Muthasim Adnan – Minivan News

Dismissed Supreme Court Judges to receive extensive privileges

Former Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz and former Justice Muthasim Adnan, dismissed due to the reduction of the Supreme Court bench to five judges, are to receive extensive privileges according to a new regulation compiled by the Supreme Court.

The regulations on the privileges of judges who retire with honor awards the two judges financial benefits, security officers, a car and a driver, medical insurance in the Maldives, SAARC, and ASEAN countries, and VIP services at state offices.

The financial benefits are dependent on the length of their service to the state.

They are to receive half of their salary for a period of service of 20 years, two-thirds for a service period between 20 and 25 years, and three-quarters for over 25 years of service.

The state is to bear expenses for the driver and fuel for the car.

Faiz and Muthasim are to be addressed with the title of ‘Justice Retired’. They will be given the title at a special ceremony, the regulations said.

Faiz and Muthasim’s sudden dismissal in December garnered international condemnation, with the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers saying their removal would have “a chilling effect on the work of the judiciary at all levels”.

The People’s Majlis removed the two judges after revising the Judicature Act to reduce the seven-member Supreme Court bench to five.

The watchdog Judicial Services Commission (JSC) promptly selected Faiz and Adnan for dismissal, though the reasons for their selection were not shared with MPs who subsequently voted to dismiss both on December 14.

Critics have said the removal contravened Article 154 of the Maldives Constitution that says a judge can only be removed if the JSC finds them guilty of gross misconduct or incompetence.

The rapporteur has called for a reconsideration of the pair’s removal, noting that it had been characterised by a “lack of transparency and due process”.

“The fact that the grounds for removal were not publicized is particularly unacceptable,” added Knaul in a December 22 statement.

Commonwealth organisations said the move had “severely jeopardised” the independence of the judiciary, while the International Commission of Jurists said the “astonishingly arbitrary” decision had “effectively decapitated the country’s judiciary”.

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) had challenged the legality of the JSC’s recommendation to dismiss the judges at the Civil Court, but the Supreme Court took control of the case.

Three lawyers also mounted a challenge to the Judicature Act revisions at the High Court, but the registrar threw the case out claiming the the original jurisdiction lay with the apex court.

The lawyers have re-submitted the case at the High Court, arguing the Supreme Court bench had a conflict of interest in the case.

The MDP meanwhile expelled MP Reeko Moosa Manik from the party and ordered five MPs to apologise for their absence from the vote on the judges’ dismissal. The party had issued a three-line whip.

Moosa has since said he refused to support Faiz after the chief justice had caused significant harm to the party in recent years, not least for his swearing in of Dr Mohamed Waheed as president following the controversial resignation of Mohamed Nasheed in February 2012.

Related to this story

Removal of Supreme Court judges will have “chilling effect” on work of judiciary: UN special rapporteur

Majlis removes Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz, Justice Muthasim Adnan from Supreme Court

ICJ says Majlis has “decapitated the country’s judiciary”

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Judicial independence, rule of law “severely jeopardised” in the Maldives, says Commonwealth organisations

The sudden removal of former Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz and Justice Muthasim Adnan has “severely jeopardised” the independence of the Maldives judiciary and the rule of law, three Commonwealth bodies have said.

The Commonwealth Lawyers Association (CLA), the Commonwealth Legal Education Association (CLEA) and the Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association (CMJA) in a statement on Tuesday said the judges’ removal was unconstitutional and constituted a clear breach of the Commonwealth Principles to which the government of Maldives has subscribed.

Faiz and Muthasim were removed by a two-third majority of MPs present and voting at an extraordinary session on Sunday following amendments to the Judicature Act that reduced the seven-member Supreme Court bench to five judges.

Expressing concern, the CLA, CLEA and CMJA said the removal contravened Article 154 of the Maldives Constitution that says a judge can only be removed if the watchdog Judicial Services Commission (JSC) find the judge guilty of gross misconduct or incompetence.

