Tag: Mohamed Nasheed

“Posing as scholars, they sold out Islam to bring about a coup d’etat”: former President

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) presidential candidate and former President Mohamed Nasheed has said February 7, 2012’s controversial transfer of power was by politicians posing as religious scholars “selling out on the religion of Islam.”

Nasheed made the comments while addressing a rally held in the island of Bilehdhoo in Faafu Atoll on Sunday night, where a number of new members signed to the party including the island’s council president.

Only aim of small parties is promoting self-interest

Addressing the crowds, Nasheed stated that the country was seeing the formation of a number of small political parties.

“These parties are not formed with any intention of promoting any specific ideology or philosophy. The objective of forming these parties are to increase the power of their private businesses through these parties,” he stated.

“When they have a political party they sit down for business discussions, and the government is forced to relent. This is the reason why these people create political parties,” Nasheed said.

“After forming such parties, they then contest in elections and say that if they are given cabinet posts, islands, judges and warehouses, then they will into a coalition. The people have no part in such a coalition, it’s only these leaders who enter it,” Nasheed continued.

He further added that although small party leaders did not consider the interests of the general members or citizens when entering coalitions, he regretted that such parties were initially formed by acquiring signatures from those among the public.

“These forms were filled  illegitimately using money as an incentive. We are seeing this for certain beyond any doubt. And once the party is formed, they then sell off the party to this coalition,” he alleged.

“One of the biggest things that this coalition has done is toppling the government which was legitimately elected in 2008.”

“This country has a ‘haram’ government”

“There is no greater sin in Islam than to orchestrate a coup,” Nasheed stated.

“Wearing hats of sheikhs and religious scholars, they have committed a huge sin, an act which is absolutely haram. Today, this country has a haram government. Being a 100 percent Muslim country, we must not let them continue carrying out this haram act in front of our eyes. God willing, we will win this presidential election in one round.”

“God willing, the righteous will always win. Human experience has never shown that a people who have committed a haram act, and remain in that state of sin, can succeed in what they are doing. We have never seen this happen in the past, and except for a few of our countrymen, no one believes they will gain that success even in future.”

During his speech, Nasheed spoke of the rhetoric used by political parties had against his administration prior to the contentious transfer of power in February 2012.

“In their ploy to topple our government, they spoke of two things. One is that it was for the sake of religion. In this context, one issue they raised was that the management of Ghiyasudheen School [in Male’] included foreigners. Meanwhile, we can clearly see that even here the principal is a foreigner, the teachers are foreigners.”

“After having preached this against Ghiyasudheen School, today it is the children of these religious scholars who are enrolled to study in that school. [Adhaalath Party MP] Muhthalib’s child goes to that school. The Supreme Court Judges’ children also go to that school. All the religious scholars have their children enrolled in this school, and this is because it is a school where the educational standards are very high,” Nasheed said.

“They toppled our government because we were establishing that school, and yet today their children are enrolled there,” he claimed.

“When they were overthrowing our government, they spoke about massage parlours. We are not seeing these places being closed down today. They spoke of the sale of alcohol, and yet the amount of alcohol being sold has not gone down.”

“I am absolutely certain that you will not see any issue that they have raised that has been stopped today,” Nasheed said, addressing many of the accusations that had been made against him by the then opposition coalition.

“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.”

“The Adhaalath Party did contest in the parliamentary elections, as well as the local council elections. They did not win a single seat in the first, and only two or three or seats on Fainu in the local council elections, out of a total of over 1700 seats,” Nasheed stated.

“Maldivians have never accepted that religious scholars should get entangled in worldly political matters. They are pious, righteous people who should be advising people like us on religious matters. It will not do when today they themselves are coming out and drafting laws to govern massage parlours,” Nasheed said.

“All of this is clear to us Maldivians now: a coup d’etat was brought about in the Maldives, and this coup was orchestrated by selling out the religion of Islam.”

“’Me, me, mine’ is the motto of small parties”

“The other issue that they spoke of when toppling our government is that we were putting up national assets for sale. They claimed we sold the airport on Hulhule’, which still remains there. No one has left taking the airport with them,” Nasheed stated.

“After the coup, the very people who claimed loudly that airport had been sold and partook in the coup, took the airport themselves. This they did not see as a national asset. The airport that we rent out for development was said to be a national asset, though. It is as if they become assets when they are in the hands of a certain people. As if it is not a national asset as long as it remains in their hands,” he said.

“The whole objective of a small political party is ‘for me, me, mine’; to see what is in it for them and to continue forming coalitions so as to increase the lot they will personally gain from it,” Nasheed continued.

“No development work was carried out in the Maldives in 2012 – the country was at a standstill. These people’s motto is to remain in a standstill. The government is at a standstill. They do nothing besides quarrelling among themselves,” Nasheed said.

“I think that if they make a large coalition, there is no relief for us Maldivians. It will be then be all about their coalition, their interests, their wealth, their businesses and their rule.”

“Children are not to be handled like tuna”

President Mohamed Waheed has meanwhile expressing “deep sadness” after a parent had stopped a child from shaking hands with the him during a trip to Meemu Atoll last weekend.

“The child won’t even know who I am even, but the father has taught the child a very bad lesson. To refuse to shake hands with anyone who approaches is not something Muslims do, not something Maldivians do,” Waheed was quoted as saying in local media.

Nasheed referred to this incident in his speech in Bilehdhoo.

