conditions’ is for the accused in criminal cases in these countries – neighbouring India and Sri Lanka included – to return to jail, pending the conclusion of the trial and the pronouncement of the verdict.

In deciding to boycott the courts, the MDP seems to have concluded that they could not expect justice from the existing system. Even as they agitated for ‘institutional reforms’, this was the judiciary they had inherited and they had left behind when President Nasheed was in office. Not that they were happy about, but in the eyes of law, the constitution of the Supreme Court Bench, however controversial and however perceived to be partisan it might have been, had the approval of the government and the President of the day.

Having agitated for further reforms, it may now be up to the MDP as the majority party in Parliament to initiate the process and specifics of such reforms under the executive presidency scheme with the government parties still in a minority in Parliament.

By not submitting to the authority of the nation’s courts, the MDP nominee runs the risk of adding to the litany of criminal cases that the party expects would be heaped on him, if left unchallenged. The place to agitate the position again should be the courts, and Third World democracy, that too in the neighbourhood, is full of instances where political party leaders in particular have played within the walls of the existing scheme for tactical approaches whose legality could be questioned only in a higher court.

At present, President Nasheed in this specific case has already run the risk of adding to the offences listed against him. The party has called the original criminal charges against him in ordering the arrest of Judge Abdulla as ‘politically motivated’. However, absence from the court, attracting ‘contempt of court’ charges stand on a different footing. They are offences in themselves, punishable with a six-month prison term as penalty, complicating his chances of contesting the presidential polls even more. Already, the MDP apprehends – and has not minced words in giving expression to such expression – that the original criminal case, as also two defamation cases filed against him – were aimed at impeding his path to the presidential polls.

Before leaving Male for the southern atolls this time, President Nasheed is reported to have asked all concerned to review their position on the criminal cases against him. He may have a point. At the end of the day, there is a political process involved in the independent handling of the criminal cases being independently handled by the Prosecutor-General’s (PG) office. Those processes, and appeals based on facts, law and their constitutionality, do not apply to contempt of court proceedings. These are often ‘open-and-shut’ cases, as the phrase is understood.

Otherwise, the MDP may have to revisit its national council decision to see if one such as this one on boycotting courts would draw adverse decisions from the Election Commission, another ‘independent institution’ under the Constitution. In such a case, the party would only itself have to blame – for confusing tactic and strategy, ideology and adaptability in a dynamic democracy. While numbers are the MDP’s strength, and so is the conviction of those followers, it should be allowed to operate within the inherent limitations that the party has inherited under the multi-party scheme until it has been able to ‘convert’ the rest, or adapt the constitutional means to reach where it wants the nation to be – or, both.

Midnight killing of MP

These developments came ahead of the midnight killing of PPM Member of Parliament, Dr Afrasheen Ali, a religious scholar, on the staircase of his Male’ home. The incident occurred on the ‘UN International Day of Non-Violence’, commemorating the birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi, India’s non-violence icon, who fought the British colonial rulers without sword and guns – and won Independence for his deeply-divisive country by promoting unity of purpose and conviction about the cause and the process. Gandhiji punished himself for whatever he perceived as the sins of his followers, and would fast for days until they atoned, and subjected himself readily to the rules, laws and courts of the colonial ruler, without question. His was a battle born out of conviction, and remained one until the very end.

Whatever the motive and whoever the killers, the midnight massacre of a Member of Parliament has come at a difficult time for Maldives, when the nation for readjusting to the post-CoNI ground realities. These realities pertained to an end to the MDP street-protests over the circumstances leading to President Nasheed’s resignation and at the same time leading to a political decision by his party to boycott the nation’s courts, instead. Just a day old, the murder will take the police time to resolve, though it could also revive the national discourse on the need for more reforms in more areas – this one, involving the police and criminal investigations.

Sure enough, Maldives as a nation, and the capital city of Male, accounting for a third of the nation’s 400,000-minus population lives, has begun limping back to normalcy of some sort when the MP’s killing has shocked and rocked the nation as none before in recent times. This had been preceded by the crude killing of a senior advocate by a drug-addict and his girl-friend some months ago, but which was resolved promptly by the police force.

What is also at stake thus is the continuance of a peaceful political atmosphere, law and order situation, at a time when the country can do with more tourists and more tourist resorts to egg on the nation away from the economic perils that it finds itself now – and again! Even more important is for the nation and its population to recreate that sense of security and safety, which Maldivians have prided themselves through years of unprecedented and un-calibrated growth, where social equity and societal tranquility have often been victims elsewhere.

