Tag: Mohamed Nasheed

“The JSC cannot form a court”: JSC Vice Chair Abdulla Didi grilled by Parliamentary Oversight Committee

The Vice Chair of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Didi, attended parliament’s Independent Committees Oversight Committee to answer its queries about the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court and the appointment of the panel of judges hearing the Nasheed trial.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed is being tried for his detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Abdulla Didi attended the committee despite the chair of the judicial watchdog, Adam Mohamed, disputing that the JSC was answerable to parliament on the grounds that the summons referred to an “ongoing case”.

Asked if he believed Adam Mohamed had acted legally in unilaterally deciding that the JSC would not abide by the oversight committee’s summons, Abdulla Didi responded that he “will not say that the Chair acted against the law,” and that he “cannot make any comments on the matter.”

“I personally believe that we must be answerable to the oversight committee. That is why I am here today,” he said.

Conflict of Interest

Before discussions on the scheduled topic began, Abdulla Didi requested that Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ali Waheed leave the committee.

Didi said Ali Waheed currently had a case against him in the Criminal Court of which he the judge, and hence he believed there is a conflict of interest to have the MP question him during Thursday’s meeting.

“I wouldn’t have felt any hesitation if all the JSC members were here. But since I am being questioned separately, I don’t think it is a good idea to have someone who has a criminal case against him question me here,” Abdulla Didi said.

Ali Waheed said he believed he was not required to leave the committee as per the constitution, but was willing to do so as it was “ethically the right thing to do.”

Chair of the committee MDP MP Ahmed Sameer informed Abdulla Didi that Ali Waheed had previously informed the committee that he would not be asking any questions from the JSC member, and that he was only participating in the meeting due to the quorum requirements needed to have the meeting.

“Abdulla Didi is here as a JSC member, and not as a Criminal Court Judge. Likewise, it is the citizen Ali Waheed who has a pending case in the court, not the MP for Thohdoo constituency. As there is no conflict when viewed in the light of the capacities in which you both are participating in this meeting, I am of the opinion that MP Ali Waheed is legally allowed to stay and question you. I would like to state here that if Ali Waheed is leaving, it is only out of his personal accord,” Sameer stated.

Later in the meeting, Sameer referred to Ali Waheed’s voluntary exit from the meeting as an example of abstaining from action in cases of conflict of interest, and asked Abdulla Didi why he had not similarly abstained from voting on deciding the panel overseeing Nasheed’s case.

“You are a member of the JSC which voted on choosing judges for the Hulhumale’ Court panel of magistrates. You also serve as a judge in the Criminal Court. The case which this panel is to preside over concerns the Chief Judge of the court you serve under, Judge Abdulla Mohamed. Under these circumstances, why didn’t you abstain from the vote which decided upon magistrates for the Abdulla Mohamed case?” Sameer asked.

“I had no such intentions like what you are implying. The short answer to that question is that we did not decide on the panel to preside on an ‘Abdulla Mohamed case’. It disturbs me when you refer to the case as such,” Didi responded.

“It is a case regarding the arrest of Abdulla Mohamed, in which some other people are accused of having committed criminal acts. The case is about them, not Abdulla Mohamed,” he said, shaking his head.

Sameer also asked about alleged conflict of interest in the vote taken by the JSC to continue running the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court itself.

“JSC Member Ahmed Rasheed, who is the husband of a Hulhumale’ Court Magistrate, was among the members who voted to establish or continue the said court, isn’t he? And you voted, too. This is extremely concerning, and so I repeat: the case concerns the detention of the Chief Judge of the Criminal Court by the then government. You are a judge serving in that court. Rasheed’s wife is a magistrate in the court trying this case. Do you think this decision is impartial under these circumstances?” Sameer asked.

Didi attempted to dodge the question, stating he was unaware how Rasheed had cast his vote. MP Sameer, however stated he had seen the related documents, and informed him that four members had voted, including Rasheed and Abdulla Didi.

Didi still insisted that he “found it difficult” to answer the question, or decide on the validity of the decision.

The Vice Chair of the judicial watchdog stated that as a norm, if a member felt that he had a conflict of interest in any matter that the commission was taking a vote on, he would state the reasons and excuse himself. He further stated that if a member failed to excuse himself, and yet JSC Chair Adam Mohamed believed such a conflict existed, the chair would then point it out and discuss with the relevant member an agreeable way to proceed.

MDP MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor asked if any such issues had arisen during the vote taken to appoint magistrates to the Hulhumale’ Court panel.

“I cannot recall if any members declared any conflict of interest. Nor can I at all remember whether the Chair noticed such a conflict,” Abdulla Didi said.

The panel

Didi said that discussion about the panel of judges of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court initially began in the JSC after the then head of the court requested the commission assign judges from other courts to preside in a pending case at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

“Once this request came in, we discussed the matter and proposed names for the bench. We then sent these names to the Supreme Court bench, otherwise known as the Judicial Council, for comment. They decided on those names and sent it back to the JSC. This is how the process went,” Didi told the committee.