“When ‘Baaghee’ (traitor) Mohamed Waheed went to an island and tried to harass a child, and the parents stopped him from doing so, he released a media statement expressing sadness about this,” Nasheed said.

“I have said even the other day, that parents will of course get angry when you try to hoist a child up like they hoist up tuna onto a fishing boat. I have said even then that we look at this child, carry this child, because their life is our party’s future, this nation’s future. This party has a policy which has to do with everything from their toe to their tip of their hair. This party is the child’s party. This party exists for the sake of the child’s future, for our future. To make their hopes and dreams a reality. And so, parents will not get angry when we approach their children and carry them,” Nasheed stated.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Pro-Sharia march held in Male’

Men and women of various ages marched through the streets of Male’ yesterday (April 19), calling for Islamic Sharia to be fully implemented in the Maldives.

Yesterday’s march, which organisers claimed had no political backing, was said to have been led by a group of young people calling for Sharia to be fully implemented to protect the Maldives from “calamities” that it is presently facing, according to local media.

However, one local religious NGO has argued that Maldivian society was not presently ready to undergo such radical reforms to the nation’s legal system, arguing that any changes would need to be made gradually over a long period of time.

Commencing yesterday at 4:30pm by the social centre in the capital, the pro-Sharia march concluded just before 6:00pm at the artificial beach area.

A small number of demonstrators were in attendance, reported the Sun Online news website. Organisers have pledged that further pro-Sharia marches were anticipated in future.

Minister of Islamic Affairs Sheikh Mohamed Shaheem Ali Saeed and State Islamic Minister Mohamed Didi were not responding to calls at the time of press.

“Long process”

Co-founder of the Islamic Foundation of Maldives (IFM) Ibrahim Nazim, speaking in a personal capacity, told Minivan News that he believed demonstrators may have been affiliated with fellow religious NGOs in the country.

Nazim said key figures behind the demonstration would have likely been religious conservatives, who in some cases may have held more “radical” views of Islam.

In addressing the key aims of the march, he added that from a personal perspective, Maldivian society was not presently an environment conducive for Islamic Sharia to be implemented outright.

Nazim argued that implementing Sharia law correctly would be a long process for the country. He took the example of other Islamic nations such as Pakistan that had sought to implement a complete adherence to Sharia law in a short period of time, resulting in power struggles and other political complications as a result.

“This is not something we can just implement overnight, we will require people to change their attitudes before we are ready for such a change,” he suggested. “It will be a long process for the country.”

When contacted about the implementation of Sharia in the Maldives, President’s Office Media Secretary Masood Imad today recommended Minivan News contact the Islamic Ministry over religious issues concerning the state.

“I think it would be best to speak to the Islamic Ministry on this,” Masood said.

Meanwhile, a senior figure serving within the current government of President Dr Mohamed Waheed – speaking on condition of anonymity – argued that any significant changes to the country’s faith would always have to be made gradually and could not be made in a short period of time.

The source argued that the previous government of former President Mohamed Nasheed – which claimed to favour what it called a “more moderate and tolerant” form of Islam – had attempted to bring changes to the country’s perception of faith and religious conservatism in too short a period of time.

While claiming to personally favour a “more tolerant” interpretation of Islam, the source argued that the resulting opposition to the former government’s religious stance had likely led to the controversial transfer of power that saw former President Nasheed resign on February 7, 2012.  His resignation came on the back of a mutiny among sections of the police and military.

Islamic Sharia in the Maldives

Under article 142 of the Maldives’ Constitution, the judiciary is presently required to looked to turn to Islamic Sharia in any matters where the Constitution or the law is silent.

To this end, the country’s courts have in certain cases granted the death sentence to severe crimes such as murder, while also using punishments like flogging in certain sexual offence cases.

However, the acting Head of State under each of the last three governments has commuted death sentences to life sentences in every single case.

The last person to be judicially executed in the Maldives was Hakim Didi, who was executed by firing squad in 1953 after being found guilty of conspiracy to murder using black magic.

Legal Reform

In December 2012, former Attorney General Azima Shukoor drafted a bill outlining how the death sentence should be executed in the Maldives as part of ongoing consultations on enacting such a punishment.

Lethal injection was identified as the state’s preferred method of capital punishment in the bill, while further consultations were being taken on possibly removing the serving Head of State’s right to commute death sentences upheld by the Supreme Court.

Earlier this year, the government of President Dr Mohamed Waheed had pledged to review the possibility of legal reforms to bring an end to the use of punishments like flogging in the country’s justice system.

Addressing the scale of these potential reforms, President’s Office Media Secretary Masood said last month that all authorities involved in the process would have to tread “a very fine line” in order to tackle long standing “traditions” and beliefs in the country.

“Reforms must be undertaken, but this must be done gradually considering we are dealing with a process embedded in society,” he said, discussing the government’s commitments to bring an end to sentences like flogging. “A certain amount of compromise may be needed.”

The wider Maldives legal system has itself been brought under the spotlight after former President Nasheed controversially detained the Criminal Court Chief Judge last year.

Nasheed’s government argued the decision was necessary as the judge in question had become a threat to “national security” after ordering investigations into his own alleged misconduct halted.

Nasheed is presently facing trial in the country over the abduction of the judge.

Following the commencement of the trial, Gabriela Knaul, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, earlier this year raised several concerns about the effectiveness of the wider Maldives legal system following a fact-finding mission.

