The Maldives faces a constitutional meltdown following a difference of opinion between opposition parties and the government regarding the legitimacy of institutions such as the Supreme Court, after the transition period expired last night.
According to the government’s interpretation, institutions such as the civil service commission, Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) and the courts ceased to have legitimacy on conclusion of the interim period at midnight, after parliament failed to legislate for their continuity.
The Attorney General resigned this morning, claiming that while he had some responsibility for the ‘constitutional void’, a great deal more lay with the opposition-majority parliament and Speaker Abdulla Shahid, an MP of the main opposition DRP.
President Mohamed Nasheed had nominated a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and was reportedly waiting for parliament to pass a bill on judges to determine how many more justices should be elected to the bench, however the Speaker cancelled the session prior to the deadline despite expressing earlier confidence that the interim matters would be resolved before the deadline.
“The Majlis failed to get its work done on time. This left the President with two options: allow the country to have no Supreme Court at all; or issue a decree so at least the administrative functions of the Supreme Court can continue. The President chose the latter option,” said Press Secretary Mohamed Zuhair.
Nasheed issued a decree at midnight that the trial courts – the Criminal and High Courts – would continue to function, while the interim appellate court consisting of four members “of high repute” would oversee the administrative aspects of the Supreme Court, such as receiving appeals.
“We hope Majlis members will hurry up and pass the required legislation so the court can function as envisaged under the Constitution,” Zuhair said.
However the four members of the government’s short-lived appellate court resigned this afternoon, Zuhair later confirmed, citing commitment to other duties but most likely seeking to avoid the political cross hairs aimed at the positions.
Moreover, the Civil Court today ruled that the Supreme Court bench remains valid, and that the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) was obliged to return the keys to the building to the sitting judges.
The government will appeal in the High Court – despite the resignation of the Attorney General – using the MNDF, which has its own lawyers, Zuhair stated.
Similarly, the opposition argues that under Article 284 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is not beholden to the interim deadline and is obliged to function as normal, until the new court is appointed by parliament.
Article 284 under the chapter on transitional matters reads: “The Supreme Court appointed pursuant to this Chapter shall continue until the establishment of the Supreme Court”.
“There’s no argument about it; it’s very clear,” said former Attorney General Azima Shukoor, legal representation to opposition People’s Alliance (PA) MP Abdulla Yameen, whom the government detained for more than a week on accusations of treason and bribery.
“There are no issues with dates – [the Constitution] very clearly states that there has to be a Supreme Court of five members. The government is trying to take control of the judiciary.”
The government contends that the entire chapter on transitional matters – including Article 284 and others governing the interim Supreme Court – were annulled at the conclusion of the transitional period last night, plunging the country into a “constitutional void” following parliament’s failure to legislate the continuation of several institutions.
President’s member on the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), Aishath Velezinee, said the clause relating to the Supreme Court was “not indefinite”, and referred to appointment of judges “at any time within the two year transitional time period.”
“[Husnu Suood] was arguing last night that parliament needed to meet before midnight and approve an extension of the interim period, which seemed like a very sensible thing to do,” Velezinee said. “If [parliament] were working in good faith, they would have done that.”
Writing on his personal blog, independent MP for Kulhudhufushi South, Mohamed Nasheed, who was the legal reform minister when the constitution was ratified, concurred that the country had “officially fallen into a constitutional void” following parliament’s failure to complete transitional matters in the two year period set by the constitution.
Nasheed, who first warned of the repercussions of missing the constitutional deadline for last year’s parliamentary elections, argues that institutions or posts created after a constitutionally stipulated deadline would not be legitimate.
As a consequence, he writes, the legal status of parliament, the Elections Commission and the Anti-Corruption Commission were in doubt, as all three were formed after the deadlines elapsed.
Moreover, he added, the deadline for local council elections passed in July 2009, the new Supreme Court has not been formed, the reappointment of judges was questionable, lower courts had not been instituted and an Auditor General as well as members to the Civil Service Commission and Human Rights Commission are yet to be appointed.
That both the executive and legislature had failed to deliver the lawful state envisioned in the Constitution, Nasheed writes, was a source of “shame and sadness”.
With the two main parties at loggerheads, Nasheed writes that the distance between the parties has only grown and there was no longer an environment conducive to political negotiation and compromise.
Instead of assigning blame, he urged, both sides should be looking for a solution to the crisis.
As a solution, Nasheed suggested the parliament complete transitional matters as soon as possible, and then call a public referendum to determine whether citizens approved of the post-interim process.
The referendum could be held concurrently with local council elections, he suggested, whereby citizens could be asked to endorse new provisions inserted to the constitution to legitimise the “belated” institutions.
“If a solution cannot be found within the constitution, shouldn’t we get the direct say of citizens?” he asked.
Meanwhile, in an possible bid to encourage the opposition to return to the chamber, the Foreign Ministry has suspended the ambassadors to Sri Lanka, China, and Saudi Arabia, all three of whom were appointed by the former administration and were not endorsed by parliament prior to the interim deadline.
The government has also been negotiating with the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) to send a mission to the Maldives to help establish an independent judiciary.
Commonwealth Secretariat Spokesperson Eduardo del Buey confirmed the Commonwealth Secretariat had received a request from the government of Maldives “for assistance in constituting an interim appellate court drawn from Commonwealth judges.”
“We are considering this request as a priority, and will respond to the Government shortly. In responding, we will be discussing with the Government how best to ensure adherence to the Latimer House Principles, which define the separation of the three branches of Government and to which all Commonwealth governments have committed themselves,” del Buey said.
Velezinee has also called for the mediation of the UN Special Rapporteur on Independent Judiciary, claiming that she did not believe anyone in the country would be trusted enough by both sides to establish the core institution.
Despite the burgeoning political crisis of the the last few days, and aside from minor scuffles between protesters outside parliament last night, Male’ has been relatively calm and turmoil largely restricted to the political echelons.
The holy month of Ramadan begins on August 11, when the pace in the normally frenetic capital typically slows considerably.
The Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) confiscated the keys to the Supreme Court on Saturday afternoon pending the conclusion of the interim period of the Constitution.
Press Secretary Mohamed Zuhair said the President had ordered the move “to prevent entry until the Majlis (parliament) reaches a consensus [on appointing the new Supreme Court judges].”
Zuhair explained the decision to confiscate the keys was made “to avoid unforeseen circumstances, because right now there is a difference of opinion as to what will happen should the Majlis fail to reach a decision by tonight.”
The current Supreme Court judges have previously declared themselves permanent in a letter sent to President Mohamed Nasheed, although the President’s member on the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), Aishath Velezinee, claims this was unconstitutional “and no one has recognised or even mentioned it.”
According to the constitution, the president is required to nominate the new Supreme Court judges following consultation with the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), and then present the names to parliament to approve in a vote.
Nasheed has already nominated Supreme Court Judge Uz Ahmed Faiz Hussain for the position of Chief Justice, however “he has not been able nominate [the rest of the bench] because parliament has not yet passed the Bill on Judges that stipulates the number required,” Velezinee said.