“This is also completely in line with what the laws state, I refer to Articles 47 to 49 of the Judges’ Act. I might be referring to the previous Judges’ Act. There were some amendments made to it later, which may have changed the order of these articles I quote. I am not sure, I haven’t reviewed it that much,” Abdulla Didi said.

Article 47 of the Judges’ Act states “If a judge is temporarily transferred to preside over a case in a different court, he must be transferred to a court of the same level as the one he is serving in.”

Article 48 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 had 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 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.”

After listening to Abdulla Didi’s version of events, Sameer presented the information previously gathered by the commission.

“The laws state that the JSC has no right to decided on the judges on a panel. Only the head magistrate of the relevant court has the powers to do so,” Sameer said.

“Now, the Chief Magistrate at this court at the time, Huraa Magistrate Moosa Naseem, sent in three names for the panel to JSC asking only for your commission’s comments. The list included his name as well. Can you then tell me what legal right the JSC has to disregard these three names and appoint three completely different magistrates?”

Abdulla Didi said in response: “We at the JSC considered the important cases pending at the Hulhumale’ Court. So we proposed other names with the intention of assigning qualified, experienced judges. I don’t believe this conflicts with any existing laws. What I am saying is, I did not come to any decision. It was after discussion with the other JSC members that we passed it through a vote.”

MDP MP Ahmed Abdulla asked the JSC member why, if the selection was based on merit and experience, the three magistrates proposed by the Hulhumale’ Court had been disregarded while all three were currently serving as chief magistrates of their respective courts.

“Let me explain. According to the Judge’s Act, no judge had the power to bring in judges from other courts to preside on cases. JSC considers the good magistrates in the atoll… That is not to imply that any magistrate is bad at their work, just that because of the nature of this case, we took special care to appoint the most able and appropriate judges who will treat the case with extra care and contemplate the matter deeply,” Abdulla said.

Didi insisted that the JSC that held legal powers to appoint magistrates to the panel, at which point the Chair of the parliamentary committee intervened and advised the judge to refrain from making misleading and non-factual statements.

“I am deeply disturbed that you are making these comments and passing it off ‘as what the law says’. The law says perfectly clearly outlines the role of the chief magistrate, and that if other magistrates are temporarily being brought into a court, they must be from the same judicial jurisdiction,” Sameer intervened.

Didi also claimed the JSC had appointed the panel after the Hulhumale’ Court requested additional magistrates to assist with their work.

However, member appointed from among the public to JSC Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman, who had been interviewed by the committee prior to Abdulla Didi on Thursday, had stated that the request for additional magistrates and other support for the court had come after the appointment of the panel of magistrates.

MP Ghafoor questioned if the bench had been appointed after Nasheed’s case had been referred to the Hulhumale’ Court, to which Didi replied in the affirmative.

Asked if Didi was aware that one of the magistrates appointed to the bench had allegations of disciplinary issues, sexual offences and corruption against him, he responded that he was not aware of such a case.

When MDP MP Rugiyya Mohamed said JSC Member Sheikh Rahman had confirmed that indeed such an allegation was being looked into by the commission, Abdulla Didi then responded that he had heard such rumours via media and had asked administrative staff to look into the matter.

He later said he “did not believe any of the magistrates on the bench would have done anything of the sort.”

“I cannot confirm whether such a matter exists. The thing is, if we are to consider an allegation or a complaint, there has to be some solid reasons that should support the allegation, whether it be proved or not. If it is a solid and believable allegation, then I might not agree to have him on the bench,” he continued.

“I don’t think just being alleged of anything is reason enough to remove any magistrate from the bench. The allegation itself must carry some weight. However, such allegations can only be cleared once the relevant authority investigates it. So, I do believe any such investigations must be expedited. I don’t see any reason why such a magistrate cannot sit on the panel in the meantime.”

Is the Hulhumale court legitimate?

Asked directly whether Abdulla Didi believed the court to be a legitimate entity, he answered, “I am not saying it is a legitimate court. Then again, nor I am I saying it is illegitimate. All I can say is I don’t believe it will be liquidated.”

“I think the JSC cannot establish a court through a vote. I can’t really recall the law too well at this moment, but the JSC certainly cannot form a court,” Abdulla Didi confirmed in response to a question posed by Sameer.

Sameer then asked if the Vice Chair of JSC had cast his vote on the matter of forming the Hulhumale’ Court.

“That’s a huge misunderstanding. We never voted to form a court. We voted to establish that, in accordance with the laws, the Hulhumale’ Court will not be automatically cancelled. The court was in existence even before [the vote],” Abdulla Didi answered.

However, Sameer challenged Abdulla Didi’s statement. He stated that in 2007, the President’s Office had created an administrative office called the Hulhumale’ Courts Section, and not a court, saying that the existence of a magistrate court in Hulhumale’ is not noted on any paperwork.

“We have documents proving that after the ratification of the Judicature Act, that under a decision of the JSC itself, the budget, stamp and even staff of this Hulhumale’ Court Section office were transferred to the Family Court in Male’. And then, out of the blue, your commission decided there is a Magistrate Court in Hulhumale’,” Sameer stated.

