Tag: Mohamed Nasheed

High Court delays Nasheed’s case until he returns from pilgrimage to Mecca

The High Court has delayed the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed until July 25, after he requested the court grant him permission to leave the country to perform Umrah – a pilgrimage to Mecca, Saudi Arabia.

High Court Spokesperson Ameen Faisal confirmed to Minivan News that the High Court had informed Nasheed it had no objection to his request.

“Nasheed told the court that he wished to leave the country July 6-25 to visit Saudi Arabia and Dubai,” Ameen said.

“The court regulations state that if a respondent or defendant in a lawsuit wishes to leave the country they have to ask the court for permission.”

Ameen said that the court had not decided on a date for the next hearing of the case.

Nasheed filed a case at the High Court challenging the legitimacy of the panel of judges at the Hulhumale’ court appointed by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to preside over his trial, in which he was charged for detaining Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed in early 2012.

The case was previously delayed after the Chief Judge of the High Court Ahmed Shareef, who was on the bench presiding over the case submitted by Nasheed, was suspended by the JSC.

A hearing of the case had been scheduled for July 7.

The High Court had previously issued a stay order on the Hulhumale Magistrate Court, requiring it to suspend all criminal trials concerning the arrest of the judge pending a ruling on the legitimacy of the court bench.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Maldives Broadcasting Corporation schedules presidential debate for September 1

The Maldives Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) has announced that a debate between rival presidential candidates will be broadcast via state media on September 1 this year.

MBC Managing Director Mohamed Shafeeq Mahmoud told local media that efforts were underway to secure the participation of the four key candidates presently expected to contest the presidential election, which has been scheduled for September 7.

These participants are expected to be President Dr Mohamed Waheed; Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), MP Abdullah Yameen of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) and MP Gasim Ibrahim of the Jumhoree Party (JP).

Shafeeq told Sun Online that in the build up to the debate, state television and radio would provide airtime for candidates to broadcast information on their campaigns from July.

Television Maldives (TVM) is expected to broadcast four separate live programmes, each focused on a single candidate that will include the opportunity for the public to ask questions, he said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

DRP leader Thasmeen unveiled as President Waheed’s election running mate

Leader of the government-aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) Ahmed Thasmeen Ali, has been unveiled as President Dr Mohamed Waheed’s running mate for September’s election.

Thasmeen’s appointment was confirmed by DRP Parliamentary Group Leader Dr Abdulla Mausoom, who claimed the move would allow the president to provide a viable alternative to the country’s two largest political parties.

The announcement was  welcomed by one electoral rival in the form of the DRP’s government coalition partner, the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), which labelled Thasmeen as “the weakest link” among all the current candidates standing in September.

The DRP last month announced that it would be joining the religious conservative Adhaalath Party and the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) in a coalition backing President Waheed and his Gaumee Ithihaad Party (GIP) in the upcoming election. The Adhaalath Party was reported in local media today as giving its full support to the partnership of President Waheed and MP Thasmeen.

Dr Mausoom said that this coalition, under the banner, ‘forward with the nation’, still remained open for other parties to join ahead of September’s vote despite today’s decision.

At present, Dr Waheed and Thasmeen will be standing against PPM presidential candidate MP Abdullah Yameen and his running mate, former Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed – who was dismissed from the current government last month after announcing his decision to stand with the party.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed will also be standing for election as candidate for the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), but has yet to unveil his running mate. Nasheed resigned from office in February 2012 under controversial circumstances following a mutiny by sections of the police and military.

Meanwhile, the government-aligned Jumhoree Party (JP) has previously said it was undecided over whether to join President Waheed’s coalition, while expecting to nominate a presidential candidate at its national conference later this month.

The JP is headed by MP and local business tycoon Gasim Ibrahim.

“Natural reaction”

Considering the rival candidates expected to stand during September’s presidential election, DRP MP Dr Mausoom said the ‘forward with the nation’ coalition has been formed as a “natural reaction” to the previous governments of former Presidents Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and Mohamed Nasheed.

“I think for people who do not see the merit in backing former Maldives Presidents Gayoom and Nasheed there is now an alternative,” he claimed, adding that both candidates would be a return to “square one” for democracy in the Maldives.

Mausoom claimed that President Waheed woukd now unite support behind a third option in Maldivian politics, that was opposed to the MDP and PPM – presently the country’s two largest political parties in terms of MP number.

