Tag: mp ali waheed

MP Ali Waheed seeks temporary injunction after Criminal Court rejects appeal

Deputy Parliamentary Group Leader of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ali Waheed has today appealed a Criminal Court decision to reject procedural points raised during previous hearings of a case against him.

Lawyers representing the Thoddoo constituency MP argued during a High Court appeal hearing today that charges against him for obstructing police officers in their duty had previously been dismissed and, as a procedural point, could not therefore be legally resubmitted.

Ali Waheed is charged with obstruction of police duty during an anti-government protest he participated in while of member of the then opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP).  Waheed, who defected to then-ruling MDP in May 2011, was charged for breaching article 75 of Maldives Police Services Act.

Appeal

During today’s High Court appeal hearing, Waheed’s lawyer, former Attorney General Husnu al Suood, repeated his argument that the state could not resubmit the same criminal charges for a second time without any changes.

He contended that the decision of the prosecutor general (PG) to pursue the case contradicted article 223 of the constitution, which prescribes the powers of his office.

Responding to the argument, Assistant Public Prosecutor Hussain Nashid claimed that the charges had only been dropped “temporarily” in a bid to respect the “fairness” of criminal trials.

Nashid also argued that the prosecutor general had the discretionary power to decide on the procedures as to how criminal charges can be filed.

Meanwhile, Ali Waheed’s lawyer requested the High Court bench issue a temporary injunction to withhold the ongoing case at Criminal Court until the High Court decides on the matter.

In response to the request, chair of the sitting judges bench Judge Yoosuf Hussain said that the court would decide on whether to issue the requested injunction by the end of the day.

Discretion

Speaking to Minivan News today, prominent criminal lawyer Abdulla Haseen said he believed that the prosecutor general legally had the power to resubmit criminal cases after withdrawing them.  However, Haseen contended that any such decision should be “fair and just, without any political influences”.

“I do not believe that the constitution limits the power of PG to resubmit criminal cases again. But it should be done in a fair and just way without any political influences,” he said

Even though Haseen declined to comment on the ongoing court case, he stressed that the PG should ensure cases being sent to trial were done so in a way that was fair and just, especially when focusing on political figures.  Haseen stressed such a decision was vital in order to maintain the credibility and impartiality of prosecutions.

“We don’t usually see the PG resubmitting cases like this but it does not mean he cannot. However exercise of his discretion should always be impartial. When Ali Waheed’s case was withdrawn, it reflected political motives as much as it did when he decided to resubmit the case. PG is an independent constitutional body and should not be subject to political influence,” he explained.

The Prosecutor General’s Office was not responding to calls at time of press.

Case history

The case was first sent to the PG’s Office after an investigation by the police in March 2010.

By November that year, state prosecutors had dropped the charges against Ali Waheed on the grounds of a “lack of fairness”, stating that police had failed to submit a case relating to MDP activists entering the Civil Services Commission (CSC) office and harassing its staff.

The case against Ali Waheed was once filed again by the PG last year following the controversial transfer of power that brought President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik’s government into office.

Following the decision, Ali Waheed’s defence lawyer Suood argued during a Criminal Court hearing that the state cannot file the same criminal charges once they had been dropped on an earlier occasion.

Ali Waheed’s procedural points were dismissed by the sitting criminal court judge Abdulla Didi, stating that the PG could re-file a case.

During previous Criminal Court hearings, Waheed stated that he was unclear about the charges pressed against him. He added that he was not someone who would ever confront police with arms and questioned whether it was only him and Mahloof that were there during the protests.

State prosecutors responded that they had decided to prosecute Ali Waheed and fellow MP Ahmed Mahloof because they had been able to obtain sufficient evidence to support charges against the two politicians.

Along with MP Ali Waheed, former DRP MP Ahmed Mahloof is also facing the same charges.

Both Waheed and Mahloof were elected to parliament under the ticket of DRP. However, following the split of the DRP into two factions, both Waheed and Mahloof chose to leave their former party and head in two different directions.

Mahloof joined the newly formed Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), the party formed by the DRP members who supported former President Gayoom as opposed to the party’s current leader, MP Ahmed Thasmeen Ali. Ali Waheed meanwhile joined the MDP.

During the first hearing of the trail against him, Mahloof requested that the judge carry out the trial separately stating that although he and Waheed were once in the same party, times had changed and the pair now followed different political beliefs and parties.

The request was dismissed at the time by the presiding Judge Abdulla Didi, who stated that the state had levied one charge against both him and his parliamentary colleague. Judge Didi said differing political beliefs was immaterial to the case that was being heard.

Concerns

Following the filing of the case against Waheed for the second time, the MDP at the time raised concerns stating that the case had lost its meaning because of the delay in prosecution.

In a statement, the MDP claimed that “without considering the legal principle ‘justice delayed is justice denied’,  we would like to bring to notice that the state is prosecuting meaningless cases while more important cases remain unprosecuted, while others have already been dismissed,” read the statement.

It further described the prosecution of its members at the time as a “series of attempts to hurt” the party after the fall of the previous MDP-led government.  The MDP contends that former President Mohamed Nasheed was removed from office under “duress” following a mutiny by sections of the police and military on February 7, 2012.

Waheed, previously speaking to local media after the hearing, stated that he would not be threatened by such cases that the current government was pressing against him, and said he would “face the charges with courage”. He also asked the PG to prosecute him for even “slightest” wrong he had committed.

“This prosecution is not just a prosecution levied against me, this is a prosecution that is levied against the 50,000 members of MDP and the majority of the citizens of Thoddu constituency,” he said.