The JSC did in fact rule the two judges unfit, but the ruling has not been made available to MPs or the public, despite repeated requests by opposition MPs.

In passing the revisions to the Judicature Act and removing the two senior judges, the Government of Maldives have breached the Commonwealth (Latimer House) Principles on the Accountability of and the Relationship between the Three Branches of Government (2003), said the statement.

“As a result the independence of the judiciary and the Rule of Law have been severely jeopardized”.

The Principles state that “Judges should be subject to suspension or removal only for reasons of incapacity or misbehavior that clearly renders them unfit to discharge their duties.”

They further state that disciplinary procedures must be fairly and objectively administered and should include appropriate safeguards to ensure fairness.

“The Associations urge the Government and Parliament of the Maldives to respect the independence of the judiciary and to comply with the relevant constitutional provisions, Commonwealth Principles and other relevant international standards,” the statement urged.

President Abdulla Yameen appointed Justice Abdulla Saeed as the new Chief Justice on Sunday. Faiz has condemned the Majlis vote as unconstitutional, and said the move raises doubts over the separation of powers and the continuation of judicial independence in the Maldives

Three lawyers mounted a challenge to the Judicature Act’s amendment at the High Court on Sunday, but the court’s registrar has thrown the case out claiming it has no jurisdiction over the matter.

Acting registrar Mariyam Afsha said the complaint’s original jurisdiction lay with the Supreme Court.

Critics have pointed out the High Court registrar’s decision effectively means only the Supreme Court can now hear the challenge and have pointed to a Supreme Court’s conflict of interest in the case.

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party had also lodged a complaint with the Civil Court challenging the legality of the JSC ruling, but the Supreme Court on Sunday took control of the case minutes after the first hearing began.

The Supreme Court’s writ of prohibition ordered the Civil Court to “to hand over case files, with all relevant documents, to the Supreme Court before 20:45 tonight, 14 December 2014, and to immediately annul any action that may have been taken on the matter.”

The decision followed a declaration by Civil Court Chief Judge Ali Rasheed Hussein, and Judges Aisha Shujoon, Jameel Moosa, Hathif Hilmy, Mariyam Nihayath, Huseein Mazeed, and Farhad Rasheed in which they declared the move to dismiss the two judges to be against principles of natural justice and several international conventions, and could “destroy judicial independence” in the Maldives.

“We believe we are obliged to comment on the issue for the sake of the democratic and judicial history of the Maldives, and we believe keeping silent at this juncture amounts to negligence” the bench said.

Related to this story

Supreme Court takes control of MDP’s Civil Court complaint on Faiz, Muthasim dismissal

High Court claims “no jurisdiction” in Supreme Court bench reduction challenge

Abdulla Saeed appointed as new Chief Justice, dismissed Justice Faiz laments “black day”

Civil Court condemns move to dismiss Chief Justice Faiz and Justice Adnan

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

High Court claims “no jurisdiction” in Supreme Court bench reduction challenge

The High Court on Tuesday threw out a challenge to Judicature Act amendments that reduced the seven-member Supreme Court bench to five judges and resulted in the sudden removal of Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz and Justice Muthasim Adnan.

High Court Registrar Mariyam Afsha said the complaint’s original jurisdiction lay with the Supreme Court, and not the High Court.

The case lodged by Lawyers Shaheen Hameed, Hassan Ma’az Shareef and Mohamed Faisal, contended the revisions to the Judicature Act were unconstitutional as they forced the removal of sitting Supreme Court judges without due process.

According to Article 11 of the Judicature Act, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in controversies that may lead to a constitutional void, cases where two branches of the state or two institutions of the state disagree on interpreting the constitution, and in constitutional matters that affect public interest.

Article 37 of the Judicature Act gives the High Court original jurisdiction in controversies where a law or part of a law is unconstitutional or where regulations or part of a regulation is against laws and the constitution.

Removal of judges

According to Article 154 of the Constitution, a judge, once appointed, can only be removed if the watchdog Judicial Services Commission (JSC) found the judge guilty of gross misconduct and incompetence, and if the Majlis subsequently removed the judge by a two-thirds majority of MPs present and voting.