He said that the coalition’s appeal as an alternative to both the Nasheed and Gayoom administrations would be its main strength.

“This is just the beginning,” Dr Mausoom added. “Thasmeen spoke today of the achievement’s of President Waheed’s government over the last year, in spite of difficult circumstances he faced.”

While both the MDP and PPM has dismissed the viability and effectiveness of coalition government in Maldives politics, Mausoom argued that the DRP had continued to back President Waheed along with several other parties in order to put national development first.

“We are at a point where we all have to climb down from party ideology and put the national interest first,” he said.

Mausoom claimed that the country’s previous coalition governments had been formed on a “circumstantial” basis, both in bringing former President Nasheed to power and then backed President Waheed. However, he claimed that parties within the ‘forward with the nation’ coalition backing President Waheed during the election were “pro-actively” united in their goal for national development.

Positive development

Speaking to Minivan News today, PPM MP Ahmed Nihan said that Thasmeen’s appointment as Dr Waheed’s running mate was not seen as a concern by the party and would actually serve as a positive development for its own election campaign.

Thasmeen took over as head of the DRP following former President Gayoom’s temporary retirement from political life in 2010.

Nihan argued that the PPM, which was founded in 2011 by a faction of MPs who broke away from the DRP alongside former President Gayoom, were “well aware of the political strength of Mr Thasmeen”.

“We are the only people who can make an informed judgement on [Thasmeen]. He is the weakest link among all the wannabe leaders at present,” he said.

Nihan said that the party would therefore carry on with it plans to begin campaigning in the north of the country ahead of September’s election.

“This is the very least of our concerns as a party,” he said.

Nihan nonetheless said that the party continued to remain concerned at what it alleged was President Waheed’s continued use of state funds and resources to support campaigning for the coalition.

“This is our one crucial concern. President Waheed needs to facilitate a free and fair election, but he has today used government speedboats to transport coalition members. This should not be seen n a democratic society,” he said. “Back in 2008, President Gayoom would have used his own party’s speedboat for campaign purposes.”

Meanwhile, MDP presidential candidate Mohamed Nasheed contended during an interview with state broadcaster Television Maldives (TVM) on May 16 that President Waheed and the DRP has been forced to form a coalition out of necessity.

Nasheed therefore questioned the president’s coalition’s claims that it presented a “third way” for voters as opposed to the policies of the MDP and PPM. Nasheed reiterated his belief that power-sharing coalitions were not compatible with the Maldives’ presidential system of government.

“I do not see a citizen who wants ‘another way.’ What is the path to deliver this way [to development]? We do not hear [political parties] talking about that,” he said. “We are presenting one path to that [development]. We believe MDP’s policies will bring prosperity to the people. I do not see this third way you referred to as ‘a way.’ I see it as two men with no other way. That is not a political philosophy,” he said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC suspends Chief Judge of the High Court

The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has indefinitely suspended Chief Judge of the High Court, Ahmed Shareef, over a complaint filed against the judge last year.

JSC Chair and Supreme Court Justice Adam Mohamed Abdulla insisted at a press conference today that the disciplinary action had no relation to the ongoing High Court case filed by former President Mohamed Nasheed contesting the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench appointed by the commission.

The suspension was a “precautionary” measure while investigation of the complaint was proceeding, he claimed.

“There are no legal grounds to stop looking into a complaint submitted [to the commission] or halt proceedings,” he said, adding that ongoing court cases and disciplinary proceedings at the JSC were “two completely different systems.”

High Court Chief Judge Shareef was summoned to the JSC earlier this month almost a year after the complaint was lodged.

Meanwhile, a hearing of Nasheed’s case scheduled at the High Court today was cancelled after one of the judges took a leave of absence.

The chief judge – who is among the three judges presiding over the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) presidential candidate’s case – was suspended over a complaint filed by seven other High Court judges, Justice Adam Mohamed revealed.

The decision was approved at a JSC meeting today with three votes in favour and one against.

According to local media, Attorney General Aishath Bisham, President’s Member Mohamed ‘Reynis’ Saleem and Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Didi voted in favour while Public Member Shuaib Abdul Rahman voted against the motion.

Lawyers’ Representative Ahmed Rasheed and Civil Service Commission (CSC) Chair Mohamed Fahmy Hassan reportedly abstained while High Court Judge Abdulla Hameed did not participate in the vote.