Knaul stated back in February that upon conclusion of her mission meetings, she had found that the concept of independence of the judiciary has been “misconstrued and misinterpreted” by all actors, including the judiciary itself, in the Maldives.

Addendum: This article earlier attributed views of Co-founder of the Islamic Foundation of Maldives (IFM) Ibrahim Nazim to the organisation. He has subsequently clarified that his comments were made in a personal capacity.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Weakening faith” opportunity for foreign powers to influence Maldives: President Waheed

President Dr Mohamed Waheed has today spoken of his concern that the “weakening faith” of Maldivians was allowing unspecified “foreign powers” to increase their influence over the country’s  internal affairs.

Despite the number of differing political beliefs currently held by Maldivians, president Waheed called on the public to ensure that Islam and “national interest” were always their foremost priorities.

“Our national anthem, national flag, and national colours that symbolize the country should come first,” read an official statement quoting Dr Waheed that was posted on the President’s Office website today.

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has meanwhile questioned President Waheed’s religious convictions, accusing him of being “double-faced” by trying to appeal to Islamists in the country for political gain, while claiming his comments more resembled the words of a “dictator”.

President Waheed made the comments today as he visited the island of Alifushi in North Maalhosmadulu Atoll as part of a tour to survey and break ground on a number of development projects in the area such as school and hospital constructions.

Speaking to local people on the island, President Waheed said that foreign powers would always seek to try and influence the country during times of conflict and instability.

Stressing the need for unity at both a national and community level, he therefore urged the public to try to prevent political views from coming between families.

President’s Office Media Secretary Masood Imad, who had not travelled with the president to Alifushi today, said he was not aware of the nature of the president’s comments when contacted this afternoon. Masood was not responding to calls for further clarification at time of press.

Unifying force

Meanwhile, MDP MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor today rejected suggestions that President Waheed stood as a unifying force for Islam in the Maldives, accusing him of politicising the nation’s faith for his own gain.

“It is the mark of his total weakness in politics that [President Waheed] has put himself in this position,” he said. “There is no currency among the public in what he says.”

Hamid claimed that many Maldivians were aware that the president had sought to “play Islam” for political gain since he took office following the controversial transfer of power in February 2012.

President Waheed, who served as vice president under the former government, came to power after the resignation of former President Mohamed Nasheed following a mutiny by sections of the police and military.

Nasheed later alleged he had resigned under duress in what both himself and the MDP contend was a “coup d’etat”, despite a Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) later concluding that President Waheed had come to power constitutionally.

Hamid alleged that President Waheed remained a “coup leader”, who had been backed by key businessmen in the country linked to its lucrative tourism industry.

“What is most bizarre is that it was certain tourism oligarchs who brought him to power.”

Coalition agreement

Just last month, President Waheed announced he would be forming a coalition between his Gaumee Ithihaad Party (GIP) and the religious conservative Adhaalath Party (AP) ahead of presidential elections scheduled for later this year.

The AP, one of five parties in the country meeting a recently approved regulation requiring any registered political body to have 10,000 registered members, is part of the coalition government of President Waheed following last year’s change in government.

Both Adhalaath and GIP do not presently have any elected members in parliament.

The religious conservative party was previously a coalition partner in the government of former President Nasheed, later leaving the government citing concerns at what it alleged were the irreligious practices of the administration.

This led the AP in December 2011 to join then fellow opposition parties – now members of Waheed’s unity government – and a number of NGOs to gather in Male’ with thousands of people to “defend Islam”.

During the same day, Nasheed’s MDP held their own rally held at the artificial beach area in Male’ claiming his government would continue to practice a “tolerant form” of Islam, reminding listeners that Islam in the Maldives has traditionally been tolerant.

“We can’t achieve development by going backwards to the Stone Age or being ignorant,” Nasheed said at the time.

Shortly after coming to power in February 2012, flanked by members of the new government’s coalition, President Waheed gave a speech calling on supporters to “Be courageous; today you are all mujaheddin”.

“Extremism” fears

Earlier this week, Dr Ahmed Shaheed, former Foreign Minister under both the governments of former Presidents Nasheed and Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, alleged that anti-semitism, racism, xenophobia and religious intolerance were “deeply entrenched” in political parties currently opposed to the MDP.

Dr Shaheed’s comments followed reports in local media summarising US Embassy cables first published by Wikileaks in 2009, and discussed during the then-opposition parliament’s efforts to impeach the foreign minister.

In particular, the Maldivian government’s engagement with Israel was the subject of a parliamentary debate November 9, 2009, in which Shaheed narrowly avoided impeachment following a no-confidence motion.

Opposition to the Maldives’ recognition of Israel was seized by then opposition groups in December 2011 as a sign of the Nasheed government’s “anti-Islamic” policies.

However, Dr Shaheed claimed that “Growing extremism hurts the Maldives rather than anybody else, because whenever a state is unable to deliver what is in the public interest due to intimidation from others, it is the state that suffers.”

Meanwhile, a recent report on extremism in the Maldives published in US West Point military academy’s Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) Sentinel has warned that growing religious extremism and political uncertainty in the country risk negatively affecting the country’s tourism industry.

“Despite its reputation as an idyllic paradise popular among Western tourists, political and religious developments in the Maldives should be monitored closely,” the report concluded.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Court commences police chief’s ‘baaghee’ defamation case against former president

The Civil Court yesterday ( April 8 ) began hearing statements in a defamation case filed by Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz against former President Mohamed Nasheed.