The road ahead

For the post-CoNI reconciliation efforts to be meaningful and purposeful, there is an urgent need to create the right political and social atmosphere. The responsibility for this rests with all stake-holders, but the initiative has to come from the government of the day. The criminal cases against President Nasheed, for instance, belonged to a particular point in the contemporary political history of the nation.

It also owed to the kind of political climate that the present-day government parties contributed in equal measure, if not more, when they were in the Opposition. Today, the shoe is on the other foot, and no great national purpose would be served – instead, it could tantamount to dis-service after a point – if there is no attempt at national reconciliation as much in spirit as in word. To that extent, if either side feels strongly and sincerely about reconciliation, they need to smoothen out the road ahead, and at the same time, smooth out the edges, too.

Before President Nasheed, his predecessor Maumoon Abdul Gayoom had worked on reconciliation in his own way. Maybe late in recognising the realities of the new era as they dawned on him, President Gayoom reconciled himself first, and reconciled with the rest, over what needs to be done, and how it needs to be done. Both he and President Nasheed after him reconciled themselves to the ground realities – based at times on numbers in vibrant democracies – by respectively providing for a smooth transfer of power on the one hand, and absence of legal recrimination for what had been done or not done while in power in the past. Much of it seems to have been undone over a short span, and there is an urgent need for the nation as a whole to walk that path – and together – all over again!

The writer is a Senior Fellow at Observer Research Foundation

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)

JP MP Alhan Fahmy to initiate no-confidence vote against President and Vice President

Jumhoree Party (JP) MP Alhan Fahmy has said today that he is in discussions with MPs from other parties to submit a motion to take a no confidence vote against both President Mohamed Waheed Hassan and Vice President Mohamed Waheed Deen.

Fahmy was initially elected to parliament as an MP representing the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP). He then transferred to the Maldivain Democratic Party (MDP), before signing with JP earlier this year. He was elected as Vice President of MDP during his time in the party.

Fahmy told local media today that he was initiating this vote for two specific reasons:  the first being Waheed’s negative remarks about the Majlis in his last trip to Sri Lanka, and secondly, that in Fahmy’s view neither Waheed nor Deen were fulfilling their constitutional responsibilities.

“[Waheed] has said that MPs just stay home without doing any work. That we take our salary and yet are always on leave. Waheed cannot make a statement like that,” Fahmy told Haveeru.

“That is encroachment on the privileges of MPs. This is a very worrying matter. What is going to happen if while staying as the highest authority in the state, he treats the parliament like sh*t?” Fahmy was quoted as saying.

He furthermore stated that both Waheed and Waheed Deen had failed to perform up to the responsibilities of the post detailed in article 100(a) of the Constitution of the Maldives.

Article 100(a) states the Majlis can remove a President or Vice President on grounds of violating a tenet of Islam or the constitution, conduct unsuited to the office, or an inability to carry out the office’s duties.

Removal of both President and Vice President simultaneously would trigger constitutional clauses requiring the Speaker of the Majlis Abdulla Shahid to assume office and to organise elections within 60 days.

According to Fahmy, his initiative was getting support from the opposition MDP, and he specifically noted the work of the party’s Chairperson ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik.

Fahmy said he is now in the process of drafting the motion, expressing confidence that he would be able to obtain signatures from 25 MPs to submit the motion as per the regulations.

According to article 100 (e) of the constitution, a no confidence vote can be passed with votes from two-thirds of the total numbers of MPs in parliament, which amounts to 52 votes.

The constitution also requires 14 days notice to be given before the matter is voted upon, as well as providing both the President and Vice President with the opportunity to defend themselves against their respective charges.

Meanwhile, President of Jumhoree Party Ibrahim Didi, who formerly served in the same position at MDP, expressed concern over Fahmy’s statement.

Didi told local media that being part of the coalition, JP would offer full support to the coalition government. He said Fahmy had made the statement of his own accord, and that the party had no knowledge of the matter.

However, Didi has said that the party has not yet decided if it would take action against Fahmy for speaking against the party’s stance.

During Wednesday’s parliament session, Fahmy also called for the resignation of the Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz and Minister of Home Affairs Dr Mohamed Jameel.

MDP Chairperson ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik confirmed to Minivan News today that he supported Fahmy’s initiative to take the no-confidence vote.

