Tag: minivan

EU backs early Presidential Elections

The European Union has called on political parties in the Maldives to commit to early presidential elections “and to determine the legislative and constitutional measures required to ensure that these are free and fair.”

Catherine Ashton, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice President of the Commission, also said that the EU “is of the view that the legitimacy and legality of the transfer of presidential power in the Maldives should be determined by an impartial, independent investigation as agreed by all parties in the Maldives. “

President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan has appointed members to such an inquiry, however former President Mohamed Nasheed’s party has disputed its impartiality, and called for the involvement of an independent international body.

The EU said it was ready “to offer further assistance in the field of governance, including in the justice sector, in conjunction with existing actions financed by Member States.”

In the meantime, Ashton said, “the EU calls on all parties to refrain from violence, inflammatory rhetoric and any provocative actions which could threaten the future of democracy in the Maldives.

“The police and army should exercise maximum restraint in the execution of their duties which must remain strictly within their constitutional mandate.”

In response to the EU’s statement, Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) issued a statement “warmly welcoming the conclusions and sentiments contained therein”, and called for “immediate dialogue between responsible political parties possessing a democratic mandate (i.e. having seats in the Majlis or local councils) to agree on the date and conditions for free and fair elections, and to determine the constitutional and legislative measures required to make this happen.”

The MDP earlier this week boycotted a round of talks held in Nasandhura Palace Hotel, describing them as a “clear effort to delay substantive discussions”

The minority opposition Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM), headed by the former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, was present in talks but does not have official representation in the parliament or on an elected council. Under parliamentary regulations, MPs who joined Gayoom’s PPM from the Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP) technically count as independent MPs until elected on a PPM ticket in the next parliamentary election.

China defers to India

A report in India’s Hindustan newspaper meanwhile suggests that China has “quietly conveyed” that it has no interest in “fishing in the troubled waters of the Maldives”, and was prepared to “help New Delhi settle the political crisis”.

“Top government sources said after inspired reports that Chinese were behind the overthrow of liberal Mohamed Nasheed’s regime, Beijing used diplomatic channels to assure at the highest levels that it has no political interest in Male’ and wanted New Delhi to take the lead in sorting out the current political crisis,” the Hindustan repored.

“While China offered help in case India wanted it in settling Male, it made it clear to New Delhi that it would be concerned if US, UK and other western powers moved in to resolve the crisis.”

India’s United Progressive Alliance (UPA)-led government “is confident of helping Maldives resolve the political crisis,” the paper reported. “It knows that the local people on streets are with Mohamed Nasheed but that the state power and institutions including army are with Abdul Gayoom, backed by Dr Mohammed Waheed Hassan.”

“Indian diplomatic managers want Waheed to step down and pave way for an interim government under Speaker which could hold free and fair elections for a stable government as early as possible. But the pragmatic picture shows that India will deal with both Waheed and Nasheed for a stable government in Male and does not expect the current President to step down before elections.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Former finance minister Inaz leaves MDP

Former Finance Minister Ahmed Inaz has confirmed his decision to leave the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

Inaz did not give a reason for his decision, but told local newspaper Haveeru that the move “puts an end to my political career for now”.

In a response to Minivan News, he said he would “always remain independent and serving the national interest”.

Inaz was appointed after the then-opposition majority parliament unseated Finance Minister Ali Hashim in November 2010, along with six other cabinet ministers.

That vote came after three weeks of disruption in parliament, a stalemate ended only when MPs of the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) boycotted the sitting before voting began.

Inaz’s resignation followed an incident in December 2011 in which MDP activists “dragged” him from a car in which he had been spotted hold holding a covert meeting with former president Gayoom’s half brother, MP Abdulla Yameen.

MDP activist Ibrahim ‘Dhonbeli’ Haleem told Minivan News afterwards that he had observed Inaz and Yameen holding a discussion “for two hours” near Male’s South Harbor, “a dark area poorly lit that is only really frequented by boys and girls, not for official business.”

“I told Inaz it was wrong, that Yameen is an enemy and why is he going to this area to hold a business meeting. If he needs to discuss business he should do it in his office.

“Inaz admitted it was wrong, and the MDP activists were yelling and shouting so I took him on my bike to Haruge (MDP headquarters),” claimed Dhonbeli.

Inaz would not confirm that this was the reason for his resignation at the time.

Tax advocate

Inaz’s term as finance minister was characterised by swiftly-enacted tax reforms, passed amid juggling many conflicting political interests and a campaign to sell the concept to the public.

Inaz noticeably took the time to meet with businessmen, parliament and opposition party delegations to explain the reasons and rationales for the various reforms he was implementing.

