Tag: Mohamed Nasheed

Nasheed’s trial and Maldives’ human rights record debated in Westminster

The ongoing trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed was again the subject of debate in London this week, as well as the current human rights situation in the country.

On Tuesday night, the Conservative Party’s Human Rights Commission convened to discuss the Maldives, inviting speakers from the government, the opposition, and civil society to participate in the event titled “Human rights and Democracy in the Maldives: Where do we go from here?”

The following day, a private members debate was secured by Karen Lumley MP in the House of Commons to discuss the role of the UK government and the Commonwealth in ensuring a fair trial for Nasheed, whose case was postponed on Sunday following a high court injunction.

Tuesday’s meeting was attended by former High Commissioner to the United Kingdom Dr Farahanaz Faizal, former Foreign Minister and current UN Special Rapporteur Dr Ahmed Shaheed, barrister – and current member of Nasheed’s legal team – Sir Ivan Lawrence QC, as well as Amnesty International’s South Asia specialist Abbas Faiz.

Invitations were also extended to the Acting High Commissioner to the United Kingdom Ahmed Shiaan and Minister for Tourism Ahmed Adheeb.

However, after queries from panel members in attendance as to the whereabouts of the government’s representatives, the committee’s Chair Robert Buckland MP informed those present that, despite having initially accepted the invitation, the government representatives had withdrawn.

A Foreign Office spokesperson said that Adheeb had been unable to attend the meeting as it had clashed with a ministerial dinner. He had also been busy with duties related to the 2012 World Travel Market, which had been the primary purpose of his visit to London.

Where do we go from here?

Shaheed was the first to speak at the Conservative’s meeting, urging the government to uphold the commitments made via its international commitments as well as the pledges made this summer at the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC).

Farah was the next to speak, choosing to focus in particular on the issues of gender based violence and rising religious extremism in the country.

She argued that the treatment of female protesters in the aftermath of the February 7 transfer of power had highlighted this endemic abuse.

Farah deviated from her prepared testimony to mention the recent incident of the 11 year old girl who gave birth in Seenu atoll last week.

“The silence of the authorities is disturbing,” she added, before chastising President Mohamed Waheed Hassan for failing to speak out, despite his history of working with UNICEF.

Abbas Faiz spoke next, taking time – after distributing a copy of the recent Amnesty International publication, ‘The other side of paradise’ – to assert the independence of his organisation: “Some still believe we are not. We do not take sides.”

After the release of the report in the summer, Amnesty was accused by Home Minister Mohamed Jameel Ahmed of acting with bias towards anti government supporters.

Faiz pointed out that Amnesty also condemned any acts of violence by protesters and stated that it still considered the detention of Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January this year to have been “arbitrary”.

Sir Ivan Lawrence QC contended that the “arbitrary” arrest of Abdulla Mohamed was yet to be proven in a court of law.

The member of Nasheed’s current defense team recalled his previous work in the country in 2005, noting the proven gains to be made from garnering global attention on human rights abuses.

He did acknowledge the difficulty of this task, with far greater human rights atrocities occurring elsewhere in the world, and expressed his belief that the Commonwealth was best placed to help solve the country’s current problems.

When taking questions from the floor, Farah expressed her concern that international observers were often sheltered from the real Maldives when visiting the country, arguing that this must change if observers are to assist with free and fair elections.

Buckland, the Chair, concluded the meeting by saying that he would pass on the details of the forum to the Foreign Secretary William Hague as well as the Under Secretary Alistair Burt.

Private members’ debate

Burt was unable to attend the private member’s debate the following day, sending Mark Simmonds to represent the Foreign Office on his behalf.

Lumley described the 2008 election victory as a “political fairy tale”, but argued that Nasheed had been left with a “constitutional time bomb” regarding the unreformed judiciary, which the Commonwealth ought to have offered greater assistance with.

Robert Buckland, also present at this debate, remarked that the “current government is in a supremely ironic situation.”

“They criticised the former president for interfering in the judiciary and now it seems they are using judicial processes to frustrate a free and fair election,” he said.