“Since Alhan has taken the initiative, I will support him. I will do what needs to be done to bring the MDP Parliamentary Group on board,” Manik said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

PPM MP Dr Afrasheem found brutally murdered

Additional reporting by Mariyath Mohamed.

MP of the government-aligned Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM), Dr Afrasheem Ali, was brutally stabbed to death outside his home on Monday night.

The member for Ungoofaaru constituency in Raa Atoll was murdered after returning home from appearing on the TVM show “Islamee Dhiriulhun” (Islamic Life) with Deputy Minister of Islamic Affairs Mohamed Qubad Aboobakuru.

The show finished around 11:00pm, and Afrasheem’s body was discovered by his wife at the bottom of the stairs of their apartment building shortly after midnight.

The MP had been stabbed four times in the back of the head and a chunk of his skull was missing, according to reports on VTV. He also suffered stab wounds to the chest and neck.

The MP was rushed to ADK hospital where he was pronounced dead. The hospital was placed under heavy security.

Others present at the hospital in addition to police officers and citizens included former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, his daughter and State Minister for Foreign Affairs Dhunya Maumoon, his half-brother and People’s Alliance (PA) leader Abdulla Yameen, Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid, Deputy Speaker Ahmed Nazim, Deputy of the PPM Umar Naseer, Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim, Tourism Minister Ahmed Adheeb, Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP) Leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali, Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz, Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Chairperson Reeko Moosa Manik, and a large number of MPs.

Much of the opposition’s senior contingent left for campaigning in the southern atolls yesterday, however the murder was widely condemned on twitter by its officials including Moosa, MP Sameer and the party’s UK Spokesperson Dr Farah Faizal.

In a live press conference shortly after 3:00am, Police Commissioner Riyaz called for restraint.

“I call on all to show restraint. I further call on all to not blame anyone at this time, and to not incite further acts in relation to this,” Riyaz stated.

Speaker Shahid – a DRP member – spoke from the hospital, announcing that parliament would be postponed until Wednesday.

“This will be observed as a national sorrow. I extend sincere condolences to Afrasheem’s family. I hope we can all act in unity in these sad times. I call on the investigative forces to solve this case and find those responsible for this heinous crime at the earliest possible time,” Shahid said.

“Dr Afrasheem Ali was very sincere in his work at the Majlis, and was honest and assertive. We always received his cooperation in the work of Majlis. We have lost a valuable son of the Maldives. May god bless his soul and grant him paradise.”

In a statement, the Ministry of Islamic Affairs noted Dr Afrasheem’s “valuable services”.

“The Ministry sends condolences to the family and prays the deceased is granted paradise. Minister Sheik Shaheem Mohamed Ali Saeed calls on the authorities to give the harshest possible punishment to those who have committed this brutal crime.”

President of the Human Rights Commission, Mariyam Azra, said she was “in complete shock”.

“I only heard of this when VTV called. I am in complete shock… I condemn this act. This should not at all occur in a society like ours. I pray that God blesses his soul and grants him paradise,” Azra told local media.

President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan has declared that the National Flag be flown at half-mast, from 2 October 2012 till the end of 4 October 2012.

There were unconfirmed reports that police had arrested a suspect in connection with the murder. Minivan News is trying to confirm this.

President’s Office Spokesperson Masood Imad meanwhile forwarded an SMS to foreign media declaring that “Nasheed’s strongest critic Dr Afrasheem has been brutally murdered.”

Background

Dr Afrasheem was elected to parliament in 2009 as a member of the then-opposition Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP). Following the opposition’s split, Afrasheem sided with the Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, and faded into the political background.

Widely considered an Islamic moderate, Dr Afrasheem took outspoken and controversial positions on issues such as the permissibility of playing music, and praying next to the deceased.

Newspaper Haveeru reported on September 10 that Afrasheem had participated in a ‘scholar’s dialogue’ with Islamic Minister Sheikh Shaheem Ali Saeed, who had remarked on his conflicting positions on many issues compared to the majority of Maldivian scholars.

During his final television appearance last night, Dr Afrasheem spoke of there being no other God than Allah, and how he disagreed with some people who he claimed used different objects as a mediator.

Afrasheem insisted that he had never ever spoken of anything regarding religion which was not stated in the Quran or sayings of the Prophet (PBUH). He acknowledged that some people had raised questions about his stands, and said this could be due to misunderstandings.