Riyaz is seeking MVR3.75 million (US$243,506) in damages from Nasheed, who is accused of labelling the commissioner a ‘baaghee’ (traitor) following the controversial transfer of power on February 7, 2012, which saw sections of the police and military mutiny against the former government.

Nasheed is accused of continuing to call the commissioner a ‘baaghee’ even after a Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) later concluded the government of President Dr Mohamed Waheed came to power constitutionally.

A Civil Court spokesperson confirmed to Minivan News that lawyers representing both Riyaz and Nasheed were present yesterday during the first of five hearings anticipated to determine the charges against the former president.

During the hearing, the presiding judge asked the defence to answer the allegations against Nasheed. The next hearing of the case is expected to allow Nadheed’s representatives to present a statement in his defence, according to a spokesperson for the Civil Court.

No date was set for the next hearing, the court claimed.

Riyaz’s defamation case had been scheduled to begin last year, but was later postponed upon request of the commissioner himself.

MDP MP and lawyer Mariya Ahmed Didi said the party has previously issued a statement following the postponement of the hearings, claiming that Nasheed was “anxious to proceed with the case”.

Mariya alleged that Commissioner Riyaz was hesitant to proceed with the defamation case for fear that he would not be able to prove that his standing in society or his wider reputation had suffered as a result of the former president’s comments.

“There are hundreds of witnesses just waiting to give their evidence in court. In addition, senior police and Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) officers including [former] commissioner of Police Faseeh and Defence Force chief Moosa Jaleel have testified to the relevant committee of parliament that the events of February 7 and February 8 were indeed a coup,” she claimed. “We are confident that if we get a free and fair trial we will get a judgement in our favour.”

“Undermining” commisioner’s esteem

Riyaz’s lawyers have previously accused Nasheed of undermining the esteem and respect of the police commissioner by labelling him as a “traitor.”

The legal team also argued at the time that Nasheed’s words had compromised the safety of Riyaz, requiring security at his residence to be strengthened.

Commissioner Riyaz and Police Spokesperson Chief Inspetor Hassan Haneef were not responding to calls at time of press.

Meanwhile, MVR3.75 million in damages are being sought from Nasheed by serving Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim, who has also accused the former president of damaging his reputation by labelling a traitor during a public address last year.

Newspaper ‘Haveeru’ reported at the time that following a speech by Nasheed attacking the defence minister, a group of protesters came outside Nazim’s house, “leaving Nazim’s family in fear”.

Former Youth Minister Dr Hassan Latheef, who defended Nasheed at a Civil Court hearing held in October 2012, told the presiding judge at the time that the former president denied the charges against him.

Nasheed’s legal team has previously contended that Riyaz had filed the defamation case in the civil court at a time when the police were continuously arresting people for calling them ‘baaghee’ on the streets. The same representatives also accused the country’s criminal court of continuing to provide extensions of detention periods for people arrested under the charges.

Further charges

Nasheed is also currently in the process of being tried on charges that  he illegally detained a senior judge during the end of his presidency.

However, all trials concerning the judge’s detention were suspended earlier this month pending a High Court ruling on the legitimacy of the bench of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court conducting Nasheed’s case.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

President Waheed to form election coalition with religious conservative Adhaalath Party

President Dr Mohamed Waheed has announced plans to form a coalition between his Gaumee Ithihaad Party (GIP) and the religious conservative Adhaalath Party (AP), ahead of presidential elections scheduled for later this year.

Writing on his personal Twitter account Thursday (March 28), President Waheed welcomed the support of the  AP, while expressing hope other undisclosed parties would be making similar announcements at a later date.

The AP tweeted the same day that its council have approved the coalition with the current president ahead of the September this year.

By yesterday (March 29), the AP tweeted that it aimed to “form a large, strong coalition” including other parties in the country to try and provide stability and prosperity in the Maldives following the presidential race.

The AP, one of five parties in the country meeting a recently approved regulation requiring any registered political body to have 10,000 registered members, is part of the coalition government of President Waheed following the controversial transfer of power that brought him into office in February 2012.

Both Adhalaath and GIP do not presently have any elected members in parliament.

The religious conservative party was previously a coalition partner in the government of former President Mohamed Nasheed, later leaving the government citing concerns at what it alleged were the irreligious practices of the administration.

This led the AP in December 2011 to join then fellow opposition parties – now members of Waheed’s unity government – and a number of NGOs to gather in Male’ with thousands of people to “defend Islam”.

During the same day, Nasheed’s MDP held their own rally held at the Artificial Beach area in Male’ claiming his government would continue to practice a “tolerant form” of Islam, reminding listeners that Islam in the Maldives has traditionally been tolerant.

“We can’t achieve development by going backwards to the Stone Age or being ignorant,” Nasheed said at the time.

Shortly after coming to power in February 2012, flanked by members of the new government’s coalition, President Waheed gave a speech calling on supporters to “Be courageous; today you are all mujaheddin”.

GIP Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza, President’s Office Media Secretary Masood Imad and President of the Adhaalath Party Sheikh Imran Abdulla were not responding to calls regarding the coalition announcement today.

Diverging opinions

Despite the agreement to cooperate between the two parties, Waheed and the AP differ in their reaction to the recent controversial sentencing of a 15 year old rape victim to 100 lashes for fornication with another man.

President Waheed’s  stated on his official Twitter account at the time: “I am saddened by the sentence of flogging handed to a minor. Govt will push for review of this position.”