“Is not the message we need to send to them that the guarantee of a true democracy is an independent judiciary, and that they had better make sure that is so,” he asked.

Both Karen Lumley and John Glen MP both stated their firm belief that the events of February 7 amounted to a coup.

On behalf of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), Simmonds said that he disagreed with the assertion that the Commonwealth had “taken its eye off the ball” in the Maldives.

“I do not think that is an entirely accurate reflection of matters,” he said.

He said that the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) was concerned about the situation – noting that the recent meeting in New York went on for five hours, despite being scheduled for 45 minutes – and that it had pledged additional support for civil society and judicial reform.

Simmonds was keen to stress that, after the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI), “we fully accept the legitimacy of the current president and his government.”

He described the current legal proceeding as a “significant test” which was being “watched closely” by the international community before noting that the government had previously sought and received assurances from President Waheed that the trial would be free from political influence.

“At this stage of proceedings, we have no reason to believe that this will not be the case,” said Simmonds.

“I have no doubt that the Maldives government and judiciary will feel the eyes of the world on them, and that they realise that a fair and impartial trial is most evidently in the national interest,” he added.

The second hearing in Nasheed’s trial had been scheduled for last Sunday but was postponed pending a High Court ruling on the procedural points raised by his legal team.

A High Court decision had been expected on the day after the private members debate, but the Supreme Court was reported to have instructed the lower court to halt its hearings on Wednesday afternoon.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Adhaalath Party head gives government six day ultimatium to renege on GMR airport deal

The government has been given less than a week to “reclaim” Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) from infrastructure group GMR under order of the religious conservative Adhaalath Party, a member of the coalition backing President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan.

Adhaalath Party President Sheikh Imran Abdullah gave the deadline yesterday, during a rally calling by November 15 for an annulment of the contract signed between the former government and GMR to manage and develop a new terminal at INIA.

Imran also told those gathered to stand ready for “activities on sea” planned for the November 12. The gathering, held yesterday at the artificial beach area of Male’, is expected to reconvene this evening.

Sheikh Imran was not responding to calls from Minivan News at the time of press, while fellow party member and State Islamic Minister Sheikh Mohamed Shaheem Ali Saeed said he did not wish to comment on the “GMR issue”, asking that he only be contacted over religious matters.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed, whose government approved the deal back in 2010, this month slammed statements over the “reclaiming” the airport from GMR.  Nasheed claimed such comments were “highly irresponsible”, stating that such words from the government could cause irreparable damage to the country.

Several Indian companies operating in the Maldives including GMR and TATA have also this month expressed concerns over political interference that they claimed is derailing their substantial investments in the country.

Following the controversial transfer of power on February 7, members of President Waheed’s unity government of President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan has swung between issuing reassurances within diplomatic circles that Indian investments in the country would be protected, while locally stepping up nationalisation rhetoric.

President’s Office Media Secretary Masood Imad and Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza were also not returning calls on whether the government had been officially notified of the deadline or how it will proceed on the matter at time of press.

The present government has continued to press to “re-nationalise”the airport, with the country’s Deputy Tourism Minister confirming to Indian media in September that the administration would not “rule out the possibility of cancelling the award [to GMR]”.

Despite these pledges, government coalition partners including the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) and Jumhoree Party (JP) have both called for further investigation into alleged wrongdoing over the deal and to follow legal guidelines.

Senior representatives of both parties have told Minivan News that any potential action taken against GMR to be taken through the courts and after negotiations with the infrastructure group.  Any actions should then be conducted in a manner not detrimental to securing future foreign investment opportunities, both parties have concluded.

Under the terms of the agreement – an estimated US$511 million deal that represents the largest ever case of foreign investment in the Maldives – GMR agreed to a 25 year concession agreement to develop and manage the site, as well as to overhaul the existing terminal by the end of this year.

The document was overseen by the International Finance Corporation (IFC), a member of the World Bank group and the largest global institution focused on private sector projects in developing countries.

The Maldives government has accused the IFC of negligence during the bidding process for INIA – allegations there were rejected by the organisation.  Both the government and GMR are presently involved in an arbitration case in Singapore over the airport development that is anticipated to conclude by year end.