Speaker Abdulla Shahid and Majlis Member MP Gasim Ibrahim did not attend the meeting.

Shuaib told private broadcaster Raajje TV following the meeting that the decision was made in violation of due process and JSC procedures as a report regarding the allegations against the chief judge was not presented to the commission members.

The motion or petition to suspend Shareef was proposed by Attorney General Bisham, who is yet to receive parliamentary consent for her appointment.

Meanwhile, at the press conference this evening, Justice Adam Mohamed refused to reveal either the details of the vote or the members in attendance despite repeated queries from reporters.

He also refused to state which High Court judge would take over the chief judge’s administrative functions.

In June 2012, the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) was asked to investigate allegations that Chief Judge Shareef met officials of Nexbis in Bangkok, Thailand while a case concerning the controversial border control project awarded to the Malaysian mobile security firm was scheduled at the High Court.

According to newspaper Haveeru, Shareef had applied for a leave of absence from May 30 to July 1 before the JSC made its decision today.

The local daily also reported that today’s hearing of the former president’s case was cancelled after Judge Abbas Shareef took a last minute leave.

Former President Nasheed’s office said in a statement today that the hearing was “unexpectedly cancelled three hours prior” to the scheduled time.

“We condemn the actions of the Maldivian courts, which violate the electoral rights of nearly 50,000 Maldivian Democratic Party members. Today’s disruption to President Nasheed’s campaign trip to Raa atoll is an unnecessary, politically motivated challenge. The JSC continues to try and cover up the unconstitutional manner in which they appointed the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench through attempts at influencing the judiciary, while the Courts create logistical challenges such as today’s.  However, it does not stop affect the spirit of President Nasheed’s campaign,” MP Mariya Ahmed Didi, Nasheed’s spokeswoman, said after the cancellation.

Nasheed meanwhile returned to Raa Atoll today to resume his presidential campaign.

“Undue influence”

The MDP organised a march against the JSC on Saturday (May 25) to protest JSC Chair Adam Mohamed’s alleged attempts to unduly influence the trial of former President Nasheed.

The party contended that Justice Adam Mohamed was abusing his power and authority as head of the judicial watchdog body to intimidate judges on the High Court bench.

On April 1, the High Court ordered the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court to suspend Nasheed’s trial pending a ruling on the legitimacy of the panel of judges appointed by the JSC to preside over the case.

In the first hearing of the High Court case, the JSC contested the High Court’s jurisdiction to rule on the legality of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench constituted by the commission.

The JSC has sent letters to the High Court requesting expedition of Nasheed’s case, the party noted in a press release.

The MDP objected to the judicial oversight body summoning the Chief Judge of the High Court for questioning over a complaint filed a year ago.

The move amounted to intimidation of judges and undue influence on judicial processes, the party contended, calling on the JSC to cease its “dirty and cowardly” efforts as the commission was the adverse party or respondent in the High Court case.

“Actions such as these are seen as thinly veiled attempts at influencing the Judiciary,” the former president’s office said today.

The JSC responded to the protest march with a statement of its own the following day, appealing against “obstruction” of the commission’s constitutional and legal responsibilities.

The JSC noted that the constitution and Judicial Service Commission Act of 2008 mandated the commission to investigate complaints against judges and enforce disciplinary measures.

The commission was entrusted with powers to summon and question persons and take witness testimonies, the JSC stated.

There were “no legal or constitutional grounds” to interpret carrying out the commission’s legal responsibilities as intimidation or exerting undue influence on judges, the statement added.

The JSC statement concluded by calling on all parties to “not commit any act or participate in any activity that could obstruct the constitutional and legal responsibilities and duties of the commission.”

Meanwhile, in her report to the United Nations Human Rights Council following a visit to the Maldives in February 2013, UN Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul wrote that “the trial of the former President raises serious concerns regarding the fairness of proceedings.”

Knaul questioned the constitutionality of the Hulhumale’ Court and the appointment of the three-member panel of judges, “which seems to have been set up in an arbitrary manner, without following procedures set by law.”

She also expressed concern with “the significant backlog of complaints with the Judicial Service Commission that are not dealt with or at least are perceived as not being dealt with. Some judges that have several complaints and cases for misconduct against them are still sitting.”

Moreover, Knaul wrote that according to several judges, “disciplinary procedures before the Commission lead to public humiliation and damages to their reputation.”