The Foreign Ministry subsequently expressed “deep concern by the prosecution and the Juvenile Court’s sentence to flog a 15 year-old girl on the charges of pre-marital sex.”

“Though the flogging will be deferred until the girl turns 18, the government believes she is the victim of sexual abuse and should be treated as such by the state and the society and therefore, her rights should be fully protected. The Government is of the view that the case merits appeal. The girl is under state care and the government will facilitate and supervise her appeal of the case, via the girl’s lawyer, to ensure that justice is done and her rights are protected,” the Ministry stated.

The President’s Office also recently announced it was looking at the possibility of bringing about reform to potentially bring an end to the use of punishments like flogging in the country’s justice system.

However the Adhaalath Party has publicly endorsed the sentence, stating that the girl “deserves the punishment”, as outlined under Islamic Sharia.

The party, members of which largely dominate the Maldives’ Ministry of Islamic Affairs, stated that the sentence of flogging had not been passed against the minor for being sexually abused by her stepfather, but rather for the consensual sex to which she had confessed to having to authorities.

“The purpose of penalties like these in Islamic Sharia is to maintain order in society and to save it from sinful acts. It is not at all an act of violence. We must turn a deaf ear to the international organisations which are calling to abolish these penalties, labeling them degrading and inhumane acts or torture,” read a statement from the party.

“If such sinful activities are to become this common, the society will break down and we may become deserving of divine wrath,” the Adhaalath Party stated.

Coalition potential

Of the parties yet to announce candidates to stand during the upcoming presidential elections, Dr Hassan Saeed, Leader of the government-aligned Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) and People’s Alliance MP Ahmed Nazim were not responding to calls regarding President Waheed’s announcement today.

Earlier this month, the government-aligned Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP) ruled out a coalition with the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) ahead of elections, despite being open to collaboration with other parties.

Both the PPM and DRP serve within President Waheed’s national unity government.

The DRP has also previously ruled out a collaboration with the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament notifies Gasim of case to remove him from JSC

Parliament has sent a notice to Majlis-appointed member to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), Gasim Ibrahim, regarding a case to remove him from his post.

Deputy Speaker of Parliament Ahmed Nazim told local media on Friday (March 22) that a notice had been sent to Gasim, who is also the presidential candidate for Jumhoree Party (JP), as per parliament procedures.

Nazim stated that the case submitted by the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) to remove Gasim from the JSC would be put on parliament’s agenda only after speaking with leaders from various political parties.

The notice follows a meeting held last week by Parliament’s Independent Commissions Oversight Committee, in which the entire JSC board was summoned to attend.

Throughout March, the oversight committee has been speaking with members of JSC in regard to the manner in which judges were appointed to the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench. The court is currently hearing the trial of former president Mohamed Nasheed, who is Gasim’s presidential rival in the upcoming elections in September.

Oversight Committee member and MDP Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor told Minivan News that during the meeting held on Wednesday (March 20), Gasim had lacked integrity when faced with questions from the committee.

“The focus of my questions was on the integrity of the JSC members and of the independence of judges.

“When I asked Mr Gasim whether he had announced his [presidential] candidacy before or after he was nominated to his post within the JSC, he said ‘I am not sure’,” Hamid claimed.

Gasim’s presidential rival and leader of the MDP, former President Mohamed Nasheed, is currently facing charges at Hulhumale’ court over the controversial detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

The MDP has maintained that the charges against Nasheed are a politically motivated attempt to bar him from the election in September.

Despite the JSC Chair and Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed declaring that the commission refused to discuss matters regarding the Hulhumale’ Court, individual members of the JSC still attended the oversight meetings.

“It is like a domino effect – the chair of the JSC has lost his authority. We believe this is the first step of the JSC being shaken to its core,” Hamid said. “Even on Wednesday the chair was still resistant to being questioned.”

Statements from individual JSC members given to the oversight committee revealed there had been concern as to how the Hulhumale’ Court bench had been appointed.

Furthermore, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul raised concerns over the politicisation of the JSC last month.

“I have heard from numerous sources that the current composition of the JSC is inadequate and politicised.

Because of this politicisation, the commission has been subjected to all sorts of external influence and consequently has been unable to function properly,” Knaul stated last month.

JSC composition does not allow independence of judiciary to be maintained: Shakoor

On Wednesday (March 20), Attorney General and JSC member Aishath Azima Shakoor told local media that the current composition of the commission did not allow it to maintain independence of the judiciary.

“I believe that, even though JSC has been composed according to constitution, it does not allow [it] to maintain the independence of the judiciary.

“I do not believe that JSC’s configuration is based on the most effective model. But JSC is how the Constitution says it should be, so we have to function like that,” Azima was quoted as saying in local media.

In regard to Gasim, who voted in favour of establishing the Hulhumale’ Court bench, Azima told local media that if she had been in Gasim’s position when the vote for the court bench had been undertaken, she would not have participated in the vote.

“I believe that the Parliament Committee on Independent Institutions’ review or investigation of the manner in which Hulhumale’ Court bench of judges was established will affect the trail that is currently proceeding in that court,” Azima was quoted as saying in Sun Online.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Amnesty International is biased; sometimes excessive force is absolutely necessary”: Human Rights Ambassador

Human Rights Ambassador of the President’s Office “Sandhaanu” Ahmed Ibrahim Didi has accused Amnesty International of “fabricating stories about the human rights situation in the Maldives” and of releasing reports about the Maldives without conducting any studies or research.