The constitution obligates parliament to resolve the matter before the end of today, however scheduled sessions were postponed to 8pm and then eventually cancelled in a statement issued by the Speaker, opposition DRP MP Abdulla Shahid, on the grounds that both sides were unable to decide the matter.
The Majlis was also to approve nominations for the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) and the Civil Service Commission (CSC).
Under the constitution, the cancellation effectively leaves the country in a legal ‘limbo’ period as of midnight, without several institutions functioning legitimately including the country’s highest court – “as of midnight there are no Supreme Court judges”, Zuhair noted.
Parliament has also yet to approve the reinstated cabinet ministers.
A senior government official told Minivan News that “rather than leave the country without a legitimate judiciary on conclusion of the interim period, the President will decree at midnight that the trial courts [the Criminal and High Courts] will continue to function, while an interim body of credible judges of high reputation will serve as an appellate court, under advisory of the Commonwealth.”
Appellate courts have been used in countries like the United States, and are typically limited to reviewing decisions made by lower courts rather than hearing new evidence.
Foreign Minister Dr Ahmed Shaheed confirmed the President had proposed to decree that the two trial courts continue to function after midnight, “to give parliament time to pass the necessary legislation.”
However Dr Shaheed said the President would not re-mandate the current Supreme Court bench, “because that would be a de-facto extension and could go on forever.”
“Parliament has failed to complete legislation that would give legitimacy to the Supreme Court [under the new Constitution],” Dr Shaheed said.
He also said that while the government had asked the Commonwealth for assistance running the interim appellate court, it had not yet received an answer. The government had also briefed the UN Resident Coordinator, Andrew Cox, he said.
“It’s not just tonight’s cancellation [of parliament],” Dr Shaheed said. “Parliament has had two years to do these things. It baffles me why they would put the country in this situation – tonight people should be asking who they should blame.”
Minivan News was still waiting for a response from Attorney General Husnu Suood at time of press, following the announcement of the appellate court.
Suood had previously told newspaper Haveeru that parliament had the option of extending the transition period for another one to two months with a two-thirds majority vote, or by appointing a new chief justice before midnight.
“Questionable matters will arise when this state is over,” Suood told Haveeru.
Velezinee told Minivan News that the country was now “in a vacuum”, and the JSC had been asked to be on call to meet with the President and suggest names should parliament reach a decision.
She noted that the JSC now consisted of eight members, as the Supreme Court’s member and head of the commission Mujthaz Fahmy and ex-officio member of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Dr Mohamed Latheef no longer retained their positions on conclusion of the interim period, until reappointed.
“I have asked the Secretary General to call the police if they try and enter the building,” she added.
Leader of the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) Dr Hassan Saeed has called on the UK-based Law Society to lead a mission to the Maldives to assess the erosion of the rule of law, in an interview with the organisation’s publication The Law Society Gazette.
Dr Saeed told the Society that President Mohamed Nasheed, “a former political prisoner dubbed the Maldives ‘Nelson Mandela’”, was dismantling the 2008 Constitution and trying to “crush citizens’ rights under foot”.
President Nasheed was establishing his own “public courts” to replace independent courts, the Society reported Dr Saeed as claiming, while “courts are suspended” and “judges assaulted.”
In the article, the Society’s president Linda Lee urged the Maldives authorities “to uphold and protect key constitutional principles.”
Minivan News contacted the DQP seeking clarification of the claims.
Regarding the assaults on judges, the party’s Secretary General Abdulla Ameen noted that following a ruling in a case concerning Juhmoree Party MP Gasim Ibrahim by Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed, “a lot of people went outside [the judge’s] house and physically threatened him, and set his motorcycle on fire.”
Concerning the suspension of courts, “the government has created a culture of fear among the judiciary, and they have had to cancel sessions and hold emergency meetings because of the increase in tension.”
The government had breached the rights of individuals “by arresting people without warrants,” Ameen said, referring to the recent detention of People’s Alliance MP Abdulla Yameen on the Presidential Retreat of Aarah following accusations of bribery and treason.
He also criticised the government for leaking audio tapes appearing to implicate MPs for corruption, “despite the Constitution clearly protecting private conversations between individuals.”
Ameen said Dr Saeed had requested the Law Society send an independent delegation to investigate the issues, “but if any other [institution] is interested we would also welcome it.”
The President’s member on the Judicial Services Commission Aishath Velezinee has also appealed for the UN Special Rapporteur on Independent Judiciary and the International Committee of Jurists (ICJ) to send mediators to the Maldives.
Foreign Minister Dr Ahmed Shaheed said Dr Saeed’s claims in the Law Society article were “totally out of orbit.”
“One has to wonder what he is talking about – look at his own track record serving under former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom [as Attorney General]. We are clearly making steady progress,” Dr Shaheed said.
“Claiming that judges are being assaulted is very irresponsible. I’m not aware of any case where a judge has been assaulted, and in such an event there are domestic remedies available,” Dr Shaheed said.
Regarding Dr Saeed’s claim that courts were being suspended, “that’s outrageous. I’m not aware of a single time this has happened.”
“When a lawyer becomes a politician, they must continue to respect certain professional ethics as well,” he said.
“They are out to tarnish [President] Nasheed’s image, and they have taken issue with his awards and his description as South Asia’s ‘Nelson Mandela’,” Dr Shaheed said. “I think this is a case of the green-eyed monster.”
The request by the Law Society that the government respect the rule of law was “a standard expectation and we respect it.”
“The government is not disregarding the law,” he said. “Look at the behaviour of the other [arms of state]. Parliament is trying to usurp the powers of the executive, and the judiciary is behaving very questionably.”
Working in such an environment, Dr Shaheed said, the President had been called upon to make “some very difficult judgments, such as [the detention and release] of MP Abdulla Yameen.”
Dr Saeed recently led a DQP delegation to the UK to present the opposition coalition’s case to UK politicians and international institutions, employing a PR company to arrange interviews with several organisations, including The Law Society. The trip was jointly funded by the opposition parties, Minivan News was told at the time.
Police cordoned the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) on Monday morning, preventing its staff from working or entering the building, while the President’s Office summoned members of the judicial oversight body for questioning at an 11am meeting.
A statement from the Maldives Police Service (MPS) said the office was closed by police at the request of President Mohamed Nasheed, to prevent “unlawful and unconstitutional work from taking place.”
Police cited Article 115[a] of the Constitution, which concerns the powers of the President and reads that he “must faithfully implement the provisions of this Constitution and the law, and to promote compliance by organs of the State and by the people.”
Sub-Inspector Ahmed Shiyam said the President requested police investigate the institution after hearing reports that the JSC had been “open all night acting illegally.”
Speaking to Minivan News, Attorney General Husnu Suood said commission members, including JSC head and Supreme Court Justice Mujthaz Fahmy, met President Mohamed Nasheed and explained that the commission was attempting to finalise work on the reappointment of 160 sitting judges before the Constitutional deadline of August 7.
A complaint that papers had been illegally removed from the premises had proven unfounded, Suood added, noting that following the meeting the President had asked police to remove the cordon.