“All the businessmen I have met – all the reasonable businessmen I have met – believe that the country has to move to a much more structured, predictable and more coherent system of governance. And to do that we need an economic system that supports social change, and supports the change we have brought politically,” he told Minivan News, in an interview in May 2011, shortly after becoming minister.

“To sustain their businesses it is important that they have social and political stability. It would be a grave mistake if one stands up and says they don’t support [income tax], because that will bring instability to the country and harm businesses,” he said.

Under Inaz, the Maldives implemented a tourism goods and services tax (TGST), general GST and business profit tax, and was working towards an income tax for those earning over Rf 30,000 (US$2000) a month. Nasheed’s government maintained that combined, these elements would give a full picture of the money and assets in the country, and avoid the hiding of company tax revenue with individuals.

New Economic Minister Ahmed Mohamed announced at a press conference yesterday that policy of income tax would temporarily be halted, according a report in Haveeru.

Under Inaz, the Maldives Inland Revenue Authority (MIRA) also took over most of the Maldives’ government’s cash handling, greatly reducing petty counter-level corruption across the public sector and giving a single picture of government income.

Inaz also pushed – against subtle but solid opposition – for the rufiya to be used as legal tender for all transactions in the Maldives, aside from tax collection.

Most resorts continue to charge tourists in dollars, a practice which is contrary to monetary policy and technically illegal, but ignored by the Maldives Monetary Authority (MMA). Those dollars swiftly leave the country for more financially-stable shores, instead of generating a demand for the local currency at the point of sale. The country consequently has a dollar shortage, banks have little money to loan, and the average population benefits little from the tourism industry beyond employment – for which they are paid in rufiya.

“What other country has prices in another country’s currency?” Inaz asked Minivan News, in May 2011.

A key moment under Inaz’s term as finance minister came with the discovery that based on income from the TSGT, the tourism economy was 300-400 percent previous estimates.

“Previously we had thought tourism receipts for the country were around US$700 million. But since collection of the 3.5 percent Tourism GST it has come to light that the figure is around US$2.5-3 billion,” then President Nasheed said during a press conference in June 2011.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

President of Timor Leste condemns “obvious” coup d’état, “unsettling silence of big powers”

Nobel Peace Prize recipient and President of Timor Leste (East Timor), José Ramos-Horta, has issued a statement condemning “the ousting under military pressure” of President Mohamed Nasheed.

While other countries including the UK and Germany have  called for independent inquiries, Timor Leste has become first country to condemn the change of government as a coup d’état.

A former political exile and reluctant politician-turned-president who survived an a assassination attempt in 2008, Ramos-Horta visited the Maldives in early 2010.

Nasheed had the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) greet Ramos-Horta with a seven-gun salute, and introduced him at a press conference as “no ordinary head of state – he is a renowned, fearless and uncompromising champion of human rights. We can learn from [Timor’s] experiences building democracy and of transitional justice.”

Ramos-Horta at the time praised Nasheed for his “conciliatory” approach to the autocratic regime he had replaced, mirroring it with his own resistance to the “heroic bureaucrats in the United Nations and Brussels”, who “favoured an international tribunal to try everyone in Indonesia who was involved in the crimes of the past.”

“Each country has its realities; its challenges and complexities,” Ramos-Horta explained. “I prefer to be criticised for being soft on people who committed violence in the past than be criticised for being too harsh or insensitive in putting people in jail.

“Our approach fits our reality, an approach the “resident of the Maldives and I share – the need for magnanimity. Immediately after our independence in 1999, I said: ‘In victory be magnanimous. Don’t rub the wounds of those who feel they lost. Make them feel they won, also.’”

In his statement this week, Ramos-Horta recalled that during his visit, Nasheed had “alerted me to tensions in Maldivian society and the unabated activity of beneficiaries of the old political order directed at toppling the new democratically elected authorities.”

It was, he said, “now obvious that President Mohamed Nasheed was forced to resign by military elements and the move has the support of former Maldivian dignitaries bent on retaking privileges and political control they enjoyed during the former regime.”

“It should be of concern to the World that extremist elements abusively invoking Islam were instrumental in stirring up violent demonstrations, religious intolerance and social upheaval as the coup d’état set in motion.

“Therefore, it is all the more strange and unsettling the silence with which big powers and leading democracies respond to the undemocratic developments in the Maldives. It has been a sad day for democracy in the Maldives and beyond.”

Former Indian High Commissioner

Former Indian High Commissioner to the Maldives, A. K. Banerjee, has also written in support of Nasheed, urging India “to bat for a friend”.

Writing for the Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), Banerjee observed that democracies “are notoriously unstable to begin with and need patience and commitment all round. “

“[Nasheed] was getting increasingly frustrated and the opposition confronted him at every step. Nasheed, long used to agitating for change and clamouring for power, did not, it seems, grow in office and his style was quite un-presidential. One could say that he was being democratic and had the zeal of a reformer. But holding office and leading street demonstrations require different hats,” Banerjee wrote.