The Human Rights Ambassador has previously held a press conference declaring that there “should be no opposition parties”, and that “I cannot believe, in fact, I do not at all want to believe, that there can be anyone with views opposing that of the government.

He has also labelled the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) an “unlawful organisation which commits terrorist activities and attempts to undermine the powers of the state”, and called for the Elections Commission to dissolve it, on the grounds that “they shouldn’t be allowed to exist.”

In a number of letters to the NGO obtained by Minivan News, the Human Rights Ambassador initially spoke highly of the international human rights NGO, crediting it for the freedoms of assembly and expression currently constitutionally guaranteed to the country’s citizens.

“All Maldivians, especially me, should be very thankful to Amnesty. They helped me immensely back when I was jailed. I must say that, if not for Amnesty, we might still be stuck in an extension of that long 30 year regime [former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s administration]. Back then, we did not even have the rights guaranteed to a German frog. That’s right, even the German frog has won a court case which gave him the right to scream as loudly as he likes,” Ibrahim Didi said at a press briefing held on Wednesday.

“It was an initiative and pressure of Amnesty International that led to Maldives signing the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). When vocal youngsters on the street yell ‘baaghee’ [traitor] and vulgarities at me, I don’t say anything and instead smile at them because they are using a right that I guaranteed for them,” Ibrahim Didi said.

“But when these youthful protesters claim that the freedom of expression they use is a right they ensured for themselves, then they are simply wrong. I did it. I got those rights for us. It is I, who achieved the guarantee of these rights, who is now here is the Human Rights Ambassador,” Ibrahim Didi stated.

“Now, going back to the issue, although Amnesty was of great help, now they are being the exact opposite. Now they are acting wrongfully,” he said.

“Amnesty’s Abbas Faiz claims to have conducted studies, but actually they are righting these reports without having conducted any formal research or studies. They are causing so much trouble in the country,” the ambassador alleged.

“I am deeply saddened to utter such words against Amnesty, words which will doubtless upset them. However, this is my responsibility as the Human Rights Ambassador placed in the President’s Office. I have also twice written directly to Amnesty about these concerns,” he stated.

Ibrahim Didi did not clarify whether or not he had received responses to the letters sent to the international human rights civil society. He shared copies of the letters with the media, the first sent on October 30, 2012 titled “Ref: Police violence as ex-president is arrested on 8th October in Fares Mathoda” and the second sent on March 7, 2013 titled “Ref: Former President’s arrest ‘selective justice’ – Amnesty International.”

“Amnesty report extremely biased”

In a letter sent to the NGO regarding the first arrest of former President Mohamed Nasheed to present him to court in October 2012, Ibrahim Didi called Amnesty’s statements regarding the issue “incorrect and extremely biased”, stating they were issued “blindly without any research.”

The letter then aims to explain why the detention of Nasheed was necessary, stating that it was in relation to the former President having “violated the country’s constitution several times”. The letter, however, only offered as example the contentious case of Nasheed’s detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed, calling the detention “the most ruthless action ever conducted by the military against a citizen of the country in the known history”.

Ibrahim Didi also dismissed any allegations of executive involvement in the arrest of Nasheed, insisting that “the judiciary of the state operates independently.”

He then denied the allegations made in the Amnesty report, repeatedly stating that the NGO had “failed to conduct sufficient research”.

“When [Nasheed] was arrested and there was no confrontation between Nasheed’s supporters and the police. The ex-foreign Minister did not attack the police, for him to be kicked and pepper sprayed on his face as Amnesty’s report says. There was clearly no resistance displayed to use pepper spray in the whole operation. The whole operation was recorded on video and televised on local media,” he claimed in the letter.

“The source of Amnesty’s report was based on an eyewitness and without further investigation it was broadcast, tarnishing the Maldivian police integrity. Hence, we strongly urge Amnesty International to refrain from such exploitations without fully probing into facts as it leads to destruction of peace and harmony in the country.”

The Human Rights Ambassador, while dismissing allegations of police brutality, also offered justification for the police actions of February 8, 2012:

“We vehemently deny any accusation of police brutality during President Mohamed Waheed’s period (since February 2012) but on 8th February the police had to use force to disperse an aggressive Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) supporters who were armed with long sticks and bricks in their hands to batter the police force. And we would also like to note that the police personnel and Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) personnel were extremely exhausted on that day while there was no proper command and control formed after Nasheed’s resignation on 7th February sparking chaos in the whole country.”

In conclusion, Ibrahim Didi wrote that Amnesty International seemed to be highly concerned of human rights violations during Gayyoom’s regime, adding “it appears Amnesty International is indirectly rejecting any process of legality as those allegations against Maumoon not being investigated yet.”

Amnesty International had at the time released a report titled “The Other Side of Paradise: A Human Rights Crisis in the Maldives”, chronicling human rights abuses in the country since the controversial transfer of power in February 2012.

Minister of Home Affairs Mohamed Jameel Ahmed had responded to the report at the time, saying the NGO had failed to seek any comments from the government. He did not, however, appear to dispute the contents of the report.

“Sometimes excessive force is absolutely necessary”

In a more recent letter, Ibrahim Didi once again accuses Amnesty of bias, stating:

“We strongly deny that the filing a court case against Nasheed is a ‘selective justice’ being served here as Amnesty International suspects,” the letter read.