As an example, he said he had been told recently by a local TV host that people were made kafir (non-believer) through certain acts, saying he had immediately responded that a believing Muslim could not be labelled a kafir just because he would not grow his beard or shorten his trousers, as long as he believed in the one God and the tenets of Islam.

Afrasheem also said that people in the Maldives and abroad who loved Islam sometimes made such statements, but said they did not really possess the knowledge of a scholar and that this position was wrong. Afrasheem stated that he was deeply saddened and asked for forgiveness from citizens if he had created a misconception in their minds due to his inability to express himself in the right manner.

He was attacked several times in 2008, including being hit in the head with a stone on May 27 on his way home from work, and was assaulted after he finished Friday prayers as an Imam in the Ibrahim Mosque in January. His car window was smashed while he was driving through Male’ on March 18, 2012.

The murdered MP was also formerly Parliament’s member of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), until he was replaced in mid-2011 by Jumhoree Party (JP) Leader, resort tycoon Gasim Ibrahim.

The MDP had campaigned for Afrasheem’s removal from the judicial watchdog, after he dismissed Article 285 of the Constitution – demanding that all judges who do not meet its newly stipulated qualifications be dismissed after two years of it coming into force – as “symbolic”.

Afrasheem is the second member of the JSC to be stabbed in the street, following an attack on former President’s member on the commission, Aishath Velezinee, in early 2011.

Dr Afrasheem is to receive a State funeral and will be buried after Asr Prayers.

Dr Afrasheem’s final TV appearance prior to his murder:

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed fails to appear in court, defies travel ban

Additional reporting Daniel Bosley, Mariyath Mohamed and Mohamed Naahii.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed departed Male’ today to participate in his party’s ‘Vaudhuge Dhathuru’ (Journey of Pledges) campaign in the southern atolls, defying a court order that he remain in the capital.

Nasheed’s departure contravenes an order from the Hulhumale Magistrate Court last week that Nasheed be confined to Male’ ahead of his court trial, which was to be conducted at 4:00pm today.

Journalists in the courtroom were required to undergo heavy security screening and were stripped of mobile phones, recording equipment and notepads. However, 20 minutes later a court official stated that the hearing was cancelled as the defendant and his lawyers had failed to appear. A new date was not set.

Nasheed meanwhile held a rally from atop a yellow flagged dhoni in front of 500 demonstrators near the petrol jetty in the south of Male’, before departing with five vessels and hundreds of supporters. Minivan News observed no police presence in the area.

“Once they started to set up a fabricated court, bring in judges who are not judges of that court, and the whole structure of it is so… politically motivated, it is very obvious it is not meant to serve justice,” Nasheed told the BBC.

“We intend to find out in this trip to what extent we were able to fulfil our pledges during this party’s period in government,” Nasheed told his supporters. “This is a journey of pledges. This is a journey for justice. This is a journey where we become one with the citizens.”

The party and its senior leadership will visit over 30 islands during the 14 day trip, taking in the atolls of Gaafu Alif, Gaafu Dhaalu, Fuvahmulah and Addu.

Meanwhile, the court hearing was to be the first in the case concerning Nasheed’s detention of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, Abdulla Mohamed, while in office.

Nasheed also faces charges of defaming Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz and Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim as “traitors”, following February 7’s controversial transfer of power. The first hearing in Riyaz’s case has been postponed indefinitely.

Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has expressed deep concern over the legality of the court’s procedures regarding the trials, which it contends are a politically-motivated attempt to convict the former president and prevent him from running in future Presidential elections.

Following the court-ordered travel ban on Nasheed ahead of the party’s southern atoll election campaign, the MDP announced that it would no longer recognise the authority of the courts in the Maldives until changes proposed by international entities were brought to the judicial system.

“This all looks very ‘Myanmar’ – using the courts and administrative manipulation to restrict political party activity,” said MDP MP and Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor at the time.

“While President Waheed was lobbying the Commonwealth to remove the Maldives from its human rights watch-list, his regime had detained the leader of the opposition.”

The concerns were echoed by Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird, a member of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) who recently downgraded the Maldivesfrom its formal agenda to a ‘matter of interest’.

“Canada is deeply troubled by the reported September 25 travel ban of former President Nasheed in Malé,” said Baird.

“The recently adopted Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) report has raised substantial concerns about the independence of the judiciary. That too causes Canada grave concern as we strive to assure independent open elections in the Maldives,” he added.