Since his ousting, Nasheed has “repeated that he handed over power under duress and as a democrat he hopes India will see his position and, literally, rescue him. Not only that, he wants to bring forward elections to challenge the opposition and test their legitimacy.”

“Having made the point that Maldives is a major security issue for us and bearing in mind the overall international scenario prevailing now, we should bat for a friend. Knowing how slippery the democratic playfield can be and having a sense of who actually has fouled, as a sort of friendly referee, we should award a free kick to the player who has been knocked down.”

However, Banerjee said, “there are no free lunches. We should recommend that Maldivians agree to long term strengthening of democratic institutions and resolve their differences peacefully; different factions must talk to each other and work towards a modus vivendi. Above all, authorities in Maldives must be encouraged to respect human rights and avoid use of force to deal with political dissent.”

Police and protesters attack the military’s headquarters on the morning of February 7:

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police arrest two suspects in connection to murder of 21 year-old man

Police have arrested two suspects, including a minor in connection to the murder of a 21 year-old man who was stabbed on Saturday night.

The victim, identified as Abdul Muheeth of G. Veyru, died while being treated at Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital (IGMH) after he was stabbed in a series of attacks on Saturday night that left three others injured.

Police Sub-Inspector Ahmed Shiyam today said that the two suspects were arrested on Monday night and the police are continuing to investigate the attacks.

Shiyam said that the suspect’s identities or their criminal records cannot be revealed at this time as the investigation is ongoing.

Meanwhile, he observed that the motive for Saturday night’s attacks will be determined as the investigation progress.

Shiyam had earlier said that it was too early for police to determine if Saturday night’s stabbings were gang related, or connected to the ongoing political turmoil in the country.

A spate of stabbings in early 2011 that resulted in the deaths of several young men was blamed by police on gang related activity. Following a police crackdown, relatively few violent attacks were reported for the remainder of the year.

Meanwhile, this is the second murder reported this year. The first was a 76 year-old man who was found murdered with multiple stab wounds on Kudahuvadhoo island in Dhaalu Atoll on Janurary 8.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP boycotts first roadmap meeting: “clear effort to delay substantive discussions”

The first talks of the political parties on the “Roadmap for a Possible Way Forward”, initiated by the President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan, were cancelled on Monday night after the former ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) boycotted the meeting calling it “a clear effort to delay substantive discussions”.

The first meeting was set to start at Nasandhura Palace Hotel at 8.30pm last night with representatives from nine parties, with former Tourism Minister Ahmed Mujthaba appointed as convener by Dr Waheed to mediate the talks.

Representatives of all parties aside from the MDP attended the meeting. After a 15 minute wait for MDP members to appear, Mujthaba told the press the meeting was cancelled due to the absence of MDP.

He noted that unofficial talks however continued between the parties and that date for the next meeting would be set when MDP’s participation was confirmed.

Meanwhile, in a press statement the MDP said it had planned to participate in the talks, and expressed the party’s “commitment to serious talks between responsible political parties to ensure a smooth transition towards early elections, as per the roadmap mediated by the Indian Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai.”

However, according to the statement, MDP decided not to take part “when it became clear that the talks were to include political parties with no democratic mandate, and that they would focus on procedural issues such as the timing and venue for future talks – a clear effort to delay substantive discussions.”.

MDP said the talks must focus on substantive issues such as the timing and conditions for early elections and related transitional arrangements – topics which MDP officials claim were not on last night’s agenda.

“Yesterday’s events – together with comments by Dr Waheed reported in the media – create doubts as to whether he is agreeable to early elections at all,” MDP claimed in the statement.

“The Maldives is in the midst of a serious political crisis. A crisis which can only be resolved by free and fair elections at an early date. In a democracy, only the people have the right to decide who should govern them. It is therefore vital that all serious political parties meet as soon as possible to address the real issue – the date and conditions for early elections. MDP stands ready to participate in such talks for the good of the country,” said MDP Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor.

The party also said it had made it clear that the talks must only involve parties which either have a seat in parliament or in a local council.

Minority opposition Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) headed by the Former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, which was present in last night’s talks, does not have official representation in the parliament or on an elected council. Under parliamentary regulations, MPs who joined Gayoom’s PPM from the Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP) technically count as independent MPs until elected on a PPM ticket in the next parliamentary election.

Minivan News asked Mujthaba about the MDP’s allegations and sought details on the talks, however he responded that the Roadmap Secretariat had decided to temporarily cease giving interviews to the media.

“We have decided to not to give any further interviews to the press at the moment as we are trying to set up the next roadmap meeting,” he explained. “But we will continue to invite MDP to participate in the meeting.