However, the Adhaalath Party, as part of a civil society coalition that was formed last year, has stepped up efforts of late to oppose upholding the airport deal.

The efforts have included an ongoing number of gatherings in the capital Male’, promotional material including a “Go Home GMR” balloon, the publication of a book on the deal and a petition sent to the government.

Local media reported this week that some 10,000 people had so far signed the petition.

Sheikh Imran has previously predicted there would be “some unrest and damage” should the GMR deal be annulled, but nontheless urged people to come out and support the calls for nationalisation.  The GMR deal is actually a 25 year lease arrangement and the airport still belongs to the government.

Imran said the Maldivian population would be able to endure economic hardship should the deal be annulled, before threatening “a completely different activity” should the government fail to resolve the issue to the coalition’s satisfaction.

Book launch

Also against the GMR deal is the government-aligned DQP, whose leader Dr Hassan Saeed serves as special advisor to president Waheed, as well as being his party’s presidential candidate.

Late last month, Dr Saeed launched a book authored by himself that concluded the only option for “reclaiming the airport from GMR” is to invalidate or cancel the concession agreement with the Indian infrastructure giant.

The DQP has claimed the book would reveal a number of facts that the Maldivian people were unaware of before the signing of the agreement.

It follows the publication last year of another DQP publication that claimed that the government’s lease of Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) to developer GMR posed a threat to local industry that will “enslave the nation and its economy”.

The Maldives National Chamber of Commerce and Industries (MNCCI) has previously claimed that legal wrangling between the government and India-based developer GMR over the multi-million dollar airport development would not harm confidence in the country’s admittedly “challenging” investment climate.

This week alone, cabinet ministers announced efforts were being taken to try expanding the number of investment opportunities available in the Maldives in order to generate greater interest from foreign enterprises.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Former President Nasheed denounces DQP’s economic criticism of GMR contract

Former President Mohamed Nasheed on Sunday slammed a pamphlet released by the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) which claims to detail the financial loss caused to the country through leasing the international airport to Indian infrastructure giant company, GMR.

“I assure you that no loss at all would be caused to the Maldivian people through having a foreign company manage the airport,” Nasheed assured the crowds of over 1500 supporters gathered at Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s rally grounds Usfasgandu on Sunday night.

During his speech, Nasheed broke down the figures published in the book titled “Loss and Challenges of the long-term leasing of Male’ International Airport to GMR” written by current Special Advisor to the President, Dr Hassan Saeed. He further emphasised the inconsistencies that those figures held in comparison with the values he put forth with reference to external sources and the GMR contract.

“I am inclined to think that these people who have written this book must have studied their mathematics in an opium field in Afghanistan’s Kandahar. There is no other way that they could have gotten their arithmetic so completely wrong,” Nasheed said.

Nasheed said that while the book cites the MDP government’s estimation of a profit of MVR 45 billion in the next 25 years if GMR managed the airport, it went on to state that if the government took over management, they stood to receive a profit of MVR 60 billion (US$3.9 billion).

Elaborating on what the book had provided as backing for the said claim, Nasheed said “The first estimate they’ve made is that airport growth will increase by 25 percent every year. However, the IFC, World Bank, and other relevant international entities tell us that the rate of growth will be between 3.5 and 4.5 percent.”

“What is being said here is that the number of people coming to our airport far exceeds the number of tourist beds in the country. Even taking this to account, I see that they have sneaked in MVR 12 billion (US$778 million) to reach this 60 billion,” Nasheed said.

Nasheed added that the book had failed to consider the expenses that the Duty Free shops would pose, instead noting only estimated earnings.

“Usually expenses add up to 75 percent of earnings. Therefore, MVR 19.5 billion (US$1.26 billion) has been sneaked in to reach that 60 billion figure,” Nasheed stated.

“They also say that GMR is to invest MVR 4.8 billion (US$311 million) [over the lifespan of the contract] but I can without a doubt tell you that in accordance with the contract, GMR is to invest MVR 8.9 billion (US$577 million),” he further said.