“President Waheed offered no substantial defence of these questions, which is a telling response in itself,” said Baird. “Canada finds the declining state of democratic values in the Maldives alarming and deeply troubling.”

The court has maintained that the travel restriction is normal procedure for defendants ahead of court trials.

The case

Nasheed’s controversial decision to detain Judge Abdulla in January 2012 followed the judge’s repeated release of former Justice Minister – and current Home Minister – Dr Mohamed Jameel, in December 2011, whom the government had accused of inciting religious hatred over the publication of his party’s pamphlet, ‘President Nasheed’s devious plot to destroy the Islamic faith of Maldivians’.

Nasheed’s government further accused the judge of political bias, obstructing police, stalling cases, having links with organised crime and “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist” so as to protect key figures of the former dictatorship from human rights and corruption cases, among other allegations.

Nasheed justified the judge’s arrest based on his constitutional mandate to protect the constitution. Judge Abdulla had in September 2011 received an injunction from the Civil Court preventing his investigation by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), the watchdog tasked with overseeing the judiciary, which complied with the ruling.

Parliament’s Independent Commissions Committee, the body mandated with holding the judicial watchdog accountable, took no interest in the matter.

The then-opposition began nightly protests over the judge’s detention, while the government sought assistance from the UN and Commonwealth for urgent judicial reform.

However, Nasheed resigned on February 7 amid a police and military mutiny the day after the Commonwealth team arrived.

Judge Abdulla was released, and the Criminal Court issued a warrant for Nasheed’s arrest. The warrant was not acted upon.

Former Defence Minister Tholhath, former Chief of Defence Force Major General Moosa Ali Jaleel, Brigadier Ibrahim Mohamed Didi and Colonel Mohamed Ziyad are also facing charges for their role in detaining Judge Abdulla in January 2012.

The charges include a breach of article 81 of the Penal Code: “Arresting an innocent person intentionally and unlawfully by a state employee with the legal authority or power vested to him by his position is an offence. Punishment for a person guilty of this offence is imprisonment or banishment for 3 years or a fine of MVR 2000 (US$129.70).”

“The full story”

Former President’s Member on the JSC, Aishath Velezinee, has written a book extensively documenting the watchdog body’s undermining of judicial independence, and complicity in sabotaging the separation of powers.

Over 80 pages, backed up with documents, evidence and letters, The Failed Silent Coup: in Defeat They Reached for the Gun recounts the experience of the outspoken whistleblower as she attempted to stop the commission from re-appointing unqualified and ethically-suspect judges loyal to former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, after it dismissed the professional and ethical standards demanded by Article 285 of the constitution as “symbolic”.

That moment at the conclusion of the constitutional interim period marked the collapse of the new constitution and resulted in the appointment of a illegitimate judiciary, Velezinee contends, and set in motion a chain of events that ultimately led to President Mohamed Nasheed’s arrest of Abdulla Mohamed two years later.

According to Velezinee, “the assumption that Abdulla Mohamed is a constitutionally appointed judge is based on a false premise, a political creation [which] ignores all evidence refuting this.”

“Judge Abdulla Mohamed is at the centre of this story. I believe it is the State’s duty to remove him from the judiciary. He may have the legal knowledge required of a judge; but, as the State knows full well, he has failed to reach the ethical standards equally essential for a seat on the bench.

“A judge without ethics is a judge open to influence. Such a figure on the bench obstructs justice, and taints the judiciary. These are the reasons why the Constitution links a judge’s professional qualifications with his or her moral standards,” she wrote.

“There is no legal way in which the Civil Court can rule that the Judicial Service Commission cannot take action against Abdulla Mohamed. This decision says judges are above even the Constitution. Where, with what protection, does that leave the people?” Velezinee asked.

“The Judicial Service Commission bears the responsibility for removing Abdulla Mohamed from the bench. Stories about him have circulated in the media and among the general public since 2009, but the Commission took no notice. It was blind to Abdulla Mohamed’s frequent forays outside of the ethical standards required of a judge. It ignored his politically charged rulings and media appearances.

“Abdulla Mohamed is a man who had a criminal conviction even when he was first appointed to the bench during President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s time. Several complaints of alleged judicial misconduct are pending against him. The Judicial Service Commission has ignored them all. What it did, instead, is grant him tenure – a lifetime on the bench for a man such as Abdulla Mohamed. In doing so, the Judicial Service Commission clearly failed to carry out its constitutional responsibilities. It violated the Constitution and rendered it powerless.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Maldives world’s most vulnerable country to climate-change related impacts on food security

The Maldives is the world’s most vulnerable country to the food-security related impacts of climate change, a new report has found.