However he added that last night’s meeting had an “open agenda” and members were allowed to discuss all elements of the roadmap.

Meanwhile, speaking on Tuesday morning, Nasheed said the MDP’s position remained that disputes should be resolved through peaceful dialogue and negotiations.

He added that “MDP and most Maldivian citizens” agreed with the DRP’s position that in the event of an early presidential election this year the constitution should be amended to ensure there would not be another election in 2013.

Discussions should therefore involve political parties represented in parliament as a two-third majority would be needed to approve the constitutional amendments, Nasheed continued, suggesting that smaller parties without any seats in Majlis “would find it difficult at the moment to help with deciding a date for an election.”

Minority parties could however participate in talks on reforming the judiciary and security services, Nasheed suggested.

MDP would enter discussions today on amending the constitutional provision requiring an election in 2013, Nasheed revealed, inviting other political parties to join the talks.

“In my view, what we lost was democracy,” Nasheed said. “What we lost was not the rule of Galolhu Kenereege Mohamed Nasheed. His rule isn’t important either. Nor is he a very important person. What we have lost are principles and conventions we have long-desired for this country – these were essential for our development and progress.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

India should give free kick to a friend: former Indian High Commissioner

The sudden resignation of President Nasheed in Maldives on February 7 took many by surprise, writes A. K. Banerjee, former Indian High Commissioner in the Maldives, for the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA).

The media in India reported it as a coup, a military takeover, the President was forced out, etc. Nasheed’s description of the change as a coup gave it a particular flavour. India is allergic to coups in its neighbourhood. It has had to get used to them in Pakistan and is wary of them in Bangladesh. This reflex is rooted in its deep seated commitment to democracy with a supreme civilian authority.

Coups also imply surprises and India does not particularly care for them. In the instant case the association of the word coup with Maldives set off a reflex and a chain reaction set in thereafter. India remembered the coup attempted in Maldives in 1988 when it had to rush its forces there to restore the government’s authority. An implied threat to its own security from an unstable situation in Maldives caused the Government to take the line of least resistance ie, accept the newly sworn in President, Dr. Waheed and assure him support and treat the matter as an internal issue of Maldives, to be sorted out by them.

Overall, the message that went out of New Delhi was that while it cannot be unconcerned about happenings in that country, it is prepared to work with whoever is legitimately in power there. However, the issue of legitimacy has now come to the fore and many feel that this needs to be looked at closely. Also, by being the first country to accept the developments there as an internal matter, India set an example for others to follow [witness the US position].

Democracies are however notoriously unstable to begin with and need patience and commitment all round. Maldives is no different and its institutions have not worked properly so far. The President was getting increasingly frustrated and the opposition confronted him at every step. Nasheed, long used to agitating for change and clamouring for power, did not, it seems, grow in office and his style was quite un-presidential. One could say that he was being democratic and had the zeal of a reformer. But holding office and leading street demonstrations require different hats.

Nasheed and his supporters faced opposition from a rich business class which controlled the mainstay of the Maldivian economy, i.e., the tourism industry. The downturn in the European economies, which sends the bulk of tourists to Maldives, has negatively affected this sector, which, in turn, impacted on the domestic political dynamics.

In describing his ouster as a coup, perhaps Nasheed wanted to indirectly involve India which he felt he was justified in doing given his attempts to bring the two countries closer, apart from his genuine democratic credentials. Yet at the same time he did not want armed conflict in his country or a civil war like situation. Since his ouster he has been loudly proclaiming his democratic credentials and wants India to hear him. He has repeated that he handed over power under duress and as a democrat he hopes India will see his position and, literally, rescue him. Not only that, he wants to bring forward elections to challenge the opposition and test their legitimacy at the hustings.

What should India do? Having made the point that Maldives is a major security issue for us and bearing in mind the overall international scenario prevailing now, we should bat for a friend. Knowing how slippery the democratic playfield can be and having a sense of who actually has fouled, as a sort of friendly referee, we should award a free kick to the player who has been knocked down.

How can we do that? We should work for a unitary government and persuade all to agree to early elections. But since there are no free lunches, we should recommend that Maldivians agree to long term strengthening of democratic institutions and resolve their differences peacefully; different factions must talk to each other and work towards a modus vivendi. Above all, authorities in Maldives must be encouraged to respect human rights and avoid use of force to deal with political dissent.

Read more

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

India has let the Maldives down: Headlines Today

Ousted president Mohamed Nasheed, 44, was talking to his core group of advisers at his ancestral home ‘Keenerege’ in Male when the news of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s letter of support to new President Waheed Hassan Manik, 59, came in, writes Gaurav C Sawant, for Headlines Today.