Nasheed also pointed out that while the book claimed the government would finance the airport through a direct loan, they had omitted payment of any interest on the loan.

“In their accounting, they have not put down any expenses for the Maldives Airports Company Limited (MACL). These expenses are at least a MVR 110 million (US$7.14 million) per year, so again MVR 2.7 billion (US$175 million) needs to be taken out from this said MVR 60 billion.”

“In conclusion, the actual figures show that if MACL manages the airport, the government will receive MVR 18 billion (US$1.16 billion) over the next 25 years. Whereas if GMR manages it, the government will receive MVR 45 billion (US$2.92 billion) – that is MVR 1.6 billion (US$103.7 million) per year,” stated Nasheed.

Nasheed further claimed that under the contract, the Passenger Service Tax (US$18 US from foreigners and US$12 from locals) which used to be paid to MACL was now paid directly to the government.

“Thus in addition to the figures I’ve just shared, an additional MVR 324 million (US$21 million) will go into the government budget,” Nasheed claimed.

“No truth in government’s claims to nationalise airport”: Nasheed

Nasheed said that statements regarding “reclaiming” the airport from GMR were “highly irresponsible”, stating that such words from a government could cause irreparable damage to the country.

“Most of us citizens will doubtless understand that putting up banners with slogans all over the streets of Male’ and raising voices against India holds no benefits at all for the country,” Nasheed said, criticising the current ‘Airport Week’ being marked by the unity government parties.

Nasheed further alleged that airport nationalisation was a topic currently being used by political actors for their own personal interests .

“They are talking about the airport, and the religion of Islam, nationalism, national heritage and patriotism for the sole purpose of pulling the wool over people’s eyes and to orchestrate the coup,” Nasheed continued. “Even today they are not really trying to take the airport back from the GMR. This talk about the Adhaalath Party and Waheed’s government nationalising the airport has no amount of truth in it,” he said.

“I remember one mutinying officer on February 7 saying that he was there because the MDP government had sold the airport his father and grandfather had built. I want to say that the airport is still there. The only difference is that it roof is no longer leaking,” Nasheed said.

Nasheed ended his speech sharing his wish that the airport was developed by a capable company and that it would in future become the best of its kind across Asia.

Minivan News tried contacting Hassan Saeed, but he was not responding to calls at time of press.

DQP Secretary General Abdulla Ameen, President of the Adhaalath Party (AP) Sheikh Imran Abdulla, and Minister of Islamic Affairs and AP Member Sheikh Mohamed Shaheem Ali Saeed were also not responding to calls.

The Adhaalath Party has previously called on President Mohamed Waheed Hassan and other coalition parties to not conduct any communication with GMR which might disrupt the government’s push for airport nationalisation, a push it praised as “national jihad”.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Participation of UK legal experts in Nasheed trial a “unique challenge”

A Maldivian legal expert has described the use of foreign legal experts in the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed as “unique”, pointing out that the Maldivian legal system makes it particularly difficult for such experts to contribute to proceedings.

Mohamed Shafaz Wajeeh, a practising layer in Male’ and former Director of the Legal Director at the Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) said that while foreign advisers to corporate clients was fairly common, foreign experts for a specific criminal case was not.

“From a common law/international standards perspective, I believe foreign legal involvement is very much prevalent, especially if you consider the number of foreign legal experts who would be advising corporate clients operating in the Maldives in resorts, major telecom providers etc,” Wajeeh told Minivan News.

“However, the Nasheed trial is unique in that common law/international standards perspective expertise is being brought in for stated involvement in a specific criminal court case, as part of the defense team, not merely on a corporate/commercial transactional matter in an advisory capacity,” he added.

Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) revealed earlier this month that it was to add the expertise of two UK-based lawyers to the legal team working on the Judge Abdulla Mohamed detention case.

Sir Ivan Lawrence QC and Barrister Ali Mohammed Azhar were brought in to work alongside Hisaan Hussain, Abdulla Shair. On Thursday, it was announced that Kirsty Brimelow QC – a human rights expert – would also join Nasheed’s defense team.

Azhar is an expert in Shariah law – the Maldives legal system encompasses a combination of common and Shariah legal practices.