“Some even said that, when summoned by the Commission, the principle of presumption of innocence is not respected and they do not have appropriate time and access to information to prepare for their cases. Judges are also often not told for what allegations they are being investigated. It is common that, after an appearance before the Commission, judges are not informed if their case was dropped, if a decision was taken, or if it is still pending,” Knaul wrote.

“The Special Rapporteur is worried that disciplinary proceedings before the Judicial Services Commission are not in line with international law and principles, and may sometimes be used to expose and question the integrity of judges and magistrates before the media and the general public before the conclusion of a proper investigation into the allegations. She wishes to underline that, according to the Basic Principles on the independence of the judiciary, judges are entitled to a fair hearing under an appropriate procedure, which should be subject to an independent review.”

Among a number of recommendations to reform the Maldivian justice system, Knaul suggested taking “appropriate measures to enforce the code of conduct of judges in a transparent and consistent manner, with full respect for the fundamental guarantees of fair hearing and bearing in mind the importance of the reputation of judges and magistrates.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Jumhoree Party undecided over joining election coalition ahead of national conference

The government-aligned Jumhoree Party (JP) has said no decision has been made on whether to join a coalition backing President Dr Mohamed Waheed in September’s election, as it prepares to officially choose it presidential candidate and leader.

Vice-chair of the JP’s Congress Committee Mohamed Haleem has told Minivan News that the party’s candidate for this year’s presidential election will officially be announced in June during its national conference.

He said that the party’s leader chosen at the conference would then go on to become presidential candidate of the JP.  However, Haleem added that he was presently unaware if anyone would be contesting against current party leader and founder MP Gasim Ibrahim.

Earlier this month,  the government-aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) announced it would be joining the religious conservative Adhaalath Party and the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) in a coalition backing President Waheed. The DRP is the largest party in terms of MP numbers to so far back President Waheed, whose own Gaumee Ithihaad Party (GIP) party  has no political representation in either parliament or local councils.

Despite serving with the DQP, GIP, Adhaalath Party, DRP and Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) in the present government, Haleem added that the JP was committed to unveiling its own presidential candidate, as well as preparing contests to appoint other senior leadership during its three day national conference.

The JP was founded by MP Gasim, a resort tycoon, business magnate and member of watchdog body the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), who is considered presidential candidate for the party having already stood during the country’s first multi-party democratic election in 2008.

However, Haleem told Minivan News that the party’s presidential candidate would only be known when announced next month during the three day congress scheduled to run from June 27 to June 29.

“The main aims of the conference will be to amend certain party regulations as well as host an election for the position of party leader and other appointees like deputy leader,” he said. “We will also look to appoint members to different wings of the party.”

Haleem claimed that no discussions would be held during the conference over the possibility of joining President Waheed’s coalition, adding that any agreement on power sharing was presently considered a separate matter from its internal elections.

Coalition consideration

MP Gasim was reported in local media last month as claiming he would be prepared to form a coalition with other parties ahead of September’s election, but would not stand as a running mate of another candidate.

Just a day earlier, JP Spokesman Moosa Ramiz said the party had ruled out the idea of forming a coalition with fellow government-aligned parties ahead of this year’s elections, despite its involvement in recent power sharing talks with President Waheed.

“National stability”

As rival candidates begin to position themselves ahead of elections, GIP spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza last week claimed voters would shun the country’s two largest political parties in favour of the “national stability” offered by a coalition representing the current government.

Meanwhile the fellow government-aligned PPM – the country’s second largest party in terms of number of MPs –back in March elected MP Abdulla Yameen to stand as its presidential candidate and has continued to reject calls to join a coalition against the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) ahead of elections.

Former Maldives President and founder of the PPM, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, previously told local media that Dr Waheed’s coalition presented no threat to the election bid of its own candidate MP Abdulla Yameen.

Meanwhile, MDP presidential candidate Mohamed Nasheed contended during an interview with state broadcaster Television Maldives (TVM) on May 16 that President Waheed and the DRP has been forced to form a coalition out of necessity.

Nasheed questioned the coalition’s claims that it presented a “third way” for voters as opposed to the policies of the MDP and PPM and reiterated his belief that power-sharing coalitions were not compatible with a presidential system of government.