A shocked Nasheed, or Anni as he is known to friends, could not speak for several minutes. Those in the room say there were tears in his eyes. “He felt he had been let down by a friend,” said Ameen Faisal, Nasheed’s close friend and the country’s national security adviser before the alleged coup.

Nasheed had stepped out of his home on February 8 to address his Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) workers when the ‘notorious’ Star Force crackdown began. The former president took refuge in a hardware store but they were found and taken into custody. Nasheed, who was the first democratically elected president of Maldives, says he was ousted in a military-backed coup and that Waheed, the vice-president, was involved.

Faisal, who was high commissioner to India-designate till the alleged coup on February 7, says India has made a strategic blunder in the Indian Ocean Region. “I was the defence minister of Maldives. I know how both China and Pakistan are desperately trying to make inroads here. We are India’s natural allies. Yet instead of supporting the first democratically elected president, India put its weight behind forces that want to make Maldives the Pakistan of the Indian Ocean,” Faisal insists.

Nasheed, too, expressed his disappointment with India’s response. “India’s stand is misguided and ill-informed. I hope they will consider a course correction,” he told India Today. Nasheed feels New Delhi is taking him for granted and India may lose its influence to China, Faisal added.

China is desperately pushing its economic diplomacy. “The Maldivian National Defence Force was keen to renew its defence agreement with Beijing. Twice they came to me when I was president. I refused,” Nasheed said.

Read more

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Commonwealth delegation departs, ahead of extraordinary CMAG meeting

The Commonwealth ministerial delegation sent to investigate the circumstances surrounding the sudden transfer of power in the Maldives on February 7 has departed.

The information collected by the delegation will be reviewed and presented to the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) at an extraordinary meeting to be held in London this week.

The delegation, led by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Communications of Trinidad and Tobago, Surujrattan Rambachan, gave a brief but vague statement to the media on their departure. He was accompanied by Dr Dipu Moni, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bangladesh, and Dennis Richardson AO, Australian Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and former head of Australia’s secret intelligence agency, ASIO.

The objective, Rambachan said, was “to develop a better understanding of the circumstances surrounding the transfer of power in this country earlier this month, as well as to promote adherence to Commonwealth values and principles. We believe we are returning with the enhanced understanding of the situation that we came to seek.”

“We have held detailed discussions with a wide range of stakeholders, including President Waheed, former President Nasheed, the Speaker of the Majlis, the Chief Justice, several political parties, independent institutions, relevant military and police personnel, as well as others. We have also consulted international partners and civil society,” Rambachan said, reading the delegation’s departure statement.

“The Maldives is a valued member of the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth has had a long association with the democratic transition in this country. It will continue to support Maldives in every possible way as it seeks to find a way forward at this difficult time.”

Answering questions, the delegation resisted being drawn into discussion as to their preliminary findings, or their position on early elections, stating that the mission was non-judgemental and that much of the information received was still to reviewed before a report was compiled ahead of the CMAG meeting.

“We cannot pronounce at this stage whether something is illegal or legal, constitutional or unconstitutional,” said Dr Moni. “We have collected information and we really need to sit down and go through it. We came here with a very neutral mind. We will report our recommendations to CMAG.”

Whatever conclusion was arrived at “must be according to the interest of the Maldivian people,” noted Rambachan.

“We had discussions with political parties on the topic of a way forward. Early elections are something people are considering and we have asked for views and opinions. That will form part of our deliberations in London. The wishes of the Maldivian people must be taken into full consideration.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Q&A: “Silent coup has become the armed coup” – Aishath Velezinee

Aishath Velezinee was formerly the President’s Member on the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), the watchdog body assigned to appoint and investigate complaints against judges. Two years ago she turned whistleblower and alleged the JSC was complicit in protecting judges appointed under the Gayoom’s government, and was colluding with parliament to ensure legal impunity for senior opposition supporters. In January 2011 she was stabbed twice in the back in broad daylight.

JJ Robinson: What do you think of the international community’s initial reaction to the events of February 7?

Aishath Velezinee: I think they fail to see the dynamics behind this country – it is all very personal and based on individuals.

[Maldivians] have a very deep understanding of this – the actors involved. The international community does not. So the international community is taking much at face value, and they are measuring what they see against the standards they hold.

These are not our standards – what I’ve seen in the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) is far below the standards of what you would expect from ordinary people in any democracy. An ordinary person would not act like the duty bearers here have done. It is absolutely unbelievable.

JJ: You have often spoken about a ‘silent coup’ – a collusion between the judiciary, the JSC and opposition-aligned members of parliament to preserve the pliability of the judiciary as it was under former Justice Ministry and President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom. What do you mean when you said ‘the silent coup has become the armed coup’?

AV: The heart of the silent coup was the Criminal Court. The former regime wanted to maintain their influence on the criminal court.