“Former President Gayyoom’s rule has been also investigated for three long years during Nasheed’s 3 year term,” Ibrahim Didi wrote. “Apart from the wages and office expenses a Singapore law firm was hired for 25 million US dollars.”

“So we regret to say that Amnesty’s comments come without any research as usual and the statements are biased, favouring MDP. It looks as it a MDP statement. If one is a little bit fair of the comments of the situation, they would blame on the burning properties, attacking of the peaceful pedestrians in their so-called peaceful demonstrations,” Ibrahim Didi alleged.

“Moreover MDP militant parliamentarians behaved inside the parliament house like thugs, destroying government properties and attacking security forces. They have played hooliganism before foreign dignitaries inside the chambers. In this civilized world no one could see such violent scenarios even in African subcontinent,” he continued.

Ibrahim Didi further stated that contrary to what MDP might say, their protests were not peaceful and hence “to stop this kind of violent protests, sometimes excessive force is absolutely necessary to minimize damages.”

He further labels MDP’s demonstrations as “illegal”, adding “If these demonstrations are legal and peaceful, we the whole Maldivians can come out and demonstrate at any time. Some can come out to demonstrate to hang Nasheed and his power clique for robbing the state wealth, shrinking our economy.”

Ibrahim Didi states that the trial against Nasheed is not the only charge against him, but rather “the beginning of a series”.

Stating that “we always believe Nasheed is a mentally ill person”, Ibrahim Didi lists out a number of accusations against the former President. Among these, he states that “Nasheed used state TV and Radio to propagate his party’s agenda” and that “MDP activists along with chairperson ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik and Nasheed’s right hand lady, Mariya Ahmed Didi had formed Kangaroo Court and conducted rulings on other citizens.”

Ibrahim Didi then refers to the controversial transfer of power of February 7, 2012, saying Nasheed was either “mentally ill” or “intoxicated and his brain was not functioning properly” on the day.

Ibrahim Didi stated that the Commission of National Inquiry’s findings and the HRCM report proves that Nasheed had resigned voluntarily and that “this is not a disputed resignation at all as Amnesty says.”

The Ambassador said that he “wonders why [Nasheed]’s foreign friends love him so much”, and stated he knew why the local ones did.

“They have altogether robbed the state wealth and sold government assets at cut rates and treasured them for future and now looking forward for some more. Now all these criminal are on the street, the drug addicts and the drunkards. Together they are trying to evade from the courts verdict. This has nothing to do with political instability in the country,” he accused.

“The country is not in a red alert situation here because of some paid street hooligans who shout on the roads and attack innocent civilians.”

Following the arrest of Nasheed earlier this month, Amnesty International stated the arrest an example of “selective justice”, which “highlights the failure of the Maldives authorities to investigate other serious human rights abuses in the country.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

DRP deputy contemplates election coalition, rules out PPM alliance

The government-aligned Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP) has ruled out a coalition with the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) ahead of elections later this year, despite being open to collaboration with other parties.

DRP Deputy Leader Ibrahim Shareef told Minivan News the DRP would not contemplate forming a coalition with the PPM beyond the present government, calling any discussion on the matter a “waste of time” considering previous disagreements between the two parties.

The PPM, a coalition partner in the government of President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik, was formed by DRP founder former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom in 2011 following an acrimonious war of words with the party’s current leader, Ahmed Thasmeen Ali. Thasmeen was directly appointed by Gayoom to be his successor as head of the DRP.

PPM members are currently campaigning ahead of primaries to decide whether MP Abdulla Yameen or the party’s former interim Deputy Leader Umar Naseer will contest as the organisations presidential candidate in September’s elections.

Speaking Friday (March 15) at a rally head at the artificial beach area of Male’, PPM Deputy Leader Ilham Ahmed claimed that unlike MP Yameen, “almost all parties” have said they would unite with Umar Naseeer in a coalition for the next presidential elections, reported Sun Online.

Ilham told the gathered crowd that being able to form a coalition would be important in the upcoming elections, adding that no other party would be interested in forming an alliance with a party helmed by MP Yameen.

MP Ilham was not responding to calls at time of press, while Umar Naseer’s secretary said he was too busy to speak.

However, PPM MP and spokesperson for MP Yameen’s campaign team Shifaq Mufeed has since slammed Umar Naseer’s primary team for making what he called slanderous and untruthful statements.

With its own congress scheduled for next month, DRP Deputy Leader Ibrahim Shareef said the DRP was presently focusing on its own campaign and manifesto for the presidential elections, but believed the party would never be able to form an alliance with the PPM going forward.

“Our position is very clear, we will not be forming a coalition with the PPM,” he said.

Shareef said that following a split within the DRP that saw supporters loyal to former President Gayoom break away and form the PPM, it would not be possible for the two parties to work together.

“We won’t waste our time discussing a coalition with them,” he said.

Despite rejecting any possibility of working with the PPM, Shareef said that the DRP would not rule out a coalition with parties in the future who they had not already worked with, adding that there was always room for discussions to be held.

However, he claimed that the party was presently in the process of compiling its manifesto for elections to be held next year, while also trying to finalise a venue for the party’s congress scheduled next month.

“Right now we have not been able to get a venue, though we hope to secure Dharubaaruge [conference centre],” Shareef said. “We are not a wealthy party, so we cannot campaign like richer parties and we need to find a new way to do this. We don’t have our own television or radio stations like other parties.”