“It is not uncommon for foreign legal experts to be involved in transactional matters in an advisory capacities, but virtually never as Shari’ah experts (in recent history),” said Wajeeh. “What’s unique is for foreign legal experts to be involved in a criminal case – in the defence team, and especially in a court case.”

Lawrence, Azhar and Brimelow will work alongside Hisaan Hussain, Abdulla Shair, Hassan Latheef and Ahmed Adbulla Afeef – although the latter two have been barred from appearing in court on technical grounds.

Afeef will not be allowed to attend the hearings in an official capacity after failing to sign the Supreme Court’s new “Regulation on Lawyers practicing law in the courts of Maldives”.

Wajeeh cited this particular regulation as “disturbing” and “dangerous” – further sign, he feels, of the need for major reform of the judicial arm of the state which he described as undeveloped and “primeval”.

Latheef cannot appear as he has been listed by the Prosecutor General (PG) as a witness to the detention of the Judge. Latheef described the inclusion of his name on this list as unnecessary and “irrelevant” as the judge’s detention was not in question.

In the press release announcing Brimelow’s inclusion in the case, appearing on Nasheed’s website, it was acknowledged that legal restrictions would also prevent any of the UK experts appearing in court.

“I imagine they would be severely restricted – if not intentionally, then due to the structure of the legal system,” said Wajeeh.

“Foreign legal experts can’t attend as lawyers, they can’t attend in Nasheed’s stead either (only lawyers may represent individuals in criminal cases),” he added.

“I’m not really sure if they can sit at the bench even. My understanding would be, if the foreign legal experts are to be allowed into the Court room at all, they would have to go in and sit in the public gallery,” he continued.

Latheef explained that Ms Brimelow was the only member of the legal team scheduled to be present in Male’ for the trial, and that the team would be applying for a permit from the Attorney General to allow her to appear in court.

“This has been done once before,” explained Latheed, “although the lawyer involved was married to a Maldivian.”

Wajeeh also noted that there were certain procedural factors which would make it difficult for UK experts to fully participate in the case, in particular the use of Dhivehi in the courts without English translation services being readily available.

“The foreign lawyers would of course be free to offer their views and opinions to the appointed defence team on drafting submissions and responses in defence of Nasheed, given the documents are efficiently translated for their use,” explained Wajeeh.

“This would mean they could play a minimal role in the formal hearing, although could potentially play a crucial role in how the defence argument takes shape.”

Nasheed’s trial continues tomorrow at 4:00pm at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, which is has been temporarily relocated to Male’ for the purpose of the case.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed adds third British legal expert to defense team

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has further bolstered his legal team by accepting the services of Kirsty Brimelow QC ahead of the continuation of the Judge Abdulla Mohamed detention case on Sunday.

Brimelow will join fellow UK-based legal experts Sir Ivan Lawrence QC and Barrister Ali Mohammed Azhar on  Nasheed’s defence team.

A statement appearing on Nasheed’s website describes Brimelow as a criminal law specialist with international experience who is “particularly sought after in cases with a human rights law element”.

Brimelow was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 2011 and has, among a number of high profile cases, acted as Legal Adviser to the Constitution Commission of Fiji. She is vice-chairwoman of the Bar Human Rights Committee and appears regularly on British television and radio.

Earlier this month, the Department of Judicial Administration informed local media that two of Nasheed’s lawyers, Hassan Latheef and Ahmed Adbulla Afeef had been barred from the trial.

Latheef had been barred from the trial as the state had called him as a witness, while Afeef was was barred as he had not signed new behavioural regulations for lawyers recently issued by the Supreme Court, explained department spokesperson Latheefa Gasim.

This leaves just two of Nasheed’s lawyers able to appear in court – former President’s Office Legal Advisor Hisaan Hussain and criminal defence lawyer Abdulla Shair.

Nasheed has stated repeatedly that he feels the outcome of the trial to be pre-ordained, with his conviction designed specifically to prevent him running in next year’s presidential elections.

“On Sunday I will face an extraordinary court, established especially to hear my case,” Nasheed wrote in Britain’s Financial Times this week.