You can see that a number of powerful and influential politicians and businessmen – and businessmen who are politicians – have cases pending against them. This gives reason as to why they would want to keep a hold on the criminal court.

Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed was the man facilitating them to carry on with that, giving cover to the very serious corruption that has been continuing for a number of years in this country. This is highly entrenched corruption – state corruption.

When Abdulla Mohamed went missing – as they say – I believe the opposition feared they were losing control over the judiciary, and that is why they came out on the streets. If you look at the so called public protests, it was opposition leaders and gang members. We did not see the so-called public joining them – they were a public nuisance really.

For nearly three weeks they were going around destroying public property and creating disturbances. It wasn’t a people thing – we can say that. We locals – we know who was there on the streets. There is footage and evidence available of it. We’ve seen the destruction they were causing in Male’ every day.

To the international community it’s a crowd of people – and to them that’s the public. It’s a public protest to them. But it was not.

Then we need to consider who was involved in the free Abdulla Mohamed campaign. These are the same people I have previously accused of covering up and being conspirators in the silent coup. Amongst them was Independent MP Mohamed Nasheed – currently the chair of the parliamentary oversight committee on independent commissions – who has a duty to investigate the JSC.

On 6 February 2012, I finally got in writing from the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) their response to my complaints about the JSC in May 2010.

They said that the matter of Article 285 and the JSC’s high treason was forwarded to Parliament for further investigation on 9 September, 2010.

Where is it? We haven’t heard anything of it. So why was MP Nasheed not doing his duty and investigating this? Why was he out on the street campaigning to free Abdulla Mohamed when this question is before him and he needs to look into it? Why was MP Abdul Raheem bragging on VTV – immediately after the national security committee meeting – that he had deliberately disrupted the meeting to prevent me from speaking? It’s a huge cover up.

JJ: Why do you think the international community is unaware of this?

AV: The international community is not fluent in the Dhivehi language. And all of the evidence I have – on tape – is in Dhivehi. I cannot get them to listen to that. All they hear is me talking, and as you know, nobody else has dared to come out publicly and take this up.

JJ: Where does this place you now? Considering you have all this evidence you must have some concern for your safety?

AV: All I have is with the police, the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF), the ACC, and with parliament. So I don’t know. They could easily destroy it. It’s not being shared with the parliament. I have asked MPs in the independent commissions committee if they are aware of this letter from the ACC – they are not. Since 2010 we have been working with the judiciary whose legitimacy is actually in question.

The issue was not taken up by anybody. The issue of Article 285 and JSC’s high treason was taken up by myself, as a sitting member under oath, and I think that should be enough reason for them to investigate. But the only response I get from people is: “There were 10 people in there. Why just you?”

In a conspiracy where a majority of the people join together to commit a crime, why would they come out and speak about it? High treason was committed in the JSC with the confidence that there would be no investigation.

I believe the Speaker sitting there has been the cover for the JSC to cater to their old masters. They are very confident that the silent coup will remain uninvestigated.

JJ: On paper, the reappointment of the judges in 2010 occurred before parliament had passed the requisite legislation determining the educational, moral and ethical criteria for a judge? Does that not undermine the legitimacy of all verdicts issued after that period?

AV: Article 285 is not tied to any law. It is to prevent politicisation of the judiciary. The JSC is supposed to be working independently as an institution, and although it includes people from various parties – MPs and the Attorney General – each of us had a conduct of conduct under which we were supposed to be impartial. But that’s not how the JSC was functioning.

Everyone assumes because I was appointed by the President that I was colluding with the President. But if anyone bothered to look at the evidence – the recordings of the meetings – they would find the reality is different.

JJ: This evidence you have – are people just not bothering to look at it, or are they unable to do so because of the language barrier?

AV: Nobody has looked at the evidence. It has all been based on weight – nine to one. Woman to nine men. I feel very insulted.

JJ: Some of the visiting media expressed an interest in the situation with the judge and the lead up to the judicial crisis which precipitated these events. But how can you explain that in a two minute soundbite?

AV: You can’t. It is too complex. All of this is very complex and we can’t take anything at face value. We need to access available documentation, and we need people to access the other evidence available. But all the fact finding missions and investigation teams are based on just talking to people.

If you just talk to people, the story you get depends on who you talk to. The facts are the evidence.

People have asked me why I did not take it up with groups like HRCM. There is no place I have not taken it to – and I could not access the international community when I did not even have an office. I was under oath as a JSC member, but the commission put me out on the street to work. I was working like an activist – and alone.

JJ: On the bright side many people must be feeling they should have listened to you a long time ago?

AV: Yes. But it seems we missed the chance to fix it – to fix Article 285.