Spokespersons for the  Jumhoree Party (JP), Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) and Adhaalath Party (AP) were not responding to calls at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC acted unconstitutionally in assigning panel of judges to Hulhumale’ Court: Speaker Shahid

Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid, who is also a member of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), appeared before Parliament’s Independent Commissions Oversight Committee on Tuesday to answer questions regarding the the appointment of a panel of three magistrates to the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

This panel of three judges were appointed to preside over the case against former President Mohamed Nasheed for his detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed, and cases against other officials from the former government involved in the detention.

Prior to Shahid’s appearance, JSC Vice Chair Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Didi and member appointed to JSC from among the public, Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman, have attended the committee over the same matter.

Meanwhile, JSC Chair Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed has refused to attend the committee on the grounds the matter is related to an ‘ongoing case.’

JSC acted outside its mandate: Speaker Shahid

Speaking at the committee meeting, Shahid stated that he believed that the judicial watchdog had acted unconstitutionally in assigning magistrates to a particular case.

“In deciding upon the bench, the JSC did follow its rules of procedures. As in, it was voted upon in an official meeting and six of the seven members in attendance voted on the matter. The seventh member being the Chair, does not vote in matters,” Shahid explained.

“However, whether it is within the commission’s mandate to appoint a panel of judges in this manner is an issue which raised doubt in the minds of more than one of my fellow members.”

Shahid then referred to the existing legal framework, quoting articles to back his statement that he did not believe the matter was within the responsibilities of the commission.

He quoted Article 21 of the JSC Act, Articles 48 and 49 of the Judges Act, and from the Judicature Act.

Article 21 of the JSC Act outlines in detail the responsibilities and powers of the commission.

Article 48 of the Judges Act states “A judge can be temporarily appointed to another court in the instance that the court is unable to sufficiently complete assigned work, or if the court has difficulties providing services, or if the judges serving in the court has been suspended from their duties. or if other circumstances which may cause a delay in the completion of work assigned to the court occur.”

Article 49 of the same act states “It is the Judicial Services Commission, with the counsel of the Judicial Council, which will come to a decision on the transfer of judges to oversee cases in other courts.”

Article 55 (a) of the Judicature Act states “In addition to the responsibilities assigned by other laws, the responsibilities of the Senior Judge of a superior court are the following: (a) Determine the Judges who would adjudicate the cases of that court.”

“None of these articles say anything about assigning cases concerning a particular individual to a specific set of people. The JSC is mandated with the appointment and transfer of judges. But it does not say anywhere here that the JSC holds the powers to assign cases to specific judges,” Shahid said.

“Hence, I do not believe that the appointment of a panel of magistrates to the Hulhumale’ Magistrate falls into the mandate of the JSC,” Shahid stated.

“The reason why I need to state this here is because the constitution explicitly guarantees the right to a fair trial to all individuals. When things proceed as they are going now, this is being compromised. So I must speak out,” he said.

Responding to a question posed by Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ahmed Abdulla, Shahid said he did not “feel it was the right course of action” to remove then Senior Magistrate of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court Moosa Naseem from the case after he had assumed responsibility for the case.

“Moosa Naseem, who was then in charge of the Hulhumale’ Court sent in his recommendations for magistrates who are to sit on Nasheed’s case to the JSC for comments. This list included his own name. The JSC then replaced all three of these magistrates. Do you feel this was done in the rightful manner?” Abdulla asked.

“I do not think removing Naseem was the right course of action. There should be a good reason to remove a judge from a case from which the judge has not recused himself. I think that is a good issue for this committee to further investigate,” Shahid responded.

Asked about the formation of the Hulhumale’ Court, Shahid answered that his summons letter had detailed that he would be asked specifically about the assignment of the panel, adding that therefore he felt it “unnecessary to even extend [his] thoughts” to any other topic.

Political competitiveness

“As Speaker of Parliament, you have been working with us 77 MPs for years now, in a very politically volatile environment. You are also one of the most senior council members of Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), and we belong to your political opponent, MDP,” MDP MP Ali Waheed addressed Shahid.

“In these past few years, there have been times when we have acted very harshly against you. We even initiated a no confidence motion against you. Now to come back, you have just told us that you don’t think the assignment of the Hulhumale’ Court panel is legitimate. This is the panel which will be ruling on the presidential candidate of your political opposition,” Ali Waheed continued.

“My question to you is, under these circumstances, can you tell us in what light you see the events that are unfolding? Do you think the trial that is being conducted by this panel we speak of can be free and impartial?”

Shahid promptly responded that he did not entertain any political thoughts while serving as a JSC member.

“You have pointed out that I come from a specific political party, and you are right. Nevertheless, I was voted in as Parliament Speaker through votes cast by MPs from various parties. When I sit as speaker, I do not see any political action, and instead work as per the regulations and the constitution,” Shahid answered.

“I sit in the JSC because of my role as speaker, and hence as a rule, I have no right to harbour any political thoughts or mindset in the work I do there, nor will I do so,”’he said.

“In casting my vote in JSC or advocating for different matters in the commission’s meetings, the only focus I keep is on doing what is constitutionally mandated. Hence, even at a politically turbulent time, on a very politically contentious matter, I am sitting here in this chair and telling you that in my personal capacity I believe the JSC acted wrongfully in having appointed that panel,” Shahid repeated.

Chair of the Independent Commissions Oversight Committee Independent MP Mohamed Nasheed did not attend Tuesday’s committee meeting. He was also not present at the last two meetings of the committee where JSC members Abdulla Didi and Sheikh Rahman were summoned.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)