Amputation for theft added to draft penal code

The draft penal code bill has been amended to include punishments as prescribed in the Quran, such as amputation for theft.

The new article added during a parliamentary committee meeting Thursday (March 28) states that if someone convicted of a crime requires legal punishment, as specified in the penal code, that person will face punishment as stated in the Quran.

MP Imthiyaz Fahmy clarified the amendment to the draft penal code is about hadd punishments only and “not at all” about all Sharia offences, speaking with Minivan News today.

“Hadd offenses are already crimes in the draft penal code. However the prescribed punishments in Sharia for those particular crimes are not codified in the draft penal code, but instead they are left up to the interpretation of Sharia,” stated Fahmy.

“But to completely evade making a reference to hadd punishments or to mention that no hadd punishment at all should be imposed is impossible to the the fact that Sharia shall be one of the basis of all the laws of the Maldives,” he added.

Criminal punishments are detailed for murder, fornication, thievery and drinking alcohol.

The committee’s chairperson, MP Ahmed Hamza, told Sun Online the new draft penal code will require amputating persons convicted of theft, while a person convicted of apostasy (renouncing Islam) will also face punishment.

The bill does not include apostasy as a crime, therefore someone found guilty of this offense cannot be subjected to Quranic punishment, committee member MP Ahmed Mohamed clarified.

Gambling is also not criminalised, according to committee member MP Abdul Azeez Jamaal Aboobakuru. He told local media that the bill does not “state a manner in which such crimes can be convicted”.

Fahmy explained that Sharia law does not prescribe a hadd punishment for gambling.

The penal code draft bill does include factors that must be considered before convicting a person of murder; for example, any contradictory evidence would prevent such a conviction.

Imposing the death penalty cannot be subject only to the confession of the accused.

“Sharia does not run headlong into death penalties, amputation or stoning to death. Therefore depending on the circumstances, Sharia may avoid capital punishments,” said Fahmy.

He further clarified that Sharia punishments may be interpreted according to any of the schools of Sunni Muslims.

While interpretation of Sharia law punishments are within the purview of Maldivian judges, Fahmy believes that the current judicial system is incapable of providing Maldivian people justice, even with the new penal code.

“I do not believe the judiciary and the criminal justice system in the Maldives is capable of doing justice or able to take care of the new penal code. The judiciary is unable to ‘keep up with the Jonses’,” Fahmy stated.

The parliamentary committee’s additions to the bill follow its rejection of all but one amendment suggested by the Fiqh Academy of the Maldives.

Speaking to local media on Monday (March 25), Hamza said the committee had decided to accept only a suggestion concerning the offence of theft. Other amendments, he said, were merely changes to the wordings of the bill and carried little legal weight.

“They have submitted amendments to abolish certain sections. These include certain legal defences. When we looked into removing those defences, we found this impacted fundamental principles embedded to the draft penal code. So we decided to reject their suggestions,” he stated.

Following the decision, Vice President of the Fiqh Academy Sheikh Iyas Abdul Latheef told local newspaper Haveeru that the academy had informed parliament that current draft penal code should not be enforced in the country.

“The current draft does not include the Hadds established under Islamic Sharia. There is no mention of the death penalty for murder, the punishment of stoning for fornication, the punishment of amputation for theft and the punishment for apostasy. We proposed amendments to include these punishments,” Latheef stated.

Comments submitted by the United Nation agencies in the Maldives, Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM), and Attorney General are being considered and incorporated into the draft text.

The initial draft of the penal code was prepared by legal expert Professor Paul H Robinson and the University of Pennsylvania Law School of the United States, upon the request of the Attorney General in January, 2006. The project was supported by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP).

Professor Robinson’s team have published two volumes (Volume 1 and Volume 2) consisting of commentaries on sections of the draft bill.

The bill was first sent to the Majlis (parliament) in 2006 and will replace the 1961 penal code.

The penal code bill is being forwarded to the parliament floor this upcoming week, according to local media.