“I think the present criteria for judges, as determined on July 27, is acceptable, subject to the 37 judges who have been identified as having criminal records,” Suood said.
The President’s member on the JSC, Aishath Velezinee, has submitted a complaint to Parliament’s Independent Commissions Committee (ICC) alleging that the “substandards” being used to grant life tenure to judges appointed under the former administration would “rob the country of an honest judiciary, as guaranteed under Article 285 of the Constitution.”
“Most [of the current judges] haven’t completed primary school,” she told Minivan News in a recent interview.
Suood said that “If there is evidence of corruption and political fixing of the judicial appointments, then I support the President’s actions [today].”
The Attorney General added that he was not convinced of the integrity of the current Supreme Court: “I do not trust it. I see certain incidents occurring that I am having to think about,” he said.
Velezinee has appealed to the Independent Commissions Committee (ICC) to issue an injunction preventing the reappointment of judges pending an investigation of the JSC.
Minivan News understands that a meeting between the JSC and the ICC today focused on the procedural functioning of the commission, and not the complaints made against it.
Prior to this meeting on Monday, staff at the commission confided that they were ordered into the commission on Sunday night and had been kept up working until 2:00am printing letters of reappointment for the judges, Velezinee explained.
A staff member from the Supreme Court was also observed to be directing proceedings, Velezinee alleged, claiming that this was a clear violation of the JSC’s independence.
“The first to be processed was Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, Abdulla Mohamed. He was convicted in 2000 for violating the Religious Unity Act and disobeying orders,” she claimed.
The JSC has argued that convictions for crimes under the former Constitution should not be a barrier for reappointment, and should instead be determined on a case-by-case basis.
“At the same time they are trying to restore the same culture that [issued those convictions],” Velezinee stated.
“Presenting the letters of reappointment is the final step [of the reappointments]. The judges have to first perform an oath-taking ceremony arranged by the Supreme Court at the instruction of the JSC, but none of the JSC staff know anything about this. The commission members are being very secretive,” Velezinee said.
She further accused commission members of ordering the tampering of evidence submitted to the ICC.
“Two days ago the Secretary General admitted to me that recordings of meetings were edited ‘for ease of use,'” she claimed, “and recordings were cut before being sent to the Majlis so they would fit on one CD.”
It was also common practice for the commission to edit her out of the meeting minutes, she explained, and members were regularly given insufficient information on which to base their votes.
“I believe the public should have access to the full transcripts and recordings of the meetings,” she said. “The people will be outraged.”
Velezinee called for an open and transparent public inquiry into the activities of the JSC, with the participation of impartial mediators from an organisation such as the UN or the International Committee of Jurists, acceptable to both sides, “as we do not have anyone impartial enough [in the Maldives].”
“The judiciary is the foundation that will uphold the future of our country,” Velezinee said. “I want the opportunity to write a report, but have not yet been given the chance – all the evidence is available, and the public needs to hear this. If I am wrong they can shoot me.”
Minivan News attempted on several occasions to contact JSC President Mujthaz Fahmy and Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid, but they were not responding at time of press.
The Criminal Court last night ordered the release of seven men arrested by police in connection with a series of stabbings over the weekend, including the murder of a 17 year-old boy n Friday.
The boy was stabbed in the leg as he was climbing into a lorry, severing a major artery, and slowly bled to death despite eight hours of treatment and blood transfusions.
A police media official said the seven men were arrested after police received information that the men were connected to the death of the 17 year-old boy, and that they had planned similar attacks.
“It is the duty of the police to maintain the peace of the society under article number 49 of the Constitution,’’ he said. “So in order to prevent further attacks they had planned, we requested the Criminal Court grant an extension of their detention, as we had information that there were more planned attacks.’’
He said that all seven men had recent police records of assault and battery and other gang-related crimes.
‘’But the Criminal Court, however, released them,” he added.
Minivan News understands that senior police are furious at the court’s ruling.
“At dawn, some people attacked the private property of a very senior police officer. They burned his motorbike, which cost over Rf100,000,’’ the spokesperson noted, when queried as to the current state of security in Male’.
When Minivan News called the mobile phone of Spokesperson for the Criminal Court Ahmed Riffath, seeking a comment on the ruling, the man who answered claimed Riffath was not there he did not know when or how he could be reached, and quickly hung up.
The international community has urged the Maldives executive to respect the rule of law in negotiating a solution to its current political deadlock with the Majlis (parliament), and in handling its accusations of corruption and treason against several prominent MPs and high-profile businessmen.
In a democracy the judiciary is the crucial arbitrator of any such disputes between the other two arms of government. But Aishath Velezinee, the President’s Member of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), the independent institution tasked with reforming the judiciary and ensuring both its independence and accountability to the public, believes the current state of the judiciary renders it unfit to do so.
Article 285 of the Constitution outlines an interim period for the reappointment of the judiciary by the JSC, according to minimum standards, with a deadline of August 7, 2010. After this, a judge may only be removed for gross incompetency or misconduct in a resolution passed by a two-thirds majority in parliament – the same number required for impeaching the President or Vice President.
Last week the JSC reappointed 160 of the judges appointed by the former government, despite a quarter of the bench possessing criminal records and many others with only primary school level education. The Supreme Court meanwhile sent the President a letter claiming it had ruled itself tenure for life.
Velezinee blows the whistle, speaking to Minivan News about the JSC’s failure to ensure the accountability of the judiciary, the compromise of its own independence at the hands of the Majlis – and the ramifications for the country in the lead up to the August deadline.
JJ Robinson: What is the function of the Judicial Services Commission?
Aishath Velezinee: The main function of the JSC – as I see it – is to maintain judicial integrity, and to build public confidence in the judiciary and individual judges.
The way we would do it under a democratic governance structure would be to hear the complaints of the people, and to look into these matters objectively and independently, and take action if necessary, to assure the public there is no hanky-panky [going on].
But instead of that, we are putting out press releases saying things like: “You can’t criticise judges”, “You can’t criticise the judiciary”, and ‘‘the president is exercising influence over judges”.
JJ: So the JSC is working as shield organisation for judges rather than as a watchdog?
AV: Very much. It is a shield for judges, and the evidence for that is very obvious. We have all this evidence in the media now from what is happening in the criminal court – a fact is a fact.
Why did [Criminal Court] Judge Abdulla Mohamed open the Criminal Court at midnight when two high-profile [opposition MPs Abdulla Yameen and Gasim Ibrahim] were arrested?
From August 2008 to today there have been many instances when the public might have wanted the court to open outside hours. But no – before that day, they have never opened the court out of hours for anybody else.
This was the first time they have done it – and then put out press releases saying it happened at 9pm? This is not the truth. We have evidence it is wrong.
But the Commission takes for granted that whatever the judge says is right. We can’t protect judges and oversee them.
JJ: This was the case taken to the Criminal Court by Yameen’s defence lawyer [former attorney general Azima Shukoor]?
AV: That’s not standard procedure. According to regulations the Criminal Court can only accept submissions from the State.