Within hours of the amendment’s ratification on Thursday (December 11), the JSC in an emergency meeting recommended the two judges unfit for the position.

However, the JSC’s reasons were not made available to the public or MPs when the vote to dismiss the two judges proceeded on Sunday.

Shaheen, also President Yameen’s nephew, told local media that the JSC had failed to afford Faiz and Muthasim the opportunity to speak in their defense.

“[The JSC] is saying that it is alright to dismiss these first two judges by flouting all procedures, but that due process must be followed in dismissing other judges. This is gross violation of equality before the law,” he said.

The MDP had also lodged a challenge to the JSC decision with the Civil Court, but the Supreme Court took control of the case on Sunday minutes after the first hearing started.

The Judicature Act amendments will also divide the nine-member High Court into three branches, with three members each.

The two regional branches in the North and South will only be allowed to hear appeals in magistrate court verdicts. Only the Malé branch will be allowed to hear challenges to laws and regulations.

Related to this story

Supreme Court takes control of MDP’s Civil Court complaint on Faiz, Muthasim dismissal

Abdulla Saeed appointed as new Chief Justice, dismissed Justice Faiz laments “black day”

Civil Court condemns move to dismiss Chief Justice Faiz and Justice Adnan

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Supreme Court takes control of MDP’s Civil Court complaint on Faiz, Muthasim dismissal

The Supreme Court last night took control of a complaint lodged with the Civil Court regarding a judicial watchdog resolution recommending the removal of Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz and Supreme Court Judge Muthasim Adnan.

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) had filed the complaint with the Civil Court on Sunday morning, ahead of an extraordinary Majlis sitting to vote out Faiz and Adnan.

The first hearing was scheduled at 8:30pm, but the Supreme Court’s registrar Mariyam Sham’a Ismail sent a writ of prohibition at 8:40 pm ordering the Civil Court to halt proceedings on the case.

The writ ordered the Civil Court to “to hand over case files, with all relevant documents, to the Supreme Court before 20:45 tonight, 14 December 2014, and to immediately annul any action that may have been taken on the matter.”

MDP had requested the Civil Court to review the legality of the watchdog Judicial Services Commission’s (JSC) letter to the Majlis declaring the two judges guilty of misconduct and incompetence. The complaint also asked the court to issue an injunction against the Majlis vote.

However, a two-third majority of MPs voting removed the two judges before the Civil Court could examine the request for a stay order.

A lawyer who wished to remain anonymous questioned the legality of the writ of prohibition, claiming such an order could only be issued following a sitting of the Supreme Court bench led by the chief justice.

At the time of the writ’s issue, the position of chief justice was vacant. The Majlis only approved Supreme Court judge Abdulla Saeed to the position at an extraordinary vote at 9:30pm.

The apex court’s registrar cannot issue orders on the Civil Court in the absence of a chief justice, the lawyer claimed.

The Supreme Court also had a conflict of interest in the case as it asked for the review of a JSC ruling on the removal of two Supreme Court judges, the lawyer said. Further, Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed heads the JSC – the defendant in the case, leading to further conflict of interest, the lawyer said.

Faiz and Muthasim’s dismissal follow amendments to the Judicature Act reducing the seven-member Supreme Court bench to five judges. The revised law ordered the JSC to recommend two judges for dismissal within three days of its enactment.

Judicial independence

The Civil Court had on Saturday night condemned the move and said the Majlis had “forced” the JSC to deem Faiz and Adnan unfit for the Supreme Court bench without due process.

The Civil Court Chief Judge Ali Rasheed Hussein, and Judges Aisha Shujoon, Jameel Moosa, Hathif Hilmy, Mariyam Nihayath, Huseein Mazeed, and Farhad Rasheed said the move was against principles of natural justice and several international conventions, and could “destroy judicial independence” in the Maldives.