False preaching regarding rape and fornication

The parliamentary committee slammed the “false preaching” of the Chair of Adhaalath Party’s Scholars Council Sheikh Ilyas Hussain over the bill earlier this week.

Sheikh Ilyas declared that the new penal code does not recognise fornication with mutual consent as an offence.

MP Nazim Rashaad contended that whether sheikh or not, nobody could misinterpret the clause and claim that the bill did not recognise “mutually consented sexual intercourse” as an offence, and accused the Sheikh of lying to discredit the bill and parliament.

Briefing committee members on the sections concerning sexual offenses, Rashaad stated that under the draft penal code, both fornication and rape are offences under section 411 of the draft bill.

The existing penal code does not explicitly recognise “rape” as a crime, and cases are handled under provisions for sexual offences.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament committee to probe Sheikh Ilyas Hussain’s “false preaching” over draft penal code

Parliament’s committee responsible for drafting the new penal code has slammed the “false preaching” of the Chair of Adhaalath Party’s Scholars Council Sheikh Ilyas Hussain over the bill.

In a sermon given on Friday evening at the Furugaan Mosque, under the title “Purpose of Islamic Sharia”, Sheikh Ilyas declared that the new penal code does not recognise fornication with mutual consent as an offence, said committee’s member MP Nazim Rashaad.

During the parliamentary committee’s meeting held on Tuesday, Thulhaadhoo Constituency MP rejected the claim stating that no such stipulation was included in the draft penal code.

Rashaad said that section 130 of the draft bill states that sexual intercourse with another person without consent is categorised as “rape” under the new bill.

The existing penal code does not explicitly recognise “rape” as a crime, and cases are handled under provisions for sexual offences.

Rashaad contended that whether sheikh or not, nobody could misinterpret the clause and claim that the bill did not recognise “mutually consented sexual intercourse” as an offence, and accused the Sheikh of lying to discredit the bill and parliament.

Briefing committee members on the sections concerning sexual offenses, Rashaad stated that under the draft penal code, both fornication and rape are offences under section 411 of the draft bill.

“These people are deliberately making misleading comments regarding the draft bill without doing proper research.  They are attempting to discredit the bill and incite hatred among people towards the parliament and the members of this committee,” the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP alleged.

Following Rashaad’s comments, Chair of the Committee MP Ahmed Hamza stated that the committee will look into the case.

The committee also decided to send a written request to local radio station Atoll Radio seeking recordings of the sermon which was broadcast.

Amendments to bill

The parliamentary committee’s decision follows its rejection of all but one amendment to the bill suggested by the Fiqh Academy of the Maldives.

Speaking to local media on Monday, Hamza said  the committee had decided to accept only a suggestion concerning the offence of theft.  Other amendments, he said, were merely changes to the wordings of the bill and carried little legal weight.

“They have submitted amendments to abolish certain sections. These include certain legal defences. When we looked into removing those defences, we found this impacted fundamental principles embedded to the draft penal code. So we decided to reject their suggestions,” he said.

Following the decision, Vice President of the Fiqh Academy Sheikh Iyas Abdul Latheef told local newspaper Haveeru that the academy had informed parliament that current draft penal code should not be enforced in the country.

Speaking of amendments proposed by the Fiqh Academy, Latheef claimed that the defence of intoxication included in the bill, if proven in court, could lead to the acquittal of a convict, but said the academy’s proposal to remove the defence had been rejected by the parliament.

“The current draft does not include the Hadds established under Islamic Sharia. There is no mention of the death penalty for murder, the punishment of stoning for fornication, the punishment of amputation for theft and the punishment for apostasy. We proposed amendments to include these punishments,” he said.

Iyas also echoed the remarks made by Sheikh Ilyas Hussain in which he too claimed that the current draft implied that fornication with mutual consent was not an offence.

He also added that the bill stating that a convict should be able to use voluntary intoxication as a defense conflicted with the rules and principles of Islamic Sharia.

Furthermore the vice president of the Fiqh Academy said the draft penal code bill was drafted in such a fashion that it would encourage criminals to commit crimes and disregard the principles behind punishments prescribed under Islamic Sharia.