“I am to be tried for abuse of power, in particular for the arrest of a corrupt judge, who was an ally of Mr Gayoom. My conviction is a foregone conclusion. Mohamed Waheed, my former vice-president, may decide to pardon me, but only in a way that ensures I remain barred from seeking office next year,” he wrote.

The issue of Nasheed’s trial was raised in the UK House of Commons this week by Conservative MP Karen Lumley, who asked Alistair Burt – Under Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, about the fairness of Nasheed’s trial.

“We have sought and received assurances from President Waheed of the Maldives that any trial of former President Nasheed will be fair and free from political influence,” replies Burt.

“No trial date has been set. The next court hearing is on November 4 and we expect international observers to be present,” he added.

In response to Lumley’s question regarding the effect of the trial on a sustainable political outcome in the country, Burt said the following:

“The trial process is, of course, a matter for the Maldives, but there is international concern that if it results in the former President being prevented from leading his party into the elections next year, it will be seen as though the process was designed for exactly that object.”

“We urge political stability under all circumstances in the Maldives, and that will no doubt be enhanced if the former President is allowed to lead his party and take part in those elections,” continued the Under Secretary.

The statement on Nasheed’s website noted that the Attorney General’s regulations prevented any of the new additions to his legal team appearing alongside him in court.

“Article 2 (a) of the regulation states ‘a person has to either be a Maldivian citizen or be married to a Maldivian citizen and reside for most part in the Maldives’ in order to practice law in the Maldives,” read the statement.

“This restriction is a hindrance to clients who wish to have foreign legal professionals represent them in courts of the Maldives,” it said.

Nasheed’s legal team raised several procedural issues at the cases first hearing on October 9, all of which were dismissed by the court.

After challenging this ruling in the High Court, and calling for an injunction to halt the trial until the matter was resolved, it was announced last week that the High Court would hold a hearing on the matter on the morning of November 4 – the same day Nasheed’s trial in the Hulhumale’ Magistrate’s Court recommences.

“The party believes that the result of conducting both hearings on the same day will be the defence attorneys losing the opportunity to prepare for the original case at the Hulhumale Magistrate Court’,” a Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) statement read.

The party held a march around the capital island Male’ on Tuesday calling for judicial reform. Over 500 protesters marched around Male’ with banners and placards displaying messages arguing the importance of judicial independence and of holding the judiciary accountable.

Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed was originally taken into custody in January after blocking the Judicial Services Commission’s (JSC) proceedings into his alleged misconduct. A police mutiny and unrest in the capital led to Nasheed’s resignation three weeks later.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed permitted to leave country for energy award ceremony

Former President Mohamed Nasheed will be allowed to leave the country on October 16 in order to take part in a ceremony for the Zayed Future Energy Award in Abu Dhabi, reports local media.

Nasheed had been restricted from travelling by Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court following the issue of a warrant after Nasheed missed the first hearing in the Abdullah Mohamed detention case.

Nasheed – a world-renowned figure in the fight against climate change – appeared on the judging panel for last year’s Zayed award and has been invited to do so again next year, reported Haveeru.

“Nasheed will leave after completing every legal process,” an immigration official told the paper. “Other than being in the Judges panel there is nothing else scheduled during the visit to Abu Dhabi.”

The US$4million of prizes – named in commemoration of the late Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan – are described as the largest annual prize in renewable energy and sustainability.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JP MP Jabir raises Maldives investment fears over lack of resolution in GMR dispute

Jumhoree Party (JP) Deputy Leader Abdulla Jabir has criticised attempts to “politicise” the dispute between the government and India-based GMR over an agreement to develop Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) – fearing a negative impact on foreign investment.

The claims were made as the government-aligned Adhaalath Party (AP), which promotes religiously conservative values in the country, has continued to call on fellow coalition partners including the JP to take part in a series of “events” in the capital to protest against GMR’s development of the airport.

Speaking to Minivan News, Jabir, who is also a serving MP, highlighted the importance of maintaining an “investor friendly” atmosphere in the Maldives despite calls by some of the JP’s government coalition partners to re-nationalise the airport.