“I do not see a citizen who wants ‘another way.’ What is the path to deliver this way [to development]? We do not hear [political parties] talking about that,” he said. “We are presenting one path to that [development]. We believe MDP’s policies will bring prosperity to the people. I do not see this third way you referred to as ‘a way.’ I see it as two men with no other way. That is not a political philosophy,” he said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed contests JSC’s claim that Supreme Court ‘ruling’ and ‘counsel’ carry equal legal weight

The High Court has granted former President Mohamed Nasheed additional time to respond to procedural matters raised by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) in the case submitted by his defense counsel, challenging the legitimacy of the three-member bench appointed by the JSC to his trial at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

The JSC, raising procedural issues, stated that the High Court does not have the jurisdiction to preside over the case submitted by the former president’s legal team.

Nasheed and his counsel stated several times during today’s hearing that the JSC’s procedural points were not completely clear.

The High Court judges panel gave Nasheed’s lawyers the opportunity to ask the JSC’s legal representation for clarifications, while posing additional questions regarding the same issue themselves.

They then stated that it was unclear why the JSC had asked for the counsel of the Supreme Court in deciding the composition of the bench, and the justification under which the JSC considered the Supreme Court’s counsel to be of the same legal weight as a ruling of the court.

In responding to the questions posed to them, the JSC revealed that the names of the magistrates they had sent to the Supreme Court for their counsel were not the names nominated by the Hulhumale Magistrate Court.

The High Court bench questioned JSC if there it is a procedure in place which allows the assignment of judges for specific cases.

The JSC responded that there were certain circumstances in which judges can be assigned for specific cases, adding that the commission had done so previously in certain cases.

The bench further asked the JSC several times as to whether they considered the Supreme Court’s ‘counsel’ a ‘ruling’. The JSC’s legal team confirmed that they did.

The JSC’s legal representation stated that the Hulhumale’ Court Bench had been established under the counsel of the Supreme Court, and that this held the weight of a Supreme Court ruling.

Nasheed’s legal team contested this, stating that ‘counsel’ and a ‘ruling’ of the Supreme Court cannot be considered to hold the same strength.

Upon receiving answers for some of the questions posed, Nasheed’s lawyers requested for more time to prepare a response, which the bench granted.

In concluding the hearing, the High Court judge’s bench stated that the next hearing of the case would be arranged in the near future, at which Nasheed’s legal team is expected to respond to the procedural matters raised by JSC.

The bench added that in an additional hearing which will be held closely following the next one, the High Court will reveal its ruling on the same matters.

JSC’s request to expedite case

In April, the JSC sent a letter to the High Court requesting that the case be expedited.

The letter was signed by JSC Vice Chair Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Didi, and it was later revealed that it had been sent without consultation with other members of the commission.

JSC member appointed from among the public, Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman, told media that he believed the letter was sent under orders of JSC Chair Adam Mohamed, adding that the Chair did not have the authority to make such decisions without consulting the commission members.

“I believe that whoever advised for this letter to be sent has done so with the intention of influencing Nasheed’s case to be concluded in a particular way,” he had said at the time.

Shuaib’s contention was later backed by Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid, who also sits on the commission.

However, JSC media official Hassan Zaheen stated that he did not believe that sending the letter would exert any undue influence or pressure, even though the JSC is currently looking into disciplinary matters concerning the Chief Judge of the High Court. He added that similar letters had been sent in the past at the discretion of the JSC Chair.

The case in question is one filed by the defense counsel of Nasheed, challenging the legitimacy of the panel of judges presiding over the case against him for the arbitrary detention during his administration of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Nasheed and his party contend the case is a politically motivated attempt to convict and prevent him from contesting in the upcoming September 7 presidential elections.

Lawyers representing the JSC has even previously requested the High Court dismiss the case, contending the court did not have the jurisdiction to preside on the matter.

Upon accepting the case, the HIgh Court issued a stay order on Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court to suspend all criminal trials concerning the arrest of the judge until a ruling on the legitimacy of the bench is issued.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Spray-painting “irreligious” on people’s homes risks sparking hate crimes: former police intelligence chief

Former Police Intelligence Chief Mohamed Hameed has expressed concern that a recent outbreak of graffiti, in which dozens of homes and public buildings have been spray-painted ‘laadheenee’ (‘irreligious’), could trigger hate crimes in the capital.

Hameed said the “highly provocative act”  required precautionary action from the police.