“You are aware that a case against the Hulhumale’ Court was filed in a lower court. The JSC then referred it to the Supreme Court. Then JSC Chair Adam Mohamed, who is a Supreme Court Judge, cast the deciding vote on the case. Do you believe this was conducted in due process?” Sameer asked.

Abdulla Didi refused to answer the question on the grounds that he could comment on a decision of the Supreme Court. He said “there is no way I can call that a bad ruling.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

UN Special Rapporteur criticises “arbitrary” appointment of judges in Nasheed trial

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, has criticised the appointment of judges presiding over the case against former President Mohamed Nasheed, for his controversial arrest of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in 2011.

“Being totally technical, it seems to me that the set-up, the appointment of judges to the case, has been set up in an arbitrary manner outside the parameters laid out in the laws,” Knaul said, while responding to questions from media after delivering her statement on Sunday.

Nasheed is currently facing trial at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, the legality of which has been much contested in recent weeks.

The Special Rapporteur commented on the matter of Nasheed’s trial being conducted by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

“According to the law, the constitutional court which has jurisdiction to hear this case is the Criminal Court. While I understand the concerns of the Prosecutor General’s (PG) Office regarding the possible eventual conflict of interest since Judge Abdulla sits in the court, it is not for the prosecutor to decide if the judge will be impartial,” Knaul stated.

“It is the duty of the judge or judges to recuse themselves when they feel they would not be impartial in presiding over any case,” Knaul said.

Speaking about the case of the detention itself, Knaul stated that judging by the briefings received in her meetings in the country, the detention seems to have taken place outside the parameters laid down by the constitution.

“Regardless of the merits of the allegations of corruption or misconduct on the judge, I do believe that proceedings against judges should also be fair and impartial,” Knaul said.

“I think in disciplinary proceedings, especially disciplinary hearings, a judge should have the right to a fair trial. And all decisions taken should be subject to an independent review.”

In presenting her preliminary findings after the eight day fact-finding mission, Knaul stated that she found the concept of independence of the judiciary has been “misconstrued and misinterpreted” by all actors, including the judiciary itself.

Knaul also spoke about the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) – the body mandated with appointment, transfer and removal of judges – stating that the commission is politicised, subject to external influence, and hence unable to fulfill its mandate effectively.

Knaul also highlighted the lack of transparency in the assignment of cases and the constitution of benches in all courts, including the Supreme Court.

“When cases are assigned in a subjective manner, the system becomes much more vulnerable to manipulation, corruption, and external pressure. Information on the assignment of cases should be clearly available to the public in order to counter suspicions of malpractice and corruption,” she observed.

Knaul asserted again that the composition of the JSC must be revised. She has written in her statement that “an appointment body acting independently from both the executive and the legislative branches of government should be established with the view to countering any politicization in the appointment of judges and their potential improper allegiance to interests other than those of fair and impartial justice.”

Responding to a question posed by a journalist asking if the rapporteur believed it wise for such a ‘high-profile’ case to be delayed, Knaul said that the judiciary should be effective for everyone who seeks justice.

“According to the constitution, the judiciary should not choose cases based on X,Y, or Z person. It should be equal in applying or delivering justice. It is necessary to have an objective criteria for selecting cases and to assign cases in court. If you apply these processes, you make the system work in the least subjective manner possible,” Knaul stated.

Government responds

Attorney General Azima Shakoor received the preliminary findings from Rapporteur Gabriela Knaul on behalf of the government of the Maldives.

“In the discussion the Government also noted the responsibility of international partners in establishing a conducive environment where institutions of the the State, particularly the judiciary, are respected by the public,” an official statement on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website read.

The statement did not include any details of whether or not the government planned to take any action in response to the rapporteur’s findings and comments on the judicial system.

When the question was asked of President’s Office Spokesperson Masood Imad, he referred Minivan News to the Attorney General, saying “she is probably a more relevant person to talk about this matter.”

Attorney General Azima Shakoor said she was unable to speak on the subject once Minivan News posed the question to her.

The government also did not offer any response to the additional comments Knauls made regarding Nasheed’s trial after delivering her written statement.

MDP claims commitment to judicial reform

Responding to the Special Rapporteur’s findings, the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has said it is ready to work with other political parties to immediately begin work on urgent reforms to the judiciary and the judicial accountability mechanisms.

“Establishing a truly independent, professional and widely respected judiciary is central to ending the political turmoil in the Maldives and to consolidating democracy in our country. We have always accepted this. Yet Gayoom, Waheed and others who have benefited and continue to benefit from our current corrupt and biased judiciary never have,” MDP’s international spokesperson, Hamid Abdul Ghafoor, said in a statement.

“Today, as we digest yet another report by an eminent international body that clearly says our judiciary is not fit for purpose, it is time for all political parties to put aside their differences and work together to urgently reform our justice sector. This means immediately halting the political trials launched against President Nasheed and the hundreds of pro-democracy activists currently facing ‘terrorism’ and other trumped-up charges. It also means establishing a caretaker government to oversee judicial reform and to prepare the ground for genuinely free and fair elections,” Ghafoor said.