It would not have been an issue – the defence lawyer would have been given the opportunity to argue the case when the State went to the court. But Yameen’s lawyer initiated it – and got into the Criminal Court in the wee hours of the night – that is strange.
I’m not saying it is right or wrong – I don’t know. But what I do know is that this is out of the ordinary. The JSC has an obligation to the people to ensure the Criminal Court has done nothing wrong.
JJ: How did the JSC react?
AV: They did nothing. Article 22(b) of the Judicial Services Act gives us the power to look into matters arising in public on our own initiative. But what did the JSC do? They said nobody had complained: “We haven’t received an official complaint.” They were waiting for an individual to come and complain.
My experience, from being part of the complaints committee in the JSC, is that whenever a complaint is received, we have two judges on the complaints committee who will defend the [accused] judge, trashing the complainant, and talk about “taking action” against these people “who are picking on judges”.
Then they will put out a press release: “Nobody should interfere with work of judges.” Their interpretation is that “nobody should criticise us. We are above and beyond the law.”
Since January – when the JSC censored its own annual report, despite the law clearly saying what we should include – they decided to hide the names of all judges who had complaints made against them.
Instead, they released the details – including quite private information – about the complainants.
Civil Court judge Mohamed Naeem has "a box-file" of complaints pending, says Velezinee
JJ: What is the current state of the judiciary?
AV: The current judiciary has 198 judges that were appointed prior to this Constitution being adopted. Those judges were appointed by the then-executive: the Ministry of Justice. The appointment procedure, the criteria – none of these were transparent.
They were only given ‘on-the-job’ training. This ‘Certificate in Justice Studies’ they say they have is on-the-job training given after the 1998 Constitution was adopted, to teach them how to run the country according to that Constitution.
How do we expect these people – without exposure to democratic principles and cultures, without exposure to the world, with only basic education, and with only tailor-made on-the-job training for a different Constitution – how do we expect them to respect and uphold this Constitution?
A majority have not even completed primary school. A quarter have criminal convictions: sexual misconduct, embezzlement, violence, disruption of public harmony, all sorts of things – convictions, not accusations.
We are not even looking at the 100 plus complaints we have in the JSC that are unattended to. They have not been tabled. Civil Court Judge Mohamed Naeem has a box-file of complaints against him. And Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed has way too many against him.
JJ: Given the condition of the judiciary, and if the government is in a state of political deadlock with parliament, how is the government able to legitimise accusations against the MPs it has accused of corruption and treason?
AV: That is where we have the problem. The international community seem to have forgotten that this is a new-found democracy. We have in all our institutions people who have been in the previous government. We haven’t changed everybody – and they are still following their own culture, not the law.
How can [the international community] ask for the rule of law to be followed when there are no courts of law? Where are the courts? Where are the judges? A majority never even finished primary school.
Supreme Court Justice and President of the JSC, Mujthaz Fahmy
JJ: What possible reason was there for appointing judges with only primary grade education?
AV: It’s very obvious – just look at the records. As a member of the JSC I have been privy to records kept from before [the current government]. In their files, there are reprimands against judges for not sentencing as they were directed. That was a crime when the Minister of Justice ran the courts. The Ministry of Justice directed judges as to how sentences should be passed, and that was perfectly legitimate under that Constitution.
JJ: Has anything changed since 2008 and when the judges were appointed under the former government?
AV: Yes – what has changed is that [the judges] were freed from the executive. So they are very happy with the freedom they have received. But unfortunately they haven’t understood what that freedom and independence means.
They are looking for a father-figure, and they have found him in the current President of the JSC, Supreme Court Justice Mujthaz Fahmy. He has taken on this role, and he is now the king and father of the judges.
So they are all looking up to him to protect their interests. If you look at all the press releases from the Judges’ Association – which is run from Mujthaz Fahmy’s home address – he makes arbitrary decisions in the JSC and then puts out press statements from this organisation run from his home, to defend his own position.
We are in a very big game. Mujthaz Fahmy has been under the thumb of the former executive for way too long – the man is going on 50, he has been on the bench for 25 years, he has never had anybody come and argue with him – he can’t stand anybody who challenges him. So he’s got a problem with me sitting on the Commission because I do not take his word as the law. The man thinks that anything that comes out of his mouth is the law, and the majority of the JSC members take it as a fact.
But if you look into the documentation, if you look into the recordings – nothing that comes out of that man’s mouth will hold. Those interviews he is giving, all he is using is this image he has built up of himself as ‘the esteemed justice’. That is what he is using to convince the public that he is right. And they are trashing me in public and in biased media, just so people do not listen to me.
I do not ask anybody to take my word. I am saying: hear the recordings in the commission. Listen to what they say.
They have this belief that whatever happens in the Commission must be kept a secret amongst ourselves. This was run like a secret society – we have a pact of secrecy amongst us. I broke it, because I do not believe in tyranny of the majority. What we are seeing here is a repeat of what happened in the High Court in January, what we are currently seeing happen in the Majlis, and the same things are now happening in the JSC.
Elements of the parliament are collaborating with the JSC, says Velezinee
JJ: What are the links between the Majlis and the judiciary?
AV: That is a very serious issue. I am currently sitting on this seat as the President’s appointed member of the JSC, but prior to this, I was was the member of the general public appointed by the Majlis. They have forgotten that part.
I have brought this to Majlis attention. When the Commission voted on what I call the minimum ‘sub-standards’ for the judiciary, I sent a complaint to the Majlis. The same letter I sent to the President and the President of the Law Society. I sent it to the Speaker of the Majlis, as well as the chair of the Independent Commissions Committee, Mohamed Mujthaz.
When the JSC finalised the ‘substandards’, the Majlis into recess. So I went to the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), because it was the only constitutional structure where I could go to hold the JSC accountable. It is rather odd for one Commission member to go to another commission and ask them to investigate her own commission.
I met the ACC on May 12. The JSC say they adopted the substandards on May 11. Later I collected all the documentation, and wrote a report – because this is not going to be something easy to investigate. This is a whole conspiracy cooked up from the time the JSC was initially constituted. It has been planned, and it is very clear this is a plot.
When the Majlis reopened in June, I sent an official complaint to the Independent Commissions Committee which they accepted. On June 16, the Majlis wrote two letters to the JSC, one letter requesting all documentation and recordings relating to Article 285 – my complaint.
The JSC is not respecting Constitution and is doing as it pleases. Their disregard of Article 285, and their decision to adopt substandards for judges, comes from their belief in a promise made by the former government.
They do not refer to the Constitution in adopting the standards. They refer to conversations they had with the majority party at that time, a delegation led by our dear JSC President, Mujthaz Fahmy. He and a team of judges met with the politicians to negotiate a guarantee that no judge would be removed under the new Constitution.
Although we have Article 285 in the Constitution – to give the people a judiciary they can trust and respect – we have the President of the Commission responsible for the implementation of this article working on this political understanding with the former government.
This is very clear from the recordings.
All I’m asking is for third party to look into this – and that third party is the Majlis. After the Majlis took all the documentation and recordings, they had requested the JSC meet with the Majlis Independent Commissions Committee at 2:30pm on June 23.