“The ‘laadheenee’ graffiti on many walls in Male’ is a serious issue, possibly leading to hate crimes. This has come up at a time when politicians are often speaking of religion, and [former President] Gayoom has himself just recently said that there are two ideologies in the country: religious and anti-religious,” Hameed stated, referring to a recent speech by the autocratic leader of 30 years.

“The graffiti came up shortly after that, and is mostly in yellow paint. It can be said it is targeting a specific group of people. This can lead to retaliatory acts from the target groups,” Hameed contended.

“With the looming elections, this might be an act deliberately orchestrated by a particular group of people to attempt to create chaos and delay elections, saying the country does not have a conducive environment in which a free and fair election can be carried out,” he said.

“It seems like the graffiti was put up late at night. Now, since there are no shops or cafe’s open 24/7, there are only a minimal amount of people out late. The police are out patrolling the streets at all hours so it should not be too much of a task for them to find out who is responsible for this. I think they probably already have an idea. I believe it’s very important the police investigate this matter and take precautionary measures,” Hameed stated.

The graffiti has since been altered to form a variety of other phrases ranging from “MullahDheen” (‘Mullah religion’) to “BinLaadheenTha?” (‘Is it Bin Laden?’).

“Political activism doesn’t strip me of religion”

Minivan News spoke to people living in some of the houses who woke up to see the label “Laadheenee” scrawled over their walls.

“We are not a high profile family, and usually just stay to ourselves, so I was very surprised to see this derogatory word on our wall. Perhaps it is because one of my sisters is very active in the anti-coup protests,” said the eldest son of one such house.

“None of us, even my sister, is intimidated by this. Why can’t people with opposing political views be like us? That’s what my Dad said too. We don’t run around vandalising the property of those sheikhs who preach hate, or their followers.”

A small street in Maafannu ward had the graffiti on a quarter of the houses along it.

“This street definitely has a lot of people living on it who support the MDP, but that doesn’t make us anti-religious in any sense,” said one resident, a 53 year-old housewife. “Political activism doesn’t strip me of my religion. This just displays their lack of maturity and political ineptitude.”

Another resident, a 24 year-old man, called the act ‘childish’, adding, “Seeing the graffiti, it was mostly anger I felt. This is obviously politically motivated. What right do they have to go around damaging the property of people they do not know at all?”

A 38 year-old man who lives alone in a house in Henveiru said he felt the graffiti was the start of something “larger and more menacing.”

“It’s like they have marked down the houses of people they mean to attack. The saddest thing is, although the word refers to religion, I doubt their intentions are anything but political. I hope the police look into this and ensure that none of us come to physical harm.”

“‘Laadheeneee’ is an old song, no one’s interested”: MDP MP

MDP Spokesperson Imthiyaz Fahmy described the painting of the graffiti as “a desperate political move” and “an old song that  people simply are no longer interested in listening to.”

“All this talk of religion and being anti-religious is a politically-motivated ploy used by a handful of politicians who have nothing else to come to the public with. They have no pledges, no manifesto, no policies: and because they have nothing to speak of, they resort to labelling those who do with derogatory terms,” Fahmy said.

“This particular instance is a crime according to both international law and the local law; I refer to the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) and the Religious Unity Act respectively. Because of the state our law enforcement system is in at the moment, we see no action being taken against crimes like this,” Fahmy said.

“It is this failure to act that led to the February 7 coup d’etat. The sad thing is that both the law enforcement forces and the judiciary are not working to deal with serious matters like this,” he continued.

“Religion does not belong to any man. It is between God and oneself. There is no justification for abusing religion in the competitiveness of politics,” he said.

Police Media Official Chief Inspector Hassan Haneef was not responding to calls at time of press.

Religion and politics

During an address given in Denmark, former President and MDP presidential candidate Mohamed Nasheed stated that the Maldivian people had largely rejected Islamic extremism, and, in a veiled reference to the Adhaalath Party – the only local political party which claims to be based on a religious ideology – noted that “the Islamists were never a credible electoral threat.”

“The Islamic extremists also didn’t like the Maldives’ new democracy because they were unpopular. They failed to win the presidential elections in 2008, they failed to win local government elections – in 2011 they won less than four percent of the vote. But now, after the coup, extremists have been rewarded with three cabinet positions in government, and in many ways set the tone of the government communications. They are busy trying to indoctrinate people with a misguided version of Islam,” Nasheed said.