Now it’s politics that will solve this. In 1957 we had a constitution for seven months. Now we have had one for three years and failed again. We have to do what we failed to do and focus on strengthening judiciary. But when a serious national security issue being examined in parliamentary committee is disrupted and it ceases to continue with investigation, what does it say?

The Maldivian Democratic Party needs to focus on 285. They need to start talking constitution, about how they got into this. They need to back me – I submitted these cases and President Nasheed was still waiting for a response. You can’t run a state without a judiciary – and the judiciary is still under the control of the former regime

JJ: Even if early elections are called, that would not help the judicary?

AV: There is no judiciary as guaranteed to the people under this constitution.

JJ: What do you make of the new Attorney General, Azima Shukoor?

AV: I know her from primary school. We were in the same class until grade 10. I know her quite well – and I also know what she’s been doing in recent years.

I also know Gayoom’s government because I worked in that government for 19 years and six months. I know all of the individual players in this game, very, very well.

Gayoom had this practice of moving around people he found difficult, so I had the opportunity to work in a number of government departments and ministries, and to get to know quite a lot of powerful players in the opposition today. I know how they operate – their modus operandi. I know how they function.

My mistake was to trust. I trusted members of the JSC to uphold the constitution. I trusted the Speaker to uphold the constitution. And where I saw they were acting against the constitution I found it really hard to comprehend. It was happening every day. But I couldn’t believe it until the last moment.

JJ: Where to from here? What do you think happens now?

AV: Article 285 is going to be buried in history. I do not think we have the willingness or capacity in any of the state institutions to fully investigate exactly what happened in the JSC.

But what happened in the JSC must be haunting some of its members, if, months after I was stabbed, they are still discussing in a recorded sitting about how to silence me. On 17 Janurary 2011, two weeks after I was stabbed, MP Dr Afrashim Ali said I was “dangerous”, and the high court appointee was saying “We have to think about our future, our security. We have to silence her.” I have audios clips of that meeting on the 17th. I have the whole 1.5 hour recording – it’s there, you can hear it. A friend helped me do cuts and I have circulated it on Facebook. I put it on YouTube (Part one, two, three).

They fear an investigation because if there is an investigation, what I have said will be proven. All they are betting on is using their political weight to prevent an investigation.

JJ: You are making copies of the evidence?

AV: When Nasheed resigned I put everything away – I have nothing in my home any more. These are probably the only copies we have now.

Considering that the JSC actually tampered with and edited the audio recordings when they submitted them to parliament in 2010, they have shown they will destroy the evidence.

I have copies of audio tapes of proceedings in the JSC during Article 285 – and after. As well as from when their focus was on covering it up.

JJ: It is interesting that they continued to record the meetings, given all the other procedures not followed.

AV: They were not recording meetings when I initially joined the commission. They were working completely unconstitutionally.

The JSC refused technical assistance from the International Committee of Jurists (ICJ) and others. Instead they were themselves talking about strengthening the judiciary. What judiciary was there to strengthen when it was unconstitutionally appointed? It’s actually the people who have lost, not President Nasheed or the so-called President Waheed. The people have lost.

JJ: What do you make of Dr Waheed? Given his UN background and benign demeanour, he seems an unlikely leader of a coup d’état.

AV: He might have thought it was a power grab and that he was the man who was going to lead this. But he may be realising that he too is being played, is a tool of the opposition – of Gayoom’s family. I think he found out too late. He’s either an idiot or a tyrant. Right now it looks like both.

Let’s say President Nasheed did resign under duress. Is it the man who resigns, or is it the government who resigns? If it is the government, then Dr Waheed should be walking out with the President. Then it is the Speaker who takes over for the interim period.

This national unity government should be formed with the Speaker leading it. You can’t have a politician from a party that does not have a single seat in parliament or in a Council, heading a national unity government.

If he would step aside and permit the Speaker to form a national unity government, that would have more credibility. That would also bring this whole situation back into alignment with the constitution.

Right now we seem to be in a gap. We have a man who was put there by the police and military to lead a national unity government. We haven’t seen the public supporters – the so-called people behind him – anywhere. So what national unity government are we talking of here? Just because the cabinet seats a shared across a number of parties, is it a national unity government? No.

I think it is time the Speaker took charge and led a national unity government, and organised elections, and let the people speak again. Just because the international community is upset with Nasheed’s behaviour, doesn’t mean that they should legitimise a government that the people do not support.

We are talking about the government of the Maldives. And that government should be one that the people of the Maldives want and trust.

JJ: There is a lot of public baiting of police officers at the moment. How helpful is this?

AV: Waheed’s first public statement was to praise the police mutineers. How could he?

What happened on February 8 – that peaceful walk – that was absolutely uncalled for. And we haven’t seen anybody talking about it. Not Waheed, nobody. Why was that? What was the reason for such a violent and brutal attack by the police? Why were they picking on certain people? Why did they chase me saying they would kill me? Why?