Along with the Fiqh Academy, the religiously conservative Adhaalath Party has also sent a letter claiming that the bill as a whole contrasts with Article 10(b) of the Constitution which states: “No law contrary to any tenet of Islam shall be enacted in the Maldives.”

Responding to the criticism, Chair of the Committee Ahmed Hamza claimed that even though the committee had decided to reject the suggestions, amendments could be brought to the bill when the committee sends the bill to parliamentary floor.

US assistance with draft

The initial draft of the penal code was prepared by legal expert Professor Paul H Robinson and the University of Pennsylvania Law School of the United States, upon the request of the Attorney General in January, 2006. The project was supported by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP).

Professor Robinson’s team have published two volumes (Volume 1 and Volume 2) consisting of commentaries on sections of the draft bill.

In an interview given to Times Higher Education UK, Professor Robinson was quoted as stating that the draft bill strictly adhered to the principles of Islamic Sharia and Islamic law as the “law in the Maldives is based on Sharia”.

“The cultural norms are quite different,” He said. “What the Maldives will want to criminalise and the ranking of the seriousness of offences will be different in many ways (from the US system). They criminalise adultery, for example, whereas most American jurisdictions have dropped it.”

“Some of these provisions have symbolic religious significance more than practical importance. I’ve never actually heard of anybody who has more than one wife, though it may well be that there are some somewhere,” he was quoted saying.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MPs oppose limiting presidential prerogative on appointing Police Commissioner

Several MPs yesterday objected to a clause in proposed legislation for a new Maldives Police Service Act limiting presidential prerogative to appoint the Police Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, during preliminary debate on the bill (Dhivehi) submitted by Independent MP for Kulhudhufushi South Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed.

While all MPs supported the 137-page legislation as a whole, most MPs insisted that the presidential prerogative to appoint the Commissioner of Police should remain unchanged and that the head of police should answer to the commander-in-chief.

The bill

Presenting the draft legislation to parliament, MP Nasheed said he sought to “restrict the role of the Home Minister over police” by limiting the minister’s powers.

The Home Minister’s role would be limited to entrusting responsibilities to police for achieving “strategic requirements” or objectives pledged by the ruling party’s manifesto, as well as providing necessary resources and monitoring the implementation of “instructions concerning the main policies and objectives for developing and strengthening the institution”.

“The minister should not state how particular investigations should proceed and interfere in such matters,” he said. “Police should be provided the operational independence or operational autonomy to do police work.”

The bill would also provide new powers over police to the parliament’s Security Services Committee (241 committee) and the Prosecutor General, he added.

Under the proposed procedure for appointing a Police Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, senior officers from the executive command would themselves apply for the post or propose colleagues, after which the Home Minister would submit their names for evaluation by the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) and the police professional command unit.

Based on the reports by the PIC and professional command, the minister would then take a vote on the chosen candidate among senior officers of the executive command through secret ballot.

The Home Minister could only propose a nominee to the President if he or she is approved by “a majority of the total number of members of the police executive service.”

Moreover, the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner would be appointed for a four-year term.

“Revolutionary change”

As all powers currently exercised by police were derived from a regulation formed under one article of the existing Police Act, Nasheed said one of the purposes of the new law was to ensure that all powers vested in police were derived from specific articles in the law.

“These are not just one or two amendments to the Police Act currently in force. These are basic changes to everything in the Police Act from cover to cover,” MP Nasheed said.

Nasheed said MPs and the major political parties had the choice to leave the police service in its current form or “modernise” the institution in light of past experiences.

Police was the one institution that came under the fiercest criticism during the reigns of Presidents Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, Mohamed Nasheed and Dr Mohamed Waheed, the MP said.

He added that the new law was intended to “bring fundamental, revolutionary change” to the institution.

If passed, the new law would come into effect on November 11, 2013, which would be the end of the five-year presidential term that began on November 11, 2008 and the ostensible date for the swearing-in of a newly-elected president.

Debate

During yesterday’s debate, MPs from both the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and parties in the ruling coalition objected to the proposed procedure for appointing the head of police.

