Tag: Mohamed Nasheed

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(1)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)

MDP’s ‘Journey of Pledges’ reaches Nilandhoo with no sign of security forces

The Maldivian Democratic Party’s (MDP) ‘Journey of Pledges’ has today reached Nilandhoo in Ghaafu Alif Atoll with no sign of the security forces.

Local media yesterday reported that boats had been sent to return former President Mohamed Nasheed to Male’ to face trial .

Party spokesman Hamed Abdul Ghafoor said that the five boat flotilla had received a warm welcome from the island’s 1000-strong population as well as the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) dominated council.

“We don’t see the [political] tension here,” said Ghafoor. “Everyone is in high spirits.”

When asked about the reports in local media that the coastguard had been deployed from Male’ yesterday, Ghafoor said that the party had not received any official word from the authorities.

“As far as we had heard, boats left from Male’ at 4:00pm and should have arrived in Villingili by midnight,” he said.

“There were also rumours that a platoon was leaving from Addu but we haven’t heard anything from the police yet,” he added.

Yesterday the police declined to comment and the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) denied that any officials had been sent to retrieve Nasheed.

The day after Nasheed left for the Southern atolls, in contravention of a travel ban, the courts instructed police to produce Nasheed at a rescheduled hearing in the Abdulla Mohamed detention case this coming Sunday.

Security forces made no attempt to prevent Nasheed from leaving Male’ on Monday.

Judicial Administration Department Director Ahmed Maajid told Minivan News yesterday that, despite the order, the former president was “not to be detained”.

In the event of Nasheed being taken back to the capital, Ghafoor was uncertain as to whether the trip, scheduled to visit over 30 islands in 14 days, would continue.

“The trip is very much driven by a charismatic leader. It may fizzle out if the government acted aggressively like that,” said Ghafoor.

“We are not fighters – it would be silly to have a fighting force confront us on the high seas. But you can’t put anything past them,” he continued.

Maldivian law does include provision for trial in absentia if the defendant in a criminal case is not produced by the police.

However, MDP lawyer Hassan Latheef said that this would be very unusual and, to his knowledge, does not have any precedence in Maldivian case law.

Nasheed has requested in writing that his MNDF security detail – provided under the Former President’s Act – not accompany him on the tour.

The MNDF released a statement today detailing this, saying that it could not take any responsibility for harm that might befall the former president whilst not under its protection.

It was also stated that the defence ministry had asked the Majlis for advice on how it should act in such circumstances.

Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz has been summoned to the Majlis’ 241 security committee to discuss the protection provided to politicians following the murder of MP Afrasheem Ali on Monday evening.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MNDF denies coast guard operation to return Nasheed to capital

The Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) have denied media reports that a coast guard vessel had been dispatched to bring former President Mohamed Nasheed back to Male’ ahead of a court hearing rescheduled for Sunday (October 7).

The former president had been due before court on Monday (October 1) to stand trial over the controversial detention of a Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

However, Nasheed boycotted the hearing in protest at what he alleges is a lack of independence in the judiciary, opting instead to participate in a Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) campaign in the southern atolls – defying a court order that he remain in the capital.

MNDF Spokesperson Colonel Abdul Raheem told Minivan News that the coast guard was involved in “no such operation” to return Nasheed to Male’ after the Department of Judicial Administration yesterday confirmed police were “to produce” Nasheed to court on Sunday.

Raheem confirmed that a coast guard vessel had been dispatched to Addu Atoll today, but said this was unrelated to Nasheed’s campaigning and the subsequent court order.

Meanwhile, Police Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef today said authorities would enforce the court order to summon Former President Mohamed Nasheed to the court.

Speaking to Minivan News, Haneef said the Hulhumale’ Court order to summon Nasheed would be implemented, but declined to divulge further information.

Haneef did not say whether Nasheed would be detained before being produced to the court or how police would look to implement the order.

Department of Judicial Administration Director Ahmed Maajid yesterday confirmed that despite the court’s order, the former president was “not to be detained”.

However, newspaper ‘Sun’ reported it had confirmed a team of police officers had departed Male’ to bring Nasheed to court.

Nasheed dismissed the first hearing of the suit filed by the Prosecutor General (PG) on accusation of detaining Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed.

According to MDP, the former President is currently at Gaafu Alifu Atoll campaigning for the next presidential elections expected to be held next year.

The summon order issued by the Hulhumale’ Court orders police to summon Nasheed to the court at 4:00pm on Sunday.

According to social media, supporters of Nasheed are joining him to come Male’ with him to attend the hearing of the case if police is to chase him down from Gaafu Alifu Atoll.

Nasheed has specifically been charged with violating Article 81 of the Penal Code, which states that the detention of a government employee who has not been found guilty of a crime is illegal.

If found guilty, Nasheed will face a jail sentence or banishment for three years or a Rf 3000 (US$193.5) fine, a sentence that would bar him from contesting the elections.

The same charges are pressed against Nasheed’s Defence Minister Tholhath Ibrahim and three Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) Generals for being accomplice to Nasheed.

According to newspaper ‘Haveeru’, the hearing into the cases against Tholhath and Colonel Mohamed Ziyadh had been scheduled for today but was later cancelled.  The court said the decision had been made as the judge presiding over the case was on sick leave.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)