According to ‘Ocean-Based Food Security Threatened in a High CO2 World’, produced by global ocean protection NGO Oceana, the Maldives ranks alongside Togo and Comoros as the most vulnerable to climate-change related food security threats, due to its near total reliance on fish for protein.

The rankings were calculated by combining each nation’s exposure to climate change and ocean acidification, dependence on and consumption of fish and seafood, and level of adaptive capacity based on socioeconomic factors.

“Many of the high-ranking nations based on climate change indicators are located in the tropics and low latitudes,” the report notes.

“This reflects the general trend that fish species are predicted to be migrating toward the poles as water temperatures continue to rise. Tropical countries are the most dependent on coral reef fisheries which are severely threatened.

“Island and coastal nations depend more heavily on fish for protein, especially the poorest nations, increasing their vulnerability. Many of the poorest places are already struggling with hunger issues which will be made worse with high population growth rates and limited additional options for food.”

Half the protein consumed in the Maldives is derived from fish, the report observed, and besides providing direct food protein, countries such as the Maldives also benefited from marine tourism jobs associated with coral reefs and marine life.

“This multi-billion dollar industry could also be threatened by climate change. Therefore, further assessments should incorporate the risks to food security that come from losses in income due to the disappearance of fisheries and tourism related jobs. Local changes to marine resources from ocean acidification and climate change could ripple up through the global economy,” the report found.

‘So long and thanks for all the fish’

Minivan News has earlier reported on the decline of the fishing industry in the Maldives due to an array of factors, notably high-tech and efficient purse seiner vessels from other nations ringing the country’s exclusive economic zone. The traditional – and sustainable – pole and line method used by Maldivian fishermen has left them unable to compete with GPS enabled, sonar-equipped fish aggregation devices of these vessels.

Local fisheries have also been affected by market impacts, particularly the move by major fisheries companies in the Maldives to ship tuna to Thailand for canning and processing despite the presence of local factories – many tins sold locally in shops now have ‘packed in Thailand’ on the label.

Former head of the Maldives Industrial Fisheries Company (MIFCO), Adhil Saleem, previously informed Minivan News that changing sea surface temperatures due to climate change were also driving fish deeper, reducing the stocks within reach of the traditional pole and line method.

“Our [pole and line] method only works near the surface,” he said. “But with changes in weather and sea temperature, fish will not surface.”

According to figures from the Maldives Monetary Authority (MMA), tuna fishing is the second largest export earner at US$52 million and the country’s largest employer at 40 percent, but in the last three years contributed only 2 percent of the country’s GDP, dwarfed by the tourism industry. Catches meanwhile declined eight percent in 2011.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Island President “a depressing reminder of world’s vested interests”: Jon Shenk

Filming primarily during the former president’s first year in office, Director of the Island President Jon Shenk and his team trailed him around the globe, filming everything from the underwater cabinet meetings – where Nasheed conducted with ministers all wearing scuba gear to highlight the problems of rising water levels – to his trip to the UN, Westminster and Copenhagen’s Environment Summit to beseech Western diplomats to act quickly in the name of global environmental protection, writes Caroline Frost for the Huffington Post.

Shenk had different problems from those of Nasheed, but equal challenges:

“I think he had an amazing amount of trust, but we quickly learned that there’s a reason why a film about this state’s leader had never been made before. It’s just so difficult to get access to everything, whether it’s cabinet meetings, or family life, and then it becomes 1000 times more difficult once you leave that country, and you’re dealing bilaterally with other leaders, other heads of state, it was pretty much a constant battle.”

Unfortunately, Shenk stopped filming shortly before Nasheed was ousted from office in a coup orchestrated by the tyrannous regime his government had replaced. As events raced ahead of him, Shenk added an end card to his film so viewers were kept updated:

“The film ended on a high with him still president, then by the film was released in cinemas in the US and UK, the coup had happened, and it changes the way that the film affects people.

“In a way, the film is completely unchanged by events because so much about his first year in office and the drama of him fighting that struggle at Copenhagen, but in other ways, it’s a depressing reminder of the vested interests that exist in the world, in keeping things the way they are, money interests controlling the day, even in countries where there is a strong independent national propensity to move towards democracy.”

Read more

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)