However, the ruling Progressive Party of the Maldves (PPM) maintains the bench reduction would facilitate judicial reform and strengthen the judiciary.

Faiz and Muthasim often formed the dissenting opinions in several controversial cases including the decision to annul the first round of elections held in September 2013. Muthasim was the only judge with a background in common law on the bench.

Faiz has since called his dismissal unconstitutional, and said the move raises doubts over the separation of powers and the continuation of judicial independence in the Maldives.

“Today will be written down as a black day in the constitutional history of the Maldives. I state this is a black day for the constitution. Taking such a vote against the constitution is, I believe, disrespectful to the constitution,” he said.

The Human Rights Commission of the Maldives has also sent a letter to Speaker Abdulla Maseeh and Attorney General Mohamed Anil expressing concern over the sudden dismissal of Faiz and Muthasim

How the state acts in the case sets an important precedent in establishing public trust in the judiciary, the commission claimed.

President Yameen’s nephew Shaheen Hameed and two lawyers have also asked the High Court to annul the amendments to the Judicature Act.

Related to this story

Majlis removes Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz, Justice Muthasim Adnan from Supreme Court

MDP asks Civil Court to halt Majlis decision on judges’ removal

Majlis to vote on Chief Justice Faiz, Justice Muthasim dismissal on Sunday

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Abdulla Saeed appointed as new Chief Justice, dismissed Justice Faiz laments “black day”

President Abdulla Yameen has appointed Supreme Court Justice Abdulla Saeed as the Maldives’ new Chief Justice within an hour of Majlis unanimously approving him for the position.

Opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MPs staged a walk out prior to the vote, accusing the ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) of burying the country’s 2008 democratic constitution.

MDP MP Imthiyaz Fahmy described the PPM and its coalition partner Maldives Development Alliance (MDA) as “enemies of democracy bent on taking revenge on the people after having assumed power through brute force.”

Tonight’s extraordinary session at 9pm followed an extraordinary morning session during which a two-third majority of MPs voted out incumbent Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz and Justice Muthasim Adnan.

Speaking to local media today, Faiz condemned the Majlis vote as unconstitutional, and said the move raises doubts over the separation of powers and the continuation of judicial independence in the Maldives

Faiz and Muthasim were voted out after the Majlis amended the Judicature Act to reduce the seven-member Supreme Court bench to five judges.

The ruling coalition maintains the move will strengthen the judiciary and facilitate judicial reform.

Black day

Former President Mohamed Nasheed had appointed Faiz as the country’s first Chief Justice in 2010, days after he ordered the army to lock up the Supreme Court premises when the interim Supreme Court bench illegally declared themselves judges for life.

Faiz and Muthasim have formed the dissenting opinion in several controversial cases, including the decision to annul the first round of presidential polls in September 2010.

“Dismissal of a country’s Chief Justice against the constitution is no small matter,” Faiz told CNM today, adding “MPs are mandated to uphold democracy. But today there are doubts over how they perceive democracy.”

Faiz said he had decided not to speak in his defense prior to the vote due to conflict of interest and because he did not want politicians to benefit from any of his statements.

Muthasim was the only Supreme Court Judge with a background in common law.

New Chief Justice

Saeed, who served as the Chief Justice of the Maldives’ first interim Supreme Court from 2008 – 2010, was voted in with 55 votes.

Jumhooree Party (JP) MPs Gasim Ibrahim and Hussain Mohamed voted for Saeed despite having opposed Faiz and Adnan’s removal this afternoon. JP MPs Ali Hussein and Abdulla Riyaz, who had voted against the two judges’ dismissal, did not participate in the vote.

The watchdog Judicial Services Commission (JSC) had recommended that the two judges be dismissed for gross misconduct and incompetence on Thursday. But details of the ruling or evaluation criteria have not been made available to MPs or the public yet.

The seven member Civil Court last night declared the Judicature Act amendment unconstitutional and said it could “destroy judicial independence” in the Maldives.