Jumhooree Party (JP) MP for Kaafu Atoll Kaashidhoo, Abdulla Jabir, warned that the police service could become “a small government” if the president could not directly appoint and dismiss the Commissioner of Police.

“If not, wouldn’t that be like riding a horse without a saddle?” he asked.

Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP for Thaa Atoll Thimararushi, Adam Ahmed Shareef, concurred that the executive or parliament should have the power to appoint the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner

“My proposal is that the highest authority in the police, that is the Commissioner of Police, should be appointed, in my view, with parliamentary approval after a nomination by the President,” he said, adding that the President should have to seek parliamentary approval for removing the commissioner.

MDP MP for Faafu Bilehdhoo Ahmed Hamza meanwhile objected to the procedure specified in the bill for dismissing a Police Commissioner – which was in effect a no-confidence vote by senior officers.

Hamza contended that the bill “mixes up the three powers” as it was unclear whether the President, parliament or Prosecutor General would answer on behalf of police.

He added that turning the Home Minister into a “symbolic” official was “unacceptable” as ministers in the executive should be accountable to the public.

Contrary to most MPs’ belief that the proposed reforms would free police from undue political influence, Hamza argued that the institution would become more politicised when its chief could be removed through “an election.”

“The Commissioner of Police should be answerable to the Home Minister and the Home Minister should be answerable to the President,” he said.

However, Hamza said the bill should be accepted and amended during the committee stage.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

State spent Rf1.3 million on Gayooms’ health expenses 2010-2012

A total of Rf1.3 million (US$84,300) was spent on healthcare costs for former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and his wife from 2010 to April this year, MP Ahmed Hamza of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) revealed at parliament’s Finance Committee meeting yesterday.

The MP for Bilehdhoo revealed the figures during committee deliberations on a request by the Ministry of Finance and Treasury to establish rules and guidelines for covering health expenses for former presidents and their spouses.

According to the Finance Ministry, Rf302,560 (US$19,621) was spent for the Gayooms’ healthcare in 2010, Rf713,803 (US$46,290) in 2011 and Rf298,572 (US$19,363) so far this year.

Article 7 of the Protection and Privileges for Former Presidents Act (Dhivehi) – the first piece of legislation passed by the then-opposition majority parliament after convening in May 2009 – stipulates that healthcare for ex-presidents and their spouses either in the Maldives or overseas shall be provided by the state.

The law however does not set any limits to the health expenses to be borne by the state.

In addition to healthcare costs, Rf3.86 million (US$250,324) was spent on the former president’s office in 2010, Rf2.1 million (US$136,187) in 2011 and Rf700,000 (US$45,396) as of April this year.

Finance Committee
Finance Committee meeting on 12 June

Local media reported that following discussions at the Finance Committee yesterday, MPs decided to recommend that the Finance Ministry purchase a health insurance package for former presidents.

MP Hamza suggested offering an insurance package similar to those provided to retired high-ranking officials at the United Nations.

MP Ahmed “Redwave” Saleem of Gayoom’s Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) reportedly insisted that the package should cover all forms of treatment to be in compliance with article 7 of the Protection and Privileges Act.

However, most MPs concurred that there should be a ceiling limit for healthcare costs for former presidents.

The legislation on protection and privileges for ex-presidents was required under article 128 of the constitution, which states, “A person who has served in the office of president, serving his term of office lawfully without committing any offence, shall be entitled to the highest honour, dignity, protection, financial privileges and other privileges entitled to a person who has served in the highest office of the land. Such protection and privileges shall be specified in law.”

“Unreasonable”

Prior to the passage of the Act in October 2009, MPs of the then-ruling MDP denounced the monetary benefits in the draft legislation as excessive and “unreasonable.”

The bill stipulated a monthly allowance of Rf75,000 (US$6,000) in addition to Rf50,000 (US$4,000) for housing and Rf175,000 (US$14,000) for staff and office space.