Ali Waheed told the press at the time that such unpleasant inducements by the government to pressure him to join them would not work and claimed that he would not leave the MDP to support an illegitimate government.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MPs Ali Waheed and Ahmed Mahloof facing criminal charges for obstructing police duty

Two former Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MPs Ali Waheed and Ahmed Mahloof are facing criminal charges for allegedly obstructing police duty during an opposition protest that took place in 2010.

Prosecutor General (PG) claimed that the two MPs entered a restricted area cordoned off by police during the night of March 25, 2010, near the former presidential residence of Muleaage, and had showed disobedience to the police officers in the area.

Both Mahloof and Waheed are facing charges under the article 75 of the Maldives Police Services Act.

During the first hearing held yesterday, after the charges were read to the defendant MPs, Mahloof requested the judge carry out the trial separately stating that although he and Waheed were once in the same party, times had changed and the pair now followed different political beliefs and parties.

However, presiding judge Abdulla Didi declined Mahloof’s request stating that the state had levied one charge against both him and his parliamentary colleague, and said that differing political beliefs was immaterial to the case that was being heard.

Meanwhile, Waheed stated that he was unclear about the charges pressed against him. He added that he was not someone who would ever confront police with arms and questioned whether it was only him and Mahloof that were there during the protests.

Responding to Waheed’s claims, the state attorney stated that the charges did not mention that Waheed had attempted to confront the police with arms, and also mentioned that others were involved.

The state prosecutors said they had decided to prosecute Waheed and Mahloof because they had obtained evidence supporting the charges.

Both Mahloof and Waheed requested to proceed with the trial after seeking legal counsel.

During today’s hearing, the judge questioned the state as to why the case had been delayed for such a long period. The state responded that the case had been earlier submitted but later withdrawn because the PG observed that there was a “lack of fairness” in sending cases to court.

Adjourning the session, Judge Abdulla stated that a date for the next hearing would be announced later and that the case would be scheduled at the earliest available date.

This is the second time the case has been forwarded to trial.

Earlier in November 2010 the case was sent to trial but the PG withdrew the matter, stating that police had failed to submit a case that involved then ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) activists entering the Civil Services Commission (CSC) office and harassing their staff.

The former government had criticised the PG following their actions, and claimed that the PG was politically-aligned instead of being impartial. In their defence, the PG stated that police had been sending cases involving [former] opposition politicians and while failing to send cases of MDP activists, which meant that the government was pressing charges that were politically motivated.

An official from the PG told local media today that the case had been re-sent along with the case involving MDP activists harassing CSC employees.

Concerns

With the trial to proceed, the now-opposition MDP has raised concerns stating that the case had lost its meaning because of the delay in prosecution.

In a statement, the MDP claimed that “Without considering the legal principle ‘justice delayed is justice denied’,  we would like to bring to notice that the state is prosecuting meaningless cases while more important cases remain unprosecuted, while others have already been dismissed,” read the statement.

MDP described the prosecution as a “series of attempts to hurt” its members after the MDP government was toppled on February 7.

Waheed, speaking to local media after the hearing, stated that he would not be threatened by such cases that the current government was pressing against him, and said he would “face the charges with courage”.

He also asked the PG to prosecute him for even “slightest” wrong he had committed.

“This prosecution is not just a prosecution levied against me, this is a prosecution that is levied against the 50,000 members of MDP and the majority of the citizens of Thoddu constituency,” he said.

Waheed further said that despite the efforts by the government to pressure him, he would not leave the MDP to support an illegitimate government.

Both Waheed and Mahloof were elected to parliament under the ticket of DRP.

However, following the split of the DRP into two factions, both Waheed and Mahloof chose to leave their former party and head to two different directions.

Mahloof joined the newly formed Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), the party formed by the DRP members who supported former President Gayoom and opposed the DRP’s leader, MP Ahmed Thasmeen Ali.

Waheed defected to MDP and was later elected as the deputy parliamentary group leader of the party.

MDP Spokesperson Imthiyaz Fahmy was not responding at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

New MDP President summons political appointees “to make government accountable”

Newly-elected Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) President and former Fisheries Minister Dr Ibrahim Didi has said that he will summon political figures in the current government and question them regarding the fulfilling of the pledges made by the party.

“Those in political positions received those positions from the party. I am legally obliged, and it is also my responsibility, to query them,’’ Dr Didi said, speaking to the people of Thoddu in North Ari Atoll. The island is the constituency of opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) Deputy Leader, MP Ali Waheed.

Dr Didi said he will summon senior officials from the Works Corporation to determine whether solutions for Thoddu’s sewerage system of Thoddu had been found, and also said he would summon officials from the Education Ministry to discuss the challenges to improving the education system in Thoddu.

New Deputy Leader of MDP and MP Alhan Fahmy, MP Ilyas Labeeb, MDP Thoddu branch president Hassan Shiyan and Thoddu Council member Ali Naseer spoke at the rally held in Thoddu.

Speaking at the rally, Alhan criticised the oppositio, saying that the biggest challenge for today was that there is no responsible opposition party in the Maldives.

‘’The future of this nation lies in the hands of youths. Ali Waheed is also a person who needs political progression. He can make progress in politics by joining MDP,’’ said Alhan, urging Ali Waheed to join MDP.

Rumors are currently circulating in the Maldivian press that Waheed has already joined the MDP, and that the party was planning to hold a special ceremony to celebrate it, however Waheed was unavailable for comment at time of press.

MDP Secretary General Ahmed Shah said he had no information that Waheed had joined MDP.

”Lately everyone on the MDP podium has been calling on Waheed to join the MDP,” said Shah. ”It may happen – I think that is the reason why everyone is speaking about it and rumors are being spread.”

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)