The party’s statement also noted Knaul’s concern over the system of appointment of judges, stating “the Special Rapporteur expressed support for the concerns repeatedly raised by Aishath Velezinee, a former member of the JSC and whistleblower (who, in 2011, was stabbed and almost killed because of her outspoken comments), who said that the very starting point of judicial independence – the post 2008 Constitution system of screening and reappointing judges – was marred by malpractice and corruption.”

Referring to the rapporteur’s comments on selectivity in case assignment, prioritisation and bench constitution, the MDP alleged it had led to “hundreds of important cases against allies of former President Gayoom and members of the current government being kicked into the legal ‘long grass’, while the Prosecutor-General, the judicial administration authorities and the courts enthusiastically pursue political trials against President Nasheed and other MDP members.”

MDP echoed Special Rapporteur Knaul in stating that these deep-rooted problems had led to the public having an alarming lack of trust in the judiciary.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Trial hearing cancelled after police report failure to produce Nasheed

Additional reporting by Neil Merrett.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed’s trial hearing scheduled for 4:00pm today (February 20) was cancelled by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court after police were unable to present him to judicial authorities due to his presence in the Indian High Commission.

The High Court meanwhile threw out an appeal hearing into the first warrant issued on February 13, after Nasheed failed to appear at a hearing scheduled for 1:00pm this afternoon.

On Monday (February 18), the magistrate court issued a second arrest warrant requesting police present Nasheed on charges of illegally detaining Chief Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed during his final days in office.

An official from the Judiciary Media Unit confirmed Nasheed’s hearing was cancelled after police said the former president could not be arrested while still inside the Indian High Commission.

“Police have said they won’t be able to bring Nasheed to Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court and so the hearing has been cancelled. A new hearing is yet to be scheduled by the court,” the official said.

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) have said Nasheed will remain inside the High Commission until an interim government is established ahead of the presidential elections in September.

Police have cordoned off the street outside the High Commission, but have so far taken a hands off approach towards the few hundred Nasheed supporters protesting at the barricades.

Police Spokesperson Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef was not responding to calls from Minivan News at time of press.

Stalemate

Nasheed and the MDP have maintained that the charges against him are a politically-motivated attempt to prevent the former president from contesting in presidential elections scheduled for later this year.

Nasheed’s lawyer Hassan Latheef said the former president’s team of lawyers were having to rely on the media to receive updates regarding the latest news from Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, and were not being officially informed of any decisions it was making.

“It is very unfortunate that we are not directly informed by the court regarding the developments in this case. Instead, we are having to contact the court for information,” he said.

“We are relying on the media for updates. Now that the court hearing has been cancelled, we have no idea what will happen,” Latheef said.

Asked whether about the possibility of the trial being conducted in absentia, Latheef added: “The constitution states clearly that no trial can be held with the defendant being absent.”

“However, knowing this particular court and the knowing the magistrates on the case, as well as the police and government, I do not doubt it could happen,” Latheef said.

Earlier today, MDP Spokesperson MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor said that the Foreign Ministry had already been in touch with the Indian High Commission to try get them to hand Nasheed over to police.

“I wouldn’t put it past the government to raid the Indian High Commission, partly because nobody expects them to do it,” Ghafoor said.

India’s Special Envoy arrives

India’s Special Envoy Harsh Vardhan Shringla visited Male’ today to try and resolve the stalemate, which has attracted widespread international media coverage, and extensive attention from the Indian media. No headway or details of meetings had been reported at time of press.

Meanwhile, a small police presence manned barricades around the the Indian High Commission building ahead of the scheduled trial.

Minivan News also observed a large UN contingent sitting in Traders Hotel opposite the High Commission. UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, is currently in the country for a scheduled visit until February 24.

A large number of tourists were passing through the barricades and having their photos taken with police officers controlling traffic outside the high commission. A row of 30 bouquets of flowers had been placed against the wall of the commission earlier in the day by a group of female Nasheed supporters. One had a card the read: “We will always be with our President (Anni) XX”.

As the time of the hearing neared, around 200 MDP supporters gathered outside the party office on Sosun Magu before moving to the Prosecutor General (PG)’s Office demanding the PG withdraw the charges against former President Nasheed.

As the 4:00pm deadline passed, a few hundered supporters and onlookers once again gathered on Sosun Magu, where they have been holding successive daily demonstrations since Friday (February 15).

Around 20 riot officers were deployed to control the crowd, remaining a few hundred yards away from the protesters.  The atmosphere was tense as supporters continued to heckle authorities, however at time of press police had taken no action to disperse the demonstration.

However police subsequently seized a yellow-painted pick-up truck equipped with a loudspeaker that was playing the party’s protest songs, claiming that it was disturbing nearby schoolchildren.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Further protests as MDP calls for international community to be “mindful” of Maldives judiciary

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has called for the international community to be “mindful” of the status of the Maldives judiciary, claiming it to be systematically flawed and biased.

The party’s sentiments were echoed in last night’s (February 16) protest as thousands of supporters of Nasheed once again took to the streets of Male’.

The former President has been inside the Indian High Commission since Wednesday afternoon after he sought refuge from a court warrant ordering police to present him before the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Nasheed and his party have maintained that the charges – of illegally detaining Chief Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed prior to his controversial resignation on February 7, 2012 – are a politically-motivated attempt to prevent him from contesting presidential elections scheduled for later this year.