The ruling party said at the time that the total figure would shoot up once the cost of health, transportation and security was taken into account, estimating that a total of Rf3 million (US$233,000) would be spent a month on former President Gayoom.

MDP MP for Hithadhoo North, Mohamed Aslam, observed that ex-presidents would be allowed to seek medical care anywhere in the world at the state’s expense.

“The benefits are too high as Rf300,000 (US$19,450) a month for someone who has retired is beyond reasonable expectations,” Aslam had argued. “Also, the government is in a financial crisis and it will be difficult to pay such a huge amount.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

AAA Trading Company pays part of outstanding rent and fines

AAA Trading Company Ltd has paid part of the outstanding rent and fines owed by three of its resorts to the Maldives Inland Revenue Authority (MIRA), reports Haveeru.

The company’s shareholders include MP Ahmed Hamza of the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and Economic Advisor to the President Ali Shiyam. According to Haveeru, the three resorts owed US$6.5 million as of July 5, 2011.

MIRA has confirmed that the company paid US$1.4 million owed as rent for Zitali Resort and Spa and Medhufushi Island Resort on August 7, which was however 23 percent of the total amount owed by the company as unpaid rent and fines.

On August 16, the Tourism Ministry requested the Finance Ministry to recover the outstanding rent and fines from seven resorts yet to settle its debts – including the three AAA Company resorts –  either through further negotiation or sale of resort properties.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MP Nasheed proposes resolution to determine ‘laws inconsistent with the constitution’

Independent MP Mohamed Nasheed yesterday proposed a resolution in parliament to determine existing laws “inconsistent” with the country’s constitution.

Proposing the bill, Nasheed said that according to the constitution it was a duty of the executive to assemble a list of articles of the constitution inconsistent with the laws within 30 days of commencement of the constitution, and that it was a duty of MPs to amend those laws within 90 days after the inconsistent articles were presented.

MP Nasheed said the government had done its duty and presented a list of laws inconsistent with the constitution and that he regretted the duty of the MPs was still incomplete.

The constitution was established in August 7, 2008.

”After two months, it will be two years from the date we authenticated the constitution,” MP Nasheed said, ”so there is a duty of the parliament unfulfilled, and that’s why I presented this resolution – to complete one of these duties.”

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ahmed Hamza said he supported the resolution presented by MP Nasheed.

”The parliament is the place where have to bow our heads to laws the most,” MP Hamza said, ”therefore, we would have to compete the duties assigned to us under article 299 [of the constitution],”

MP Hamza said that there were many difficulties faced because parliamentarians had failed to complete this task.

”There are some ongoing court trails charged against this constitution,” MP Hamza said. ”Former president [Maumoon Abdul Gayum] has charged some people of my area [Bilehdhoo] over protesting against him during the last presidential elections campaign.”

MP Hamza said that although the parliament had not revoked the laws contradicting articles in the constitution, they would still be void.

”I would like to tell the Police, Prosecutor General’s office, the courts and Anti Corruption Commission that the powers given to them by former laws which are inconsistent with the constitution are all void,” he said.

People’s Alliance (PA) MP Abdul Azeez Jamaal Abubakuru also said he supported the resolution presented by MP Nasheed.

”This resolution should not be debated for long, and all the MPs should accept that this is our duty,” said Jamaal.

”I would like to thank MP Nasheed for presenting this as a resolution and would like to repeat that it is an important issue and should hasten to complete it soon.”

MDP MP and leader of MDP parliamentary group ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik also said he supported the resolution.

”It is not the responsibility of MDP or the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party [DRP] to make laws for the country,” Moosa said. ”It is the responsibility of the parliament.”

”We handed this first to a person called the speaker of the parliament – not to run the whole parliament, but to operate and supervise the administrative duties of the parliament,” Moosa said. ”We never thought that this matter would be raised by the former information minister, instead we feel the speaker and deputy speaker of the parliament should have brought this to our attention.”

He suggested that the MPs should work every day until midnight until the duties mentioned in article 299 were completed.

DRP deputy leader and MP Ali Waheed said that his party would “fully co-operate” with the work.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)