If you go back to your news files, that was the day when the Majlis floor heated up. Since then the Speaker [DRP MP Abdulla Shahid] has suspended the Majlis.
The committee accepted the complaint – if they had not, they would not have asked us to come and discuss this with them.
I believe the speaker is taking undue advantage of this political crisis. The Speaker of the Majlis is now coming and sitting in the JSC [office] day and night, during Friday, holidays and Independence Day. The Speaker is sitting in the JSC trying to expedite this process of reappointing judges before the Majlis starts on August 1. What is going on here?
The Supreme Court, formerly the Presidential Palace
JJ: What is going on?
AV: I believe that when the Majlis was suspended, they should have directed the JSC to at least halt what was going on until they have looked into the matter. It is a very serious complaint I have made – it is a very serious allegation. And if that allegation and complaint is unfounded, I am willing to stand before the people, in Republic Square, and be shot.
I believe we have all the evidence we need to look into this matter – but under this Constitution, we have to go to the Majlis. But where is the Majlis? And what is the Speaker doing in the JSC?
What about all those other complaints? The Commission’s president is not letting us work on them. We have in our rules that any member can ask for a matter to be tabled. I asked him to look into the matter – and do you know what he did? He sent me a letter to my home address – as though I was not a member of the Commission – and asked me to write it in a proper form and bring it to the attention [of reception].
The JSC has decided Article 285 is symbolic, that article 22(b) does not exist, while the esteemed people of the law in the commission, include the Commission President, Supreme Court Justice Mujthaz Fahmy, explain to me that article 22(b) gives me the power to write a letter, fill in a form and submit a complaint. I asking – why did the drafters of this law put in a clause to give me a right I already have as any ordinary citizen?
Where we are right now – with the lack of confidence in the judiciary – it all lies with Mujthaz Fahmy.
JJ: What do you mean when you talk about “a plot”? How interconnected is this?
AV: They are trying to expedite the reappointment of judges without looking into my complaint. If you look into my complaint, you will find this has been done in an unconstitutional way.
What they are doing right now is going to kill the Constitution.
We are not going to consolidate democracy if they succeed in getting away with what they are doing right now. The Speaker has suspended the Majlis whilst a very serious complaint is with the Majlis committee, and now he is sitting in the JSC doing this.
If there is a matter pending in a court of law, usually they ask for a court order until the matter is settled. You don’t just carry on as if nothing is happening.
We have a petition signed by 1562 people – the JUST campaign – calling for an honest and impartial judiciary. This was not even put on the Commission’s agenda – it said it did not find it necessary to take it into account, and on that day I was not given opportunity to participate because on the agenda was the matter of approving judges under the substandards.
We are asked to put before any other matter the people, and the Constitution. Instead, the Commission is working in the interests of these individual few judges who have hijacked the judiciary. Mujthaz Fahmy must go.
JJ: So these Commission members met with politicians from the former government, to obtain a guarantee that sitting judges would remain on the bench, and not be subject to reappointment under Article 285? What do the politicians get back from the judges?
AV: We are talking about corruption. The change in government came in 2008 because people were fed up with a corrupt administration and autocratic governance.
But all those people who were in power entered parliament. The Speaker, who is right now sitting in the JSC working night and day expediting the reappointment of the judges, was also part of that administration. It is within their interest to keep this judiciary here, and not work in the interests of this Constitution, or the People.
Their personal interests take precedence over everything else. I’m afraid that is what we are seeing.
JJ: Do you feel the media has been taking this case seriously enough?
AV: I’ve been writing to all the concerned authorities since Januruary. I’ve been going on and on about the JSC and the dictatorship within it for a long, long time. I knew where we were heading, I have been warning the Majlis and talking to people from various parties. I have been talking about Article 285 for so long that I have become ‘the old article 285 madwoman.’
JJ: Do you think the current political crisis can be resolved without a functioning judiciary?
AV: Absolutely not. But then a functioning judiciary cannot be introduced without this crisis being resolved. How can the international community ask for the rule of law to be followed when there are no courts of law?
We need an impartial investigation of what is going on. And I believe the Maldives does not have anyone able to conduct an impartial investigation. We need assistance – the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) should be here. The UN Special Rapporteur on Independence of the Judiciary should be here, right now.
This is not the fault of the judiciary. We have a large bench, and most of the judges have absolutely no idea about what is going on. They have not even been given orientation on the new Constitution.
I had the opportunity to meet magistrates from four Atolls. They know the law. But what they need is a basic understanding of the principles of this Constitution, of the foundations of democracy. Because it is through those lenses that they should be interpreting the Constitution.
I am not in favour of the removal of all judges. But I demand that all judges with criminal records be removed – they should not be sitting there even now, and there’s 40-50 of them – a quarter of the bench.
Why is the JSC remaining silent? Why is the Speaker of the Majlis in the JSC [office]? By his silence, and through the act of suspending the Majlis, the Speaker has given the JSC the opportunity to complete this act of treason they are currently committing.
The deadline for the judicial reform period under the new constitution in August 7. The Speaker and the President of the JSC are working overtime to get all these judges reappointed before the Majlis restarts on August 1. That is treason.
Supreme Court Judge Uz Ahmed Faiz Hussain, the President's nomination for Chief Justice
JJ: What benefit would outside arbitration bring?
AV: It is difficult because all our documentation is in Dhivehi. But we need an independent and impartial body to look into this properly. Forget listening to me or Mujthaz. Forget listening to politicians, and investigate. We need an impartial mediator.
It is very easy for the international community to turn around and blame the executive for taking a dictatorial attitude. We are demanding the executive uphold the rule of law. But what about the Majlis? Where is the rule of law when the Speaker suspends the Majlis and hides in the JSC expediting the reappointment of judges? Where are the courts to go to?
We need the public to understand the Constitution, and we need all duty-bearers to uphold the Constitution. I’m afraid half the members of the JSC do not understand the principles of democracy or the role of the JSC, or the mandate we have. Then there are a few who understand it very well but remain silent while all this goes on
JJ: The President recently nominated Supreme Court Judge Uz Ahmed Faiz Hussain as the new Chief Justice, and is awaiting Majlis approval. How likely is this to resolve the current situation, given the Majlis is currently suspended?
AV: Uz Ahmed Faiz Hussain is a well-respected man amongst the judges. I have never heard anybody question his independence or impartiality. He is a learned man and amongst all the politicking and hanky-panky going on, he has maintained his integrity.
But the Majlis has to appoint him and the Majlis may not even get that far – the Supreme Court has already declared itself permanent.
I’m telling you: this is big. What we are seeing is all interconnected – it is one big plot to try – in any way possible – to return power to the corrupt.
Leader of the minority opposition Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) Dr Hassan Saeed has returned to the Maldives, after visiting the UK to meet MPs and journalists, and call on the international community to pressure the government to respect the country’s constitution.
DQP Secretary General Abdulla Ameen said the visit was “very successful”, and that Saeed had met with former Labour Party Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott “and other prominent opposition MPs.”