In contrast to Friday night’s protest, where 55 people were arrested following clashes with police, demonstrators last night took part in a “seated protest” in the intersection between Majeedhee Magu and Chaandhanee Magu.

Maldives Police Service (MPS) Spokesperson Sub Inspector Hassan Haneef told Minivan News today that while there had been no arrests made, a vehicle belonging to the Police Family and Child Protection Department was set on fire.

Police also allege that protesters set fire to a police barricade in the early hours of the morning.

However, MDP Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor claimed the circumstances surrounding the barricade fire were suspicious.

“There had been reports that a police barricade was set on fire by protesters. However police tweeted about the fire two minutes before it actually happened,” Hamid claimed.

Minivan News observed around 4,000 demonstrators at last night’s gathering and witnessed multiple charges at the crowds by riot police.

MDP concern over Nasheed’s trial

A statement released by the MDP yesterday expressed concern regarding the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed, adding that the status of the judiciary and rule of law in the country was not conducive to ensuring a fair trial for the former president.

The statement accuses judges within the Maldives judiciary as being “under qualified, of dubious moral character, corrupt with political bias, and unduly influenced by members of the former regime”.

“When international actors refer to rule of law and due process, it is only a presumption that rule of law exists in the Maldives,” Ghafoor stated.

“When calling for rule of law in the Maldives our international partners must bare in mind the current state of the judiciary, and its ability to conduct a fair trial.”

Speaking to Minivan News on Thursday, trial observer Stephen Cragg, who compiled a report on Nasheed’s trial, said it was clear the former president was concerned he would not receive a fair trial with the current judges on the case.

Cragg visited the Maldives last year on behalf of the Bar Human Rights Committee (BHRC) to observe the hearings of former President Nasheed’s trial.

“I think it is clear that Mr Nasheed is concerned that he will not get a fair trial if the case goes ahead with the current judges due to hear the case, and his action is likely to highlight those concerns internationally,” Cragg said.

The report compiled by Cragg notes: “BHRC is concerned that a primary motivation behind the present trial is a desire by those in power to exclude Mr Nasheed from standing in the 2013 elections, and notes international opinion that this would not be a positive outcome for the Maldives.”

In the statement, the MDP welcomed calls from India, United Kingdom, United States, the Commonwealth, United Nations and the European Union for a free, fair and inclusive presidential election in the Maldives.

On Friday, EU High Representative Catherine Ashton said she was following the latest developments “with concern” and “called on all parties to refrain from actions or statements which are liable to inflame the political climate in the country”.

“I underline the urgent need to resume dialogue between the parties, so as to ensure that the presidential elections set for September 2013 are credible, transparent, inclusive and fully representative of the wishes of all Maldivians, and so that the reforms identified by the Commission of National Inquiry in August 2012 can be rapidly implemented,” she said in a statement.

President of the Maldives, Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik released his own statement yesterday condemning Nasheed’s actions on Wednesday.

“I am dismayed that the former President Nasheed sought refuge in the Indian High Commission in Male’ when he was summoned to the court. The court order which required the Police to arrest Nasheed and have him appear before the court was due to his refusal to attend court hearing. It had expired at 1600 hours on the 13 February 2013, and there is no reason for him to remain in the High Commission and to instigate street violence.

“The court order has nothing to do with my government. Upholding the rule of law means nobody is above the law. I would like to assure the people of Maldives that the law and order will be maintained,” the President’s statement reads.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Nations say it will be difficult to accept elections if I cannot contest”: former President Nasheed

Former President and Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) presidential candidate Mohamed Nasheed has claimed that India does not wish for the Maldives to have a presidential elections in which any party’s candidate is barred from contesting.

The former President, who returned today from an official visit to the country, said India was concerned that this may lead to unrest in the island nation.

“India wishes for peace in the Maldives. And they see that the way to achieve this is through holding elections after establishing an interim administration,” he claimed.

“Nations are telling me in very clear terms that it will be difficult for them to accept election results if I am barred from contesting,” Nasheed said, speaking to local media upon his arrival from India on Monday afternoon.

Responding to questions as to why he had failed to attend his hearing in the Hulhumale’ Court  scheduled for Sunday, he responded that he “did not believe the trial can be carried on.”

Nasheed was due to attend the second court hearing at the Hulhumale Magistrate Court regarding his controversial arrest of the Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Nasheed insisted that his trial can be put off until after the elections, citing the case of former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s trial being postponed until after the country’s elections.

“Those are judicial procedures. That is the norm. That is how the world sees it. If elections in the Maldives are held in any other way, very few in the international sphere will accept the result,” Nasheed said.

Nasheed said that weakened relations between India and Maldives could be strengthened by renewing the agreement for airport development with Indian infrastructure giant GMR.

The developer was given a seven day eviction notice in late November 2012, after the government declared its contract void.

“As I see it, the GMR contract will be renewed before this year’s elections,” Nasheed stated.