JJ: The police chased you?

AV: The police, yes. Why did they spray me at close range?

JJ: They pepper sprayed you?

AV: My eyes – I could not open them – it took me 24 hours to clean myself of it. There was a police commander – I was walking in the middle of the crowd. When they chased us I ran with the people. There was this lane – I went in and I think President Nasheed was there. I pulled him by the shirt, then I ran in front and his men came and surrounded him. I passed the shop where he had gone in for cover. Then I came face to face with the police. There was a commander – he screamed out: “That’s the bitch, kill her!”.

Someone stepped in front of me and pepper sprayed me. I grabbed someone running away and said “I’m blinded, they’re going to kill me. Take me, take me.”

Somebody helped me across the street and took me to a safe place.

JJ: Are you concerned for your safety now?

AV: I’m very scared. You have seen their whole approach to my allegations. To deny it – not by arguing over the substance, but by slandering me, and ignoring it. They either slander or ignore.

I’m afraid that considering their approach, they are not going to make a big deal of taking me to court and trying me. They will find other ways of silencing me. It was scary.

This is not about Nasheed or Waheed. It is about the constitution. I really wish the international community would see beyond the obvious. What the opposition is afraid of is separation of powers, and the institutuion of a democracy. It is not Nasheed – Nasheed they can defeat in an election, if they have the people power. But they are afraid of a democratic system where they cannot carry on high level corruption, where they cannot control the judiciary or the independent commissions – and the media. That they fear.

A lot of the younger politicians who have played different roles in covering this up I don’t think are aware of the depth and dirtiness of this coup. It sounds like a conspiracy novel – but it is reality. And people are finding it hard to believe becasue of that.

JJ: To what extent is this about people power? What happens if police or the army are given an order they don’t want to comply with?

AV: I don’t think Waheed is controlling them. We’re seeing [Defence Minister Mohamed] Nazim – Nazim is from the National Security Service (NSS) of before [under Gayoom]. The police and the military were separated in 2005. Nazim is pre-2005. Nazim probably controls the police though [Police Commissioner] Abdulla Riyaz, while he controls the MNDF. Jameel’s role, as Home Minister, is the judiciary. He is the former justice minister. He knows individually all the sitting judges – he wrote the handouts they learned from.

JJ: Do you think people played politics too long with the judiciary – including the MDP side? People are asking why, if this was the issue, Nasheed did not act earlier?

AV: He would know. For one thing I think it was very difficult for him when his own Attorney General [Husnu Suood] was not taking up the matter. Suood was sitting in the JSC with me. But it was only me and Sheikh Shuaib Rahman – the member appointed from among the general public – who went to the ACC.

The Attorney General removed himself from the JSC at the time. I think he realised the politics of it, and took the safe road.

I put myself in danger, taking this up, knowing quite well the politics behind this. But I didn’t feel I had a choice. I was required as an office bearer under oath to work in the interest of the people and the constitution. And my interest in bringing it out to the public was to give them a chance to get their judiciary.

JJ: Will things get worse when the international media and the diplomatic community move on?

AV: Everyone is going about their daily business and to the outside world it looks normal. But the moment they leave, I believe we are in danger.

It is scary – the hatred. These men – the men in action on the 8th – it was their emotions that came out. This was something they carry inside. The hatred. What I fear is that it seems like the police, since their mutiny, can act with impunity. Individual police officers can take up their own greviances against individuals with impunity.

JJ: Do you think the military is in a similar situation?

AV: No, I think the military have largely managed to keep themselves outside the politics. But the leadership of today – which we see has not gone according to rank – is politicised, and part of the conspiracy.

JJ: Have you considered moving somewhere safer?

AV: I don’t see a real solution to this. I think I owe it to people to write this down. I should seriously sit down and write. But it is too heavy at the moment; being amongst events here and the people, fearing for my own safety, I cannot comfortably sit down. But I need to write the story of the silent coup – of how the constitution has been killed without changing a single letter. They have managed to commit high treason under the cover of the constitution.

Today we are in a far more dangerous situation than we were pre-constitution 2008. Then everyone knew it was autocracy, and that all the powers of the state were constitutionally given to one man. Today it is taken at face value that there are separation of powers.

I have policemen bragging on my Facebook page: “We brought down this government. Next time we see you in a rally we are going to kill you.”

Policemen on Facebook. They don’t seem to mind doing it publicly. Before they might have been more subtle – now there seems to be no order at all.

JJ: While the new government is seeking to establish its legitimacy – and the resorts are losing money – do you think there is risk of further crackdowns?

AV: There is no public support for government. And the international community wants to legitimise it. I would like to see Dr Waheed hold a rally, with his 12 parties. Let’s count numbers.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)