“Dr Saeed presented in such a way as to ask the government [of the Maldives] to follow the rule of law and to respect and uphold the constitution,” Ameen said.
Dr Saeed also met with journalists from outlets including Al Jazeera and the Independent, and was printed in the Guardian newspaper, Ameen said.
“Although it was DQP members who travelled to the UK, they represented the opposition coalition,” Ameen added.
The trip was “collectively funded by the opposition parties”, he noted.
DQP enlists UK PR firm
Minivan News has meanwhile obtained an email sent by a Peter Craske representing a UK-based public relations firm ‘The Campaign Company’, in which Craske solicits a meeting between the recipient and the DQP, “which is formed of an alliance between the DRP and MDP parties”.
From: Peter Craske [[email protected]]
Sent: [removed]
To: [removed]
Subject: Possible meeting with MPs from the Maldives
Dear [removed],
I am contacting you on behalf of The Campaign Company, a communciations agency, which represents the DQP political party from the Maldives, which is formed of an alliance between the DRP and MDP parties.
Two of their representatives, Hassan Saeed, a former Attorney General and Presidential candidate and Mohammed Jameel Ahmed, a former Minister of Justice, are visiting the UK next week, and would like, if possible to meet up with you given your longstanding interest in the country, for no other reason than to brief you on the current political issues in the country, where there has been some unrest and some Parliamentarians have been arrested.
The meeting would solely be for them to discus the issues in confidence, while they are in the UK.
I realise it is short notice, but would be grateful if you would be able to let me know whether or not this was possible, depending on your diary.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Peter Craske
The Campaign Company
The DQP is a minor opposition party in coalition with Abdulla Yameen’s People’s Alliance (PA), Gasim Ibrahim’s Jumhoree Party (JP), and the major opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), but not the ruling MDP.
The DQP confirmed that Dr Saeed’s delegation included two other senior members of the party, Mohamed Jameel Ahmed and Abdul Matheen, neither of whom are MPs as Craske appears to suggest.
Minivan News was unable to find any mention of Craske on the Campaign Company’s list of employees, however a receptionist at the Campaign Company confirmed the PR firm was “definitely working with political parties in the Maldives”, and referred Minivan News to the company’s director for enquiries regarding Craske.
Instead, Minivan News contacted Craske directly through the included phone number, who confirmed he was employed by the Campaign Company on a freelance basis to set up meetings last week with his contacts in the UK parliament.
“I don’t work for the Campaign Company, I was just employed to set up meetings,” he said. ‘I was just using the information [the Campaign Company] gave me.”
Ameen said he did not know whether the delegation had contracted a PR firm for the trip, but said that Saeed was “still well-connected in the UK.”
“Dr Hassan and Dr Jameel are in contact with a number of MPs. They know MPs from before 2008 and they have still have contacts in the UK.”
He added that he could “not say anything about an email you might have received, only specifically what Dr Hassan Saeed said.”
Meanwhile, Craske’s contact at the Campaign Company, Debbie Coulter, confirmed the company had set up meetings on Dr Saeed’s behalf and denied he had ever been introduced as an MP – “I haven’t seen the email,” she said, suggesting it might have been a mistake – “the brief [given to Craske] was quite clear.”
Regarding Craske’s introduction of the DQP as “an alliance between the DRP and MDP parties”, Coulter said the agency had recognised and introduced the DQP “as an independent party.”
She confirmed she was aware that Dr Saeed was currently the legal representation of opposition MPs Yameen and Gasim in court against allegations from the government of corruption and treason, following the release of incriminating phone taps leaked to the media.
“The bulk of the people he met were in the legal profession and people who knew of him and his background,” Coulter explained, adding that she “personally attended” every meeting.
“During his stay in London, Dr Saeed met with representatives from The Law Society, the Commonwealth Secretariat, Amnesty International, Labour MP Gareth Thomas (Labour), Liberal Democrat MP Simon Hughes, Lord Prescott, Lord Foulkes and Sir Ivan Lawrence,” Coulter said.
Sir Ivan Lawrence notably led a team of international lawyers to the Maldvies in 2005 to determine whether President Nasheed, leader of the then-opposition, was likey to receive a fair trial after being charged with terrorism and sedition by the former government.
He concluded that the Maldivian judicial system lacked “the basic capacity, competency and necessary independence” to deliver a fair trial, as reported by the Asian Centre for Human Rights.
DQP’s UK media statement
A media statement issued in the UK and forwarded to Minivan News by Coulter quoted Dr Saeed:
“President Nasheed came to power carrying the hopes of many people that we could achieve full democracy. However today we see him threatening our democratically elected Parliament, our judiciary and our press freedom in a way that he would have no doubt similarly criticised his predecessor for.
We cannot allow the rule of law to be replaced by mob rule. The streets of our capital have seen violence and opposition politicians are detained and their homes attacked. Our judiciary is now described as corrupt when it upholds the rights of people to be treated properly under the law.
That is why I am in the UK this week to make a wider appeal to the international community that they should tell President Nasheed to behave inside the Maldives in the same way that he does when making the case for international support over climate change.”
Accompanying biographical information distributed to UK journalists notes that “the Gayoom government spent much time intimidating the ex-Ministers, seeking to ban the New Maldives movement and then registering another organisation under the same name under the control of the ruling party.
“Dr Hassan Saeed has been consistent in his advocacy of reform over the years. This has led him into conflict with the previous government, which he resigned from. He supported the present government in order to achieve reform, but now sees it behaving in a similar way to its predecessor and is thus speaking out in defense of reform and democracy.”
Meeting journalists
A second email obtained by Minivan News was from a journalist seeking further information on claims made by the delegation in the UK, and describing materials distributed on behalf of the DQP which reportedly alleged:
President Nasheed, a former political prisoner who was dubbed the ‘Nelson Mandela of the Maldives’, has become autocratic since being democratically elected and is introducing a number of repressive measures, including:
* plans to close the courts and set up ‘public courts’
* suspending the Constitution, which the UK and certain Commonwealth states helped draft
* Judges have suffered threats and intimidation at the hands of the government and police. Civil Court Judge Mohamed Hilmy and his fiancee were handcuffed, stripped, beaten – and then photographed in a state of undress by the police.
Ameen confirmed that the first claim referred to the vigilante court “[recently inaugrated] by MDP MP ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik”.
Of the second claim concerning the Constitution, Ameen said “I do not think [Dr Saeed] mentioned suspension of the constitution, I would say he broadly highlighted the need to uphold democracy.”
Concerning the suspension of Civil Court judge Mohamed Hilmy, “I think that was a case a few months back, I cannot specifically tell the detail. It was a very well publicised case.”
Minivan News reported in November last year that the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) had suspended Judge Mohamed Hilmy pending an investigation by police into alleged sexual misconduct, after he was discovered on a beach in Hulhumale’ in a state of undress with a woman.
A police statement claimed “the two had to be taken into custody on suspicion of sexual behaviour in a public place, as they were at the garbage dump in the south of Hulhumale’ with their pants down.”