“There is idea of wanting to return to Hejaz as it was in the 7th century. This is Wahhabism in principle. And it is difficult and worrying,” he had said at the time.

The religion based political party condemned Nasheed’s comments, alleging that “Nasheed misled them about the party he fears and envies most: the Adhaalath Party.”

The next night, the National Movement – comprising of Adhaalath Party and a number of NGOs – organised a several hundred strong march around Male’ calling on authorities to penalise Nasheed, with some calling for him to be hanged. They alleged that Nasheed had mocked Islam, the Sunnah of the Prophet and verses of the Quran.

Meanwhile, the MDP has released a statement condemning the use of “irresponsible and misleading” political rhetoric against Nasheed over his remarks on Islamic radicalism.

The party said “misleading” statements were made in the media by political parties and “those wearing the hats of sheikhs to use religion as a weapon.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC Chair asked to expedite Hulhumale’ Bench case without counsel of members: Sheikh Rahman

The Judicial Services Commission (JSC)’s request that the High Court expedite a case concerning the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench overhearing the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed is an attempt to unduly influence the court, JSC member Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman has stated.

“As I see it, a letter like this can only be sent after seeking counsel of commission members in a formal meeting,” Sheikh Rahman said, referring to the request sent by the JSC to the High Court on Sunday.

“However, I only heard about this letter in the media. The next day, I raised the issue at the commission’s meeting, and that is when they finally showed it to me,” he said.

“The letter was signed by the Vice Chair of the JSC [Criminal Court Judge] Abdulla Didi. Abdulla Didi would not send such a letter of his accord. I believe that what has happened here is that he has sent this letter under the orders of JSC Chair [Supreme Court Judge] Adam Mohamed,” he said.

Sheikh Rahman added that the JSC’s Chair was only granted authority to autonomously answer letters concerning administrative matters.

“This letter, however, is certainly not to do with an administrative issue, nor is it a response to a letter. They have taken the initiative and sent a letter to a court concerning an ongoing case, speaking of the case outside of court proceedings. There are already lawyers appointed for this. Such decisions must be made in commission meetings,” he stated.

“I believe that whoever advised for this letter to be sent has done so with the intention of influencing Nasheed’s case to be concluded in a particular way,” Sheikh Rahman declared.

“The JSC, even prior to the sending of this letter, is looking into a number of complaints against the Chief Judge of the High Court and some concerning him or other judges of that same court. The fact is that the JSC has the mandate to appoint or remove the High Court Chief Judge, therefore it is very likely going to exert pressure and influence when this oversight committee sends such a letter,” Sheikh Rahman explained.

The case in question is one filed by the defense counsel of former President Mohamed Nasheed, challenging the legitimacy of the three member bench appointed by the JSC to the case against him for the arbitrary detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Nasheed and his party contend the case is a politically-motivated attempt to convict and prevent him contesting the presidential elections in September.

Lawyers representing the JSC previously requested the High Court dismiss the case, contending the court did not have the jurisdiction to preside on the matter.

Upon accepting the case, the High Court issued a stay order on Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court to suspend all criminal trials concerning the arrest of the judge, until a ruling on the legitimacy of the court’s bench is issued.

“Far more concerning cases”

Sheikh Rahman stated that there were other “far more concerning cases” pending in the country’s courts, which the JSC had not sought to expedite.

“There is a case concerning matters relating to the appointment of judges to the superior courts. The JSC has then appealed it at the Supreme Court. This case has been pending for over an year. Within this period, the JSC has sent only two letters regarding the matter,” Sheikh Rahman said.

“The appointment of judges to the superior courts is at a standstill until a verdict is reached on this case. This is a far more pressing matter.”

Not the first time such a letter is sent: JSC

JSC Media Official Hassan Zaheen initially declined from commenting on the issues raised by Sheikh Rahman.

“Shuaib is a member, right? Now when a member has said something, I do not know what to say with regard to that. As I have told media before, this is not the first time we have sent such a letter. I don’t know what has to be said.”

Approached for comments, JSC Vice Chair Abdulla Didi requested that Minivan News contact the JSC’s media official instead.

When informed that the media official had declined from commenting on the matter, Abdulla Didi stated that as media officer, Zaheen was mandated to respond to media.