Nasheed said that despite the government’s repeated assertions that the Maldives’ relationship with India remained unaffected, ties were becoming increasingly weakened. He said Maldivian citizens were facing more and more difficulties as bilateral ties with India continued to slump.

Although Nasheed did not name any Indian officials, he claimed to have met with relevant authorities in India and held discussions on restrengthening bilateral ties between the two countries.

“If we are unable to improve ties, it’s not just visa issues we will be faced with. We might need to deal with difficulties in obtaining much of the construction material or food items we import from India,” said Nasheed.

Nasheed also stated that he would be travelling abroad at the end of February, having accepting an invitation from the Commonwealth Secretary General, and to Denmark under an invitation from the state.

Hundreds of MDP supporters gathered near the jetty and at the airport to greet Nasheed on his arrival.

Minivan News observed that police had cordoned off many of the main roads leading to the jetty area.

An MDP representative claimed a number of MDP members were arrested at the site of the gathering.

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil Court rejects case against Home Minister

The Civil Court has rejected a case accusing Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed of influencing the ongoing trial against former President Mohamed Nasheed.

The case was filed by Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Mohamed Rasheed, however it was rejected by the Civil Court on the grounds that Rasheed had no connection with the case involving the former president at Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, local media reported.

The case filed by Rasheed against Jameel stated that remarks made by the home minister on January 29 could influence the judges in their ruling against Nasheed, local media reported.

Jameel – who was formerly Justice Minister under Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s administration – was reported in late January as stating that it was “crucial to conclude the case against Nasheed before the approaching presidential elections, in the interests of the nation and to maintain peace in it.”

He alleged the delay in Nasheed’s prosecution was due to “various reasons”, and would very likely have “adverse effects on the political and social fabric of the nation”.

“If things happen  this way, people will start believing that it was due to the failure to address some issues in the Maldives’ judicial system, which need to be looked into. And in my opinion, the courts will have to take responsibility for this,” Jameel said in an interview with news website Haveeru.

The MDP’s case requested the court to rule that Jameel should not make comments that could influence any ongoing trials.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

February 7 a failure of all state institutions, DRP: Umar Naseer

Prospective presidential candidate of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), Umar Naseer, has said the controversial transfer of power on February 7, 2012 happened as a result of the failure of all state institutions and the then largest opposition party, Dhivehi Rayiithunge Party (DRP).

“The HRCM (Human Rights Commission of the Maldives) had become an entity which was only good for releasing vague reports. We saw that only the PG was effective in that he did some work and made some strong, solid statements,” Umar said, speaking at a rally titled “In celebration of reclaiming the people’s government”, held by the PPM in celebration of the first anniversary of the change of power.

“The police and the MNDF had their hands tied by [former President Mohamed Nasheed], and could only do as he instructed them to. I’d describe the judges as having been kept kneeling on the ground. Even DRP’s leadership had failed at the time. This is why we had to leave them and form another party. But what I am saying is that at the time, even the opposition had failed,” Umar continued.

“As a result of the failure of all these institutions, the people came out, struggled through tear gas and rubber bullets, and finally succeeded in bringing Nasheed’s government to an end.”

DRP MP Dr Abdulla Mausoom told Minivan News that the party “did not wish to comment on baseless, empty rhetoric.”

Umar told the approximately 600 people gathered at the rally that February 7 had been a result of “the hard work done by PPM members for the three years since November 11, 2008.”

“After having scored the golden goal and winning the match on February 7, our people bore many injuries when they went back home,” Umar said.

“Our people made their way through rubber bullets. Our people were hit by rubber bullets. Our people were admitted to hospital. Some of our people broke arms and legs. Many of them were arrested,” Umar stated.

“Many said to our people: ‘You won’t be able to do this’, but our people ignored these pessimistic remarks, ignored the pain they were in, and went forward to succeed.”

Citizens, police, MNDF changed government: Umar Naseer

Naseer alleged that had Nasheed’s administration not been toppled on February 7, Nasheed would have set in place “plans he had made to completely destroy the judiciary on February 8.”

Naseer alleged that Nasheed had planned to sideline the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) and instead replace it with a self-appointed Judicial Reform Commission.

“The President’s Office has a copy of a circular that Nasheed had signed and prepared for release. This circular shows that he had made up a Judicial Reform Commission to which he had appointed Mariya [Ahmed Didi, former Chairperson and MP of MDP] as head, and other party officials who would do his bidding. He planned to have judges take oath in front of this commission instead of the JSC, and to declare that any judge who did not would no longer be allowed in our courts.”

Naseer compared the events of February 7 to other historical events in the Maldives.

“The day was similar to when the Portuguese tried to force alcohol down the throats of Maldivians. Bodu Thakurufaanu and his allies had come to Male’ and saved the country then. February 8 was about to become a day like this, but the people saved the country by toppling Nasheed on February 7,” Umar suggested.

“Even the Chief Justice was scared and apprehensive, not knowing just when Nasheed would send security forces to arrest him,” he alleged.

“The most ordinary people of this country came out and changed the government a year ago. They included police, MNDF soldiers and general citizens,” Naseer stated.

“February 7 didn’t happen due to any greatness of ours. It was a victory granted by the Almighty Allah. Of course, Allah only grants victory when some humans put in an effort, which is what we did.”