The MP said he instead advocated for sitting down and trying to find a compromise between the government and GMR, which is contracted to develop and run the airport for 25 years.

The dispute has centred, in part, over concerns like a disputed US$25 Airport Development Charge (ADC) that was to be levied on each passenger travelling through the site. GMR has maintained the the charge was contractually agreed, but later offered to exclude Maldivian nationals from paying it after the matter was contested in the country’s courts.

With the dispute unresolved, Jabir said he had sent a request to the Public Accounts Committee of the People’s Majlis for a review of the contract signed between GMR and the government of former President Mohamed Nasheed to “better understand” the agreement.

Several former opposition parties now serving in the government of President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan have continued to raise allegations of possible corruption behind GMR’s bid to develop INIA – allegations refuted by the company and the former government.

Jabir maintained that discussion and analysis, rather than politicised rhetoric in the media and at public events, would be required to move forward with the issue in a manner that did not damage future investment opportunities.

“We need an investor friendly environment here. Politicians should be here to resolve issues not complicate them further,” he said. “Any allegations of misconduct should be investigated, but we should be able to sit down and discuss a resolution. Yet many people do not know about or even understand the deal that has been signed.”

Jabir claimed that the GMR contract should therefore be viewed as a business issue rather than a political problem, something that he claimed would require greater parliamentary understanding of the agreement signed by the former government.

Under the terms of the agreement – a US$511 million deal that represents the largest ever case of foreign investment in the Maldives – GMR agreed to a 25 year concession agreement to develop and manage the site, as well as to overhaul the existing terminal by the end of this year.

The document was overseen by the International Finance Corporation (IFC), a member of the World Bank group and the largest global institution focused on private sector projects in developing countries.

However, the Maldives government earlier this month accused the IFC of negligence during the bidding process for INIA – allegations there were rejected by the organisation.

Both the government and GMR are presently involved in an arbitration case in Singapore over the airport development.

Coalition response

The coalition parties making up the government of President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan have at times appeared divided over how to proceed in regards to GMR the contract.  Some parties like the Adhaalath Party have advocated to gather in Male’ as part of a rally next month calling for the airport to be “returned” to the Maldivian people.

Speaking to local media earlier this month, Adhaalath Party President Sheikh Imran Abdulla said that a ‘mass national gathering’ would be held at Male’s artificial beach area on November 3 at 4:00pm to coincide with Victory Day.  Victory Day is held in remembrance of a failed coup attempt that was thwarted in 1988.

Sheikh Imran told the Sun Online news service that the gathering was devised as part of ongoing attempts to try and “reclaim” the airport from GMR.  Imran was not responding to calls from Minivans News at the time of press.

Minivan News was also awaiting a response from Abdulla Ameen, Secretary General of the government-aligned Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) at the time of press concerning its response to the proposed gathering.  The DQP had previously published a 24-page book claiming that the former government’s lease of INIA to GMR was a threat to local industry that would serve to “enslave the nation and its economy”.

Meanwhile, the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) claimed last month that while it held issues with the overall benefit to the Maldives from the GMR deal, “due process” had to be followed through proper legal channels in order to establish if any wrong doing had occurred with the airport contract.

Parliament review

JP Deputy Leader Jabir himself this week criticised certain high-profile political figures in the country over their response to the GMR contract.  He accused some of these figures of not “knowing what they are talking about” in regards to the deal, highlighting the need for a review of the agreement within the Public Accounts Committee.

Jabir was particularly critical of the Adhaalath Party’s response towards the GMR issue, which he claimed had complicated finding a resolution.

“Sometimes they are religious experts, sometimes they are financial experts. But everyone loves Islam here. Right now, foreign investors are finding it difficult to understand the climate here. This is not a perfect time for this issue to be happening with GMR,” he said. “I think these protests [against GMR] are unrealistic.”

Jabir claimed that from his experience as both a parliamentarian and business owner in the country, there was “no such thing” as a deal that cannot be renegotiated.

“However, if there is no talking then the country is only losing money whilst people take to the streets,” he added.