At the time Hilmy denied the allegations to newspaper Haveeru, claiming he was walking with his fiancé when they were set upon by police, handcuffed, beaten, forcibly undressed and photographed. Police sent the case to the Prosecutor General and the matter was forwarded to the JSC, a police spokesman confirmed.
The last hearing concerning Judge Hilmy was held in January, although he remains suspended and continues to draw a salary due to the JSC’s inaction on the matter, according to commission member Aisthath Velezinee.
According to a report in newspaper Miadhu, Maldivian High Commissioner in the UK, Dr Farahanaz Faisal, claimed the Commission had yet to receive any enquiries from UK officials following meetings with Dr Saeed, and questioned whether they had occurred at all.
Addendum:
Subsequent to the publication of this article, Peter Craske sent Minivan News an email in which he accepted responsibility for “factual inaccuracies” in his communication with UK MPs concerning the DQP.
“Just to clarify the situation, as a member of the Conservative Party, I was recently asked by the Campaign Company (TCC) if I could arrange a small number of meetings with Conservative MP’s during a visit to the UK by Dr Hassan Saeed,” Craske wrote.
“Unfortunately, despite receiving a clear written brief from TCC, there were three factual inaccuracies in the email I sent to these MPs:
The reference to a “Possible meeting with MPs from the Maldives” in the subject line, though this was not repeated in the text of the email;
The reference to an alliance between the MDP and DQP, which clearly does not reflect the current political situation, nor the information with which I was provided;
The suggestion in my email signature that I was an employee of the Campaign Company.
“This was one email to a small number of Conservative MPs which in fact did not result in any meetings,” he added.
“Having had this drawn to my attention, I would like to express my deep regret for any misunderstanding this email will have caused. I have apologised to the Campaign Company and to Dr Hassan Saeed for this.”
President Mohamed Nasheed insisted today in the face of repeated queries by the press that opposition-aligned People’s Alliance (PA) MP Abdulla Yameen’s detention or “protective custody” was not unconstitutional.
As a court of law has not ruled that the detention was unlawful, said Nasheed, the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) acted within the bounds of the law and the constitution.
“It’s going to be very difficult for us to legitimise the process [of the corruption investigation] through the present judiciary,” he acknowledged, adding that while a new President and Parliament had been elected after the ratification of the constitution in August 2008, the judiciary remained unchanged.
“We have done nothing to upgrade or bring the judiciary to the present constitution’s standard,” he said. “So unless and until we do something about that it’s going to be very difficult for us to legitimise [the cases], for the people to understand how the judiciary works.”
He stressed that “all the arrests, actions and omissions” of the government were within the bounds of the law.
“There’s not a single step that I have taken that cannot be completely and fully justified in a court of law,” he claimed.
Asked about his remarks at an MDP rally on “stepping outside the chart”, Nasheed explained that “chart” was commonly used to refer to either “a process, or an agenda, or a manifesto, or a roadmap.”
Opposition parties have strongly condemned Yameen’s detention, arguing that rule of law no longer existed in the country following the intervention of the military.
Meanwhile, a letter sent to parliament yesterday by Defence Minister Ameen Faisal states that Yameen was taken into “protective custody” by the MNDF under legal authority granted by articles 105(b) and 243(a) of the constitution.
As an angry crowd outside Yameen’s residence was “expressing hostile sentiments and throwing stones”, it continues, and riot police were in need of reinforcements, MNDF took into consideration the threat to public safety posed by a possible confrontation between the crowd and a second group that was gathering in opposition.
Moreover, it adds, at a time when “cases related to national security” were emerging, MNDF decided that Yameen had to be placed under “protective custody” for the security of both Yameen and the community.
“As the situation in Male’ was worsening, the national security council held a meeting on July 15 2010 and decided to keep Yameen under protection,” it reads. “He is now being held in light of secret information that emerged during an investigation conducted under article 24(a) of the Defence Forces Act following violent clashes between Yameen’s supporters and those opposed to him and the sudden unrest in the political sphere.”
Asked whether Yameen would be released to participate in any cross-party talks, President Nasheed replied it would require the national security council chaired by the Commander-in-Chief to believe the situation that warranted the move had changed.
“I can’t take a risk when it involves a person’s security,” he said.
President Nasheed was further adamant that his administration would not face any international pressure or sanctions due to Yameen’s detention.
He had personally explained the situation clearly to leaders of friendly nations during the past week, Nasheed said.
International pressure was brought to bear on countries “when people are put in solitary confinement for 18, 19, 20, 22 months on end, pilloried, handcuffed, when people are killed and their property confiscated.”
As the current administration would not commit such “atrocities,” Nasheed reiterated he had “complete confidence” that the country would not face international pressure.
The Supreme Court ruling ordering the release of accused MPs Abdulla Yameen and Gasim Ibrahim had “in a sense invalidated the Police Act” and undermined police ability to maintain law and order.
It was under such circumstances, said Nasheed, when people were gathering outside the MPs homes in protest, that the decision to “isolate” Yameen was made.
On the alleged corruption and bribery in parliament, Nasheed said police will conclude their investigations and forward cases to the Prosecutor General’s office.
The president hinted that he would offer clemency to opposition politicians found guilty in court.
Constitutional crisis
While police have complained of obstacles to their investigation of “high-profile corruption cases”, President Nasheed argued that “some laws” passed by the parliament were making it difficult for a presidential system to function effectively.
“In my view, the essence of this is connected to the form of the constitution,” he said, adding that teething issues in implementing the constitution must be resolved.
There were two ways to resolve the present constitutional crisis, said Nasheed, both of which involve bringing amendments to the constitution.
“One way is for all political parties to agree to amend the constitution to change to a parliamentary system,” he suggested, adding that he was ready to face any election in the event.
As the existing constitution allows parliament to block executive functions, said Nasheed, the government could neither ensure economic development nor offer basic services effectively.
“If opposition political parties did not believe [changing to a parliamentary system] would be best, the second way is for us to perfect the presidential system,” he said.
The second option would be to amend the constitution by adding provisions “to the extent that [the main opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party] DRP called for when it advocated for a presidential system” in the October 2007 public referendum.
While the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) campaigned for a parliamentary system at the time, Nasheed said both systems were beneficial but “a middle way” was not practical.
“Either perfecting the presidential system or changing to a parliamentary system [is the choice],” he said.
As DRP Leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali has signalled the opposition’s desire for dialogue, President Nasheed said he was willing to engage with opposition MPs to resolve the deadlock in parliament, adding that he hoped the process would begin today.
The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has issued a travel warning for the Maldives following recent political turmoil in the country, urging caution around “large political gatherings”, while debate on the political deadlock has spread to the House of Lords in the UK Parliament.
During Question Time, the UK Labour Party’s Lord Foulkes expressed “disappointment that President Nasheed seems to be reverting to the bad habits of his predecessor”, following the detention of People’s Alliance (PA) MP Abdulla Yameen, and urged the government to pressure the Maldives to restore “democratic freedoms”.