Legal action against Nasheed must be hurried: Naseer

Naseer further said that the state institutions were “once again leaning back on their hind legs” and failing to take legal action against Nasheed.

“The arson attacks on February 8 were the largest of their kind in the country’s history. It must be called the ‘big flame’. That day wouldn’t have come if this government had taken strong action against Nasheed. We would have been able to save so much then,” Naseer said, criticised the current government of which PPM is also part.

“But then, our government was very new at the time. It had suddenly ascended to power and had a lot of matters to settle. Maybe that’s why they failed to take necessary action.”

Naseer then said that the institutions were once again failing to function as mandated, citing their “failure to take action against the MDP who are orchestrating street protests and yelling near houses.”

“Mohamed Nasheed still comes out onto the streets. He does as he pleases. He says what he pleases. He goes to foreign countries. He is even destroying our tourism. He is calling out for various action to be taken against us. He is able to do all this, in my view, because our institutions continue to fail us. Please don’t let this happen,” Naseer said.

“Remember that this victory is only temporary. We will only have fully succeeded when we win the 2013 elections. PPM will do all possible to ensure this,” Umar said.

“But as our party does this work, I call on all state institutions, the Attorney General, Prosecutor General, judges in all the courts, to keep in mind the ‘big flame’ incident of February 8 and take necessary action against its perpetrators,” Naseer said.

“Most importantly, I call on them to very quickly look into Nasheed’s arrest of Abdulla Ghazee [Abdulla Mohamed, Chief Judge of the Criminal Court] and to take whatever possible legal action against him soon,” Naseer said, concluding his speech.

President’s Office Spokesperson Ahmed Thaufeeq was not responding to calls at the time of press. HRCM Vice President Ahmed Tholal and Prosecutor General Ahmed Muiz were also not responding to calls, as was MDP Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor and MP Mariya Ahmed Didi.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Former President Nasheed fails to attend court hearing

Former President Mohamed Nasheed failed to attend his scheduled trial hearing at Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court today (February 10), an official from the Judiciary Media Unit has confirmed.

The former president, who is currently out of the country in India, was due to attend the second court hearing regarding the controversial detention of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

The Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court granted Nasheed permission to leave the country for India on February 5, however the former president is yet to return to the Maldives despite his permitted travel period expiring yesterday (February 9).

According to local media, a letter had been submitted to the Hulhumale’ Court on February 7 by Nasheed, requesting for his travel leave to be extended from 5:00pm today (February 10) until February 28.

However, the travel extension request was today denied by the bench of judges presiding over Nasheed’s case.

An official from the Judiciary Media Unit told Minivan News today that Nasheed’s hearing – scheduled for 4:00pm – had been cancelled after the former president failed to attend.

Asked as to what action the court will take regarding the matter, the official was unable to give a specific response, adding: “The courts will do something, but I do not know what that will be”.

According to the official, a new hearing for the trial is yet to be set by the court.

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor told Minivan News today that while the party had “no comment” regarding Nasheed’s lack of attendance at the hearing, the MDP maintains that Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court is “not a legitimate court”.

“The party maintains that [Mohamed Nasheed] should not go to that court, and we have raised the administration issues already,” he added.

Nasheed’s Spokesperson Mariya Didi was not responding to calls from Minivan News at time of press.

Supreme Court appeal

Earlier today, the legal team of former President Mohamed Nasheed appealed to the Supreme Court regarding the High Court’s ruling in favour of the legitimacy of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Nasheed had previously appealed to the High Court in order to contest the Hulhumale’-based court’s ruling in regard to his trial on three procedural issues raised during an initial hearing of his case in October 2012.

Despite the former president’s appeal, a three-member judges panel at the High Court ruled on February 4 that there were no “legal grounds” to declare Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court and its decisions illegitimate.

Following the High Court’s ruling, an official from the Judiciary Media Unit confirmed to Minivan News that Nasheed’s legal team have now appealed to the Supreme Court.

Local media reported that Nasheed’s legal team had tried to file the appeal at the Supreme Court on Thursday (February 7), but that this was refused due to insufficient documentation.

Former President’s legal team had argued that the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court could not hold hearings on a nearby island, therefore ruling out Male’.

Furthermore, a summoning order issued to Nasheed by the court on September 26, 2012, was inconsistent with existing laws, according to his lawyers.

Finally, Nasheed’s representatives claimed the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was formed in contradiction to the Judicature Act.

In a statement following the High Court’s verdict throwing out these procedural points, Nasheed said the decision “clearly means I will not be allowed a fair trial.”

Former MDP Chairperson MP Mariya Didi noted that the High Court concluded the case after only two successive hearings, adding that it seemed the Hulhumale’ Court “had prepared summons before the High Court judgement was even delivered.”

Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel – formerly Justice Minister during President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s 30 year government – has meanwhile told local media that swift prosecution of Nasheed before the Presidential Election was necessary to protect the “political and social fabric of the Maldives”.

“Every single day that passes without a verdict will raise questions over the justice system of the Maldives in the minds of the people,” Jameel told newspaper Haveeru.