Earlier this month, INIA CEO Andrew Harrison told Indian media that the company had received no official word from the Maldivian government concerning a resolution to the dispute.

Yet despite MP Jabir’s concerns about the potential impacts the ongoing dispute over the airport development might have on future foreign investment, one national trade body recently played down fears that GMR’s case was proving to be economically detrimental to the Maldives.

The Maldives National Chamber of Commerce and Industries (MNCCI) claimed last month that legal wrangling between the government and GMR over the multi-million dollar airport development was not adversely harming confidence in the country’s “challenging” investment climate.

MNCCI Vice President Ishmael Asif contended that ongoing legal disputes linked to both the GMR agreement and another high-profile contract to manage a border control system with Malaysia-based Nexbis were not among concerns foreign investors had raised with the chamber.

“GMR has nothing to do with the investment climate here, at the end of the day it is a personal concern for the company and more a matter of local politics,” he claimed.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Mother of former Environment Minister sues police for damage to house during Nasheed’s arrest

Mother of former Environment Minister Mohamed Aslam, Rasheedha Mohamed, has sued police for damage caused to her house by police officers during the raid to arrest former President Mohamed Nasheed.

Speaking to Minivan News, Aslam confirmed his mother had filed a case at the Fares-Mathoda Magistrate Court, alleging police had disrespected the privacy of their house as guaranteed to all citizens in the constitution.

‘’It is not about the amount of money to compensate for the damage, it has all got to do with the procedure they applied to arrest Nasheed,’’ Aslam said.

‘’I was on the doorstep when the police officers arrived. They showed me the warrant issued by the court to arrest Nasheed and I told them to wait there while I passed the message to him,’’ Aslam explained.

‘’But they followed me inside and started searching all over, breaking doors and calling Nasheed to come out from his room,’’ Aslam said. ‘’It would have been right for them to use excessive force if they had let me forward the message to Nasheed and Nasheed had refused to come out.’’

Aslam said had Nasheed refused to come out, police could have asked his mother’s permission to enter the house to arrest a person as ordered to do so by the court.

He also said that police asked Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Mohamed Nazim to open the toilet door while he was inside.

‘’Nazim told the officers that it was him but officers demanded to open the door and he did open the door. Then a while later they broke the toilet door while he was inside,’’ he said.

Following allegations made against police after the arrest of Nasheed, police issued a statement that day claiming that police officers followed professional standards in arresting Nasheed.

In the statement, police said they initially requested Nasheed hand himself over to the police. According to police, officers broke down the door of the room Nasheed was in and detained him after he failed to respond to their initial commands. The statement claimed that this is the general course of action used by police in similar situations.

The police denied that any officers used offensive language or that any physical or that psychological trauma was caused to anyone during the arrest.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Decoding Nasheed: The Hindu

“Eight months after the political upheaval in the Maldives that saw Mohammed Nasheed resign as President, fresh turmoil there has belied hopes that the nation would slowly settle down. Mr. Nasheed, who alleged after resigning that he was ousted in a coup, has been arrested for defying a court order,” writes an anonymous author in The Hindu today.

“Charged with detaining a judge unlawfully on January 16 while he was still in power, and ordered by the court to remain in Male for the period of the trial, the former President opted to break free of his ‘island arrest’, going off to the southern islands in the archipelago to attend political rallies.

He believes that the charges are politically motivated, designed to convict and make him ineligible to contest elections. If that is correct, he is now responsible for handing the courts a far simpler way to achieve the same objective, by convicting him on a possible charge of contempt.

Evidently, Mr. Nasheed thinks brinkmanship serves better his political objectives, especially after the Commission of National Inquiry — constituted to go into political events from January 14 to February 8 — destroyed some of his political planning by concluding there had been no coup in the Maldives.

It said the change of President was legal and constitutional, and that what happened was a ‘reaction’ to Mr. Nasheed’s own actions as President. Though he has refused to accept the conclusions of the report, he can hardly accuse the Commission of bias.

It was at his bidding that its mandate was rewritten; additionally, a Maldivian member of his choice, plus an international co-chair and two other international observers, were added to it.”

Read more

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)