“Just this week we decided in a commission meeting that Zaheen will answer all media queries regarding this matter, under the counsel of JSC Chair or myself. If he asks me for counsel, I will definitely not stop him from providing explanations. However, I am not the media person, so I do not want to comment on the matter to any media,” Didi said.

Under counsel from the Vice Chair, Zaheen later responded to Sheikh Rahman’s statements.

“I don’t know what Shuaib means by that. We [JSC] believe this is an administrative step taken in order to carry out our work in a more timely manner. The law says the chair, as the highest authority, can take administrative decisions,” he stated.

“It does not matter to us whether the case has to do with [former President Mohamed] Nasheed or whoever. As respondents, we have the right to make this request,” he continued.

“Remember the case of Abdulla Ghazi [Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed]? When there was a case concerning him in Civil Court, this commission sent a letter asking it to be expedited. Even that letter was sent as an administrative letter under the Chair’s orders, not after a decision made in a commission meeting,” Zaheen explained.

Regarding the allegation that the letter may have exerted undue influence, Zaheen replied, “I do not believe that any influence will be exerted. JSC will look into disciplinary measures of any judges, as it is our mandate. That does not mean that we can’t send a letter when a case concerning us in being tried in one of these courts. Who else will come to raise that point? If, as you all claim, there is a conflict of interest, then there are policies the JSC has shared with the judges on how they can abstain from such cases. I trust the judges will do so if need be.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

‘National Movement’ launches protest against Nasheed “for being against Islam”

A group of people led by ‘National Movement’ – comprising of several NGOs and the Adhalaath Party – protested on the streets of Male’ yesterday against remarks made by former President Mohamed Nasheed to a university in Denmark.

Several hundred protesters marched around Male’ last night, starting  and finishing at the Artificial Beach, calling for the authorities to penalise Nasheed.

Speaking at Copenhagen University about Islamic radicalism in the Maldives, Nasheed stated the Maldivian population had largely rejected Islamic extremism, and, in a veiled reference to the Adhaalath Party, noted that “the Islamists were never a credible electoral threat.”

“ The Islamic extremists also didn’t like the Maldives’ new democracy because they were unpopular. They failed to win the Presidential elections in 2008, they failed to win local government elections – in 2011 they won less that four percent of the vote. But now, after the coup, extremists have been rewarded with three cabinet positions in government, and in many ways set the tone of government communications. They are busy trying to indoctrinate people with a misguided version of Islam,” Nasheed said.

Nasheed acknowledged that there was “a lot of xenophobia, Islamic rhetoric and intolerance going on in the Maldives”, and noted the destruction of 12-century Buddhist statues, manuscripts, and other evidence of the Maldives’ pre-Islamic history.

“There is idea of wanting to return to Hejaz at it was in the 7th century. This is Wahabism in principle. And it is difficult and worrying,” Nasheed said.

“The vast majority of our society are very tolerant people. If all this Islamist rhetoric is removed from official discourse, there will be a much more liberal society. I assure you the rhetoric will be removed from official discourse,” he said.

President of the Adhaalath Party Sheikh Imran Abdulla, who was abroad, addressed the protesters via mobile phone, accusing Nasheed of destroying the reputation of the Maldives.

Imran claimed Nasheed had “now confessed” to what the Adhaalath Party had previously accused him.

He also said that the national movement should include this issue in its protest planned for next month, for the rights of murder victims.

Spokesperson of theNational Movement Sobah Rasheed told newspaper Haveeru that the group would protest against Nasheed “every night”.

He alleged Nasheed had mocked the religion of Islam, the Sunnah of Prophet Mohamed (PBUH) and verses of the Holy Quran.

Meanwhile, speaking to a rally on Bilehdhoo in Faafu Atoll on Sunday night, Nasheed accused “politicians posing as religious scholars” on bringing about February 7 2013’s controversial transfer of power, “selling out the religion of Islam.”

“By donning the caps of religious scholars and deceiving citizens in the name of religion, they gained power in a government and are now in the midst of the biggest worldly sin,” Nasheed alleged.

“The religion of Islam is a religion which has been given respect and honour in our hearts. They can always play with our hearts when they speak in the name of religion, especially when they do so in the guise of being Islamic scholars,” he said.

“We Maldivians are waking up to this now. We can no longer believe the things they say in the name of being religious scholars.”

Nasheed’s address in Copenhagen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bLZMKv6PPhs

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)