Background

The Prosecutor General (PG) pressed charges against the former President in the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court on the grounds that holding the trial in Male’ at the Criminal Court represented a conflict of interest on behalf of Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed, whom the case concerned.

The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) appointed the three-member panel of judges to oversee the trial of the former president.

The Commission’s members include two of Nasheed’s direct political opponents, including Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid – Deputy of the government-aligned Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP) – and Gasim Ibrahim, a resort tycoon, media owner, MP and leader of the Jumhoree Party (JP), also a member of the governing coalition.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“The current government is failing”: government-aligned PPM

The government has come under fire from Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) potential presidential candidate Abdulla Yameen, who has claimed institutions are both failing and corrupt.

Speaking at a rally on February 7 to mark the anniversary of former President Mohamed Nasheed’s removal from power, Yameen called for President Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik to “set things right”, adding that the current government had come to a halt.

Despite PPM being part of the current government coalition, local media reported Yameen as criticising a number of issues he claimed the government was responsible for.

“What we’re seeing today, and it is with sadness I say this, is the current government failing. The institutions are now incapable,” Sun Online quoted Yameen as saying.

Yameen, who is the half-brother of former autocratic ruler Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, further claimed that Maldivians will not believe they have achieved democracy unless laws are properly implemented by the government, local media reported.

“Major crimes are being committed on the streets. Rights are being invaded and violated. We want a clean, bold and a just government. A government with our support.

“Unless laws are being implemented, the Maldivians won’t believe that they have achieved democracy. They won’t believe a dictatorial rule had ended. We don’t see a difference,” local newspaper Haveeru quoted Yameen as saying.

Yameen’s comments come less than one month after the PPM appointed former 30-year ruler Gayoom – who many claim ran the country as a dictator – as its party President.

The PPM presidential candidate further criticised foreign interference with internal issues in the Maldives, claiming that the government was making it possible for foreign parties to do so.

“Foreign countries are interfering with internal issues of the Maldives to a greater extent than we’re comfortable with. The government is giving them that opportunity,” Yameen was quoted as saying in local media.

Yameen’s critical remarks were met with backlash yesterday (February 8), including from the government-aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP).

DRP Parliamentary Group Deputy Leader Abdullah Mausoom told local media the PPM was willing to take credit for the government’s success, but distanced itself when the government faced criticism.

“If the government achieves something, they’d say it was them, they want to be the ones who sustain the government. But if the government is being harmed in any way, they are not part of it. If the government gets recognised for something, they take credit for it,” he told Sun Online.

Mausoom said that PPM had obstructed the government on two occasions, expressing concern that the party still continues to criticise the government despite the challenges faced due to the obstructions.

Speaking to local media, he said that whilst the budget is the most important part of providing public services, the PPM and Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) had reduced it by MVR 2 million, and that it would not be “wise” to criticise the difficulties this may cause.

Furthermore, Mausoom claimed that the Executive Oversight Committee (EOC) – currently investigating the Commission of National Inquiry (CoNI) report – is held by a Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) majority and that this was facilitated by the PPM.

Mausoom said that the former Parliamentary Leader of the People’s Alliance – Abdulla Yameen – had given up the party’s spot in the EOC when he joined the PPM, giving the MDP a majority.

President’s Spokesperson Masood Imad, and Dhivehi Quamee Party Leader Hassan Saeed were not responding to calls from Minivan News at time of press.

Jumhoree Party (JP) Spokesman Moosa Ramiz said he needed to discuss Yameen’s comments with the JP’s leader, resort tycoon Gasim Ibrahim, before giving the party’s official view. Minivan News was awaiting his response at time of press.

Cracks are starting to appear: MDP

Speaking to Minivan News today (February 9), MDP Spokesman Hamed Abdul Ghafoor said Yameen was “expressing discontent” within the government’s ranks, and that cracks were beginning to appear within the coalition.

“There are two issues that seem to disturb them at the moment. The EOC coming up with evidence supporting that there was a coup, and the other being President Nasheed’s court case.

“It is looking like they are also trying to get Nasheed out of the [Presidential elections] race,” Ghafoor said.

In regard to the EOC’s investigation into the CoNI report, Yameen was quoted as saying during Thursday’s rally that the investigation was “determinably illegal” and that it was being spearheaded Parliament Speaker Abdulla Shahid.

The investigation by the Executive Oversight Committee has so far seen senior military and police intelligence figures give evidence alleging that the transfer of power on February 7 “had all the hallmarks of a coup d’etat”, whilst claiming that the final CoNI report published last year had not reflected their input.

Speaking at the rally, Yameen said the government had no legal obligation to cooperate with the EOC in regard to the CoNI investigation, local media reported.

“As Parliamentary Group Leader of PPM, I have told the President that the government does not have to cooperate with the Majlis Committee investigating CoNI Report. The executive shall run according to the legal instruction of the Attorney General and not a Majlis Committee.

“[Parliament Speaker] Abdulla Shahid is now investigating the CoNI Report, and I wonder what he has in mind to do. On behalf of PPM, I would emphatically say that they are undertaking an illegal work. They cannot do it”, Sun Online reported Yameen as saying.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)