Conservative Lord Howell, also State Minister for the FCO, responded that the government was “pursuing full encouragement through our high commission in Colombo and other means to ensure that democratic development continues.”
Nasheed’s restoration of his cabinet ministers was “a step forward”, Howell promised.
Conservative Lord Naseby pointed out that the Maldives “is no longer a protectorate of the United Kingdom… and that being the situation, what role do we have at all to interfere in what is in fact the Maldivian exercise of democracy as they interpret it?”
Yameen meanwhile remains in MNDF custody on the Presidential Retreat ‘Aarah’, although appears free to communicate with the media given that Minivan News was able to contact him yesterday.
The Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) – and the government – insist that the MP and high-profile businessman is under ‘protective’ custody after demonstrations outside his home last week turned violent.
Yameen has told local media he does not wish to be detained in ‘protective’ custody. The MNDF have also refused to present him before the court on a court order, raising some international eyebrows.
The President’s Press Secretary Mohamed Zuhair stuck to that story, insisting Yameen was being “protected” rather than “detained”.
Zuhair also claimed Yameen’s custodial protection was not unconstitutional, as the opposition has claimed, although Minivan News is still awaiting clarification from government lawyers as to how this is so.
“The MNDF is working absolutely within the constitution,” Zuhair said. “Yameen is being held by the MNDF, not the government. If Yameen is concerned about this he will be able to challenge it in court.”
“Dark and evil schemes”
Beyond the debate over Yameen’s detention, and recent court cases concerning the legality of his arrest along with that of Jumhoree Party (JP) leader Gasim Ibrahim, Zuhair said that given the severity of the allegations against them, neither could be considered prisoners of conscience.
“I cannot describe these people as political leaders – they are accused of high crimes and plots against the state,” Zuhair said.
“These MPs are two individuals of high net worth – tycoons with vested interests,” he explained. “In pursuing their business interests they became enormously rich during the previous regime, and now they are trying to use their ill-gotten gains to bribe members in the Majlis and judiciary to keep themselves in power and above the fray.”
“They were up to all sorts of dark and evil schemes,” Zuhair alleged. “There were plans afoot to topple the government illegally before the interim period was over.”
Zuhair explained that the government felt obliged to take action after six MDP MPs came forward with statements alleging Yameen and Gasim had attempted to bribe them to vote against the government.
The opposition PA-DRP coalition already has a small voting majority, with the addition of supportive independent MPs, however certain votes require a two-thirds majority of the 77 member chamber – such as a no-confidence motion to impeach the president or vice-president.
“In one incident early on in this administration, following the President’s return from Italy, they set up a telephone and a video camera in a committee room in parliament, brought a judge to sit in, and then tried to get two members of the president’s delegation swear on the Qur’an under oath that the President was drinking alcohol,” Zuhair observed.
The privatisation of Male’ International airport had clashed with the vested interests of the accused MPs, Zuhair claimed, sparking the current political debacle.
“Gasim was concerned the new airport might take the charter flights he had intended would be landing at the new airport he is building in Maamagilli,” Zuhair alleged, “while Yameen is a third party supplier of fuel at Male International Airport through the Maldives National Oil Company, which has representation in Singapore.”
The fuel trade is the most immediately lucrative part of the airport deal, Minivan News understands, and is a key reason behind both GMR’s interest and the government’s decision to award the contract to the Indian infrastructure giant. GMR has told Minivan News it will amalgamate the trade under one umbrella, a decision that will likely affect current third party suppliers.
Meanwhile Opposition DQP leader Hassan Saeed, who opposed the airport privatisation and is currently lobbying in the UK for international support for Yameen’s release, “is receiving huge legal fees from both Yameen and Gasim,” Zuhair claimed.
NGOs speak
A coalition of NGOs including Madulu, the Maldivian Democracy Network, Huvadhoo Aid, Transparency Maldives, Maldives Youth Action Network, HAND and Democracy House, meanwhile issued a statement “categorically denouncing the undemocratic actions of the three Powers of the State, at a time when democracy is in its infant stages in the Maldives.”
“We believe recent political and civil unrest is a consequence of these three arms of the State disregarding the spirit of the Maldivian Constitution,” the NGOs said. “We believe a culture of manipulation of the law to infringe upon the rights of one another has developed and that the three arms of the State have failed to give each other due respect.”
“It is not responsible on the part of the parliament, that they should pass laws that undermine the powers of the executive.
“It is unacceptable that the executive, should use its powers to harass and deter the functioning of the parliament, to disrepute the judiciary and to try to exert undue influence on the judicial system.
“The lack of consistency in the rulings of the courts, and actions which undermine the trust of the people in the judicial system are contrary to the high standards which are expected of Judges. We call upon the judiciary to work to restore the people’s faith in the judicial system.
The NGOs added that “other concerned State institutions” have also failed to “give due regard to the situation” and have acted irresponsibly.
The coalition also urged political parties to refrain from bringing violence to the streets, but condemned the security forces “for stepping outside the boundaries of the law with regards to arrest and detention” and the recent distribution of private telephone conversations by the media containing implications of corruption behaviour among MPs.
Between a rock and the Maldives
The government well aware of its status as international darling on climate change, but Nasheed appears willing to risk international censure for the sake of isolating Yameen while the state accumulates evidence in the background. Police were preparing to “make a splash” on the subject, Zuhair hinted.
However even if this evidence is obtained, demands from the international community – and opposition – that the government respect the rule of law and the judicial system, mean the government is faced with the new problem of legitimising its case against the businessmen and opposition leaders, now that allegations of obstruction have been levelled at the judiciary – including, yesterday, from the police themselves.
The government has been urging public respect for the judicial system – and the President’s Political Advisor Hassan Afeef has stated that the government will abide by any rulings from the Supreme Court.
The Judicial Services Commission (JSC), tasked with reforming the judicial system, has three sitting judges as members and vested interests, according to the President’s outspoken member on the commission, Aishath Velezinee.
“Of the 207 of the judges currently in office, 39 have degrees or higher. Some left school before grade seven, meaning they haven’t completed primary school,” Velezinee noted.
In addition there are seven sitting judges found guilty of a criminal breach of trust; five with allegations of a criminal breach of trust; two being prosecuted for an alleged breach of trust; one on trial for sexual misconduct; two have been found guilty of sexual misconduct; one was found guilty for an offence which had a prescribed punishment in Islam; and another who has both been accused of a criminal breach of trust, and found guilty of sexual misconduct – a total of 19 with documented criminal history.
Behind the scenes the executive is racing to nominate new judges before the interim period concludes on August 7, when sitting judges are granted automatic tenure.
However nominations for any new judges will have to be approved by the Majlis, which was cancelled this morning on points of order that developed into a scuffle outside.
“[The MPs] are trying to derail the process,” suggested Zuhair. “They are also panicking because they have no way of knowing who is going to be [implicated] by these corruption charges.”
As for tourists reading the today’s travel advisory urging caution in the capital, Zuhair observed that they “should be happier to know the top dollars they are paying are not being used for corrupt purposes.”
(0)Dislikes
(0)