PPM MP Riyaz Rasheed said Saeed’s appointment would strengthen the judiciary and facilitate judicial reform as MDP had advocated for.

He described Saeed as an educated and capable candidate with a master in Shari’ah and law. Saeed had also committed the Qur’an to memory, Riyaz claimed.

Supreme Court Justice Ali Hameed, implicated in a series of sex tapes, administered Saeed’s oath of office.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Civil Court condemns move to dismiss Chief Justice Faiz and Justice Adnan

The seven-member Civil Court and several prominent lawyers have condemned the judicial watchdog Judicial Service’s Commission’s (JSC) recommendation to remove Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz and Justice Muthasim Adnan from the Supreme Court bench.

In a resolution passed last night, the Civil Court said the People’s Majlis had “forced” the JSC to deem Faiz and Adnan unfit for the Supreme Court bench without due process, through an “unconstitutional” amendment to the Judicature Act.

The amendment, passed on Wednesday and ratified on Thursday, reduced the seven-member Supreme Court bench to five judges.

It also mandated the JSC to deem two judges guilty of gross misconduct and gross incompetence and recommend their dismissal within three days.

The People’s Majlis is currently holding an extraordinary sitting to vote on the recommendation.

The People’s Majlis had failed to provide the JSC with any instructions on recommending judges for dismissal, the Civil Court claimed.

The Civil Court noted the United States of America in 1886 had voted to reduce their ten-member Supreme Court to seven, by deciding the state would not appoint new members to the bench when a judge’s seat became vacant.

Meanwhile, President Abdulla Yameen’s nephews, lawyers Shaheen Hameed and Maumoon Hameed, have spoken out against the ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives’ (PPM) attempt to dismiss the two judges.

Shaheen told CNM that the JSC had failed to provide Faiz and Muthasim to defend themselves against charges of misconduct and negligence.

“[The JSC] have said it is alright to dismiss these first two judges by flouting all procedures, but that due process must be followed in dismissing other judges. This is gross violation of equality before the law,” he said.

The ruling party’s “unacceptable” attempt to dismiss Faiz and Justice is the epitome of injustice, and appears to demonstrate that the Supreme Court “is a coat tailored for a specific individual,” Maumoon has said on his Facebook status.

The JSC’s sudden ruling, without an investigation and without any evidence within hours of the amendment’s ratification shows it was a pre-decided conclusion, Maumoon contended.

He also questioned why the JSC had found Supreme Court Judge Ali Hameed, implicated in a series of sex tapes with three foreign women, fit for the bench.

Lawyer and Jumhooree Party MP Ali Hussein in an interview with Haveeru called the attempt at dismissals an “atrocity.” Criminals are guaranteed a fair trial, but the two judges’ right to speak in their defense had been violated, he said.

“The two were appointed because they are capable. If there has been no changes, it is an issue if they are judged incapable because of an amendment to the law. This means those who hold a majority in the JSC can get rid of judges they do not like, not because they are incapable,” he said.

MPs have not yet been given details of the JSC ruling. Speaking to Minivan News on Thursday, JSC Secretary General Abu Bakr said the commission had decided to keep proceedings confidential until a Majlis vote.

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has said it will vote against the amendment. The Jumhooree Party (JP) has not yet taken an official stand while Adhaalath Party Anara Naeem said she will wait on details of the JSC verdict before she takes a stand.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Majlis to vote on Chief Justice Faiz, Justice Muthasim dismissal on Sunday

The People’s Majlis is set to vote on the dismissal of Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz and Justice Muthasim Adnan at an extraordinary sitting on Sunday.

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has called for protests against the vote and issued a three-line-whip calling on its 23 MPs to be present for the vote.

The MDP has declared the Judicature Act amendment reducing the seven-member Supreme Court bench “unconstitutional” and announced it will challenge the move at the Supreme Court.

Faiz and Muthasim’s dismissal appear likely as ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) and coalition partner Maldives Development Alliance (MDA) control 48 seats of the 85-member house.

Parties opposed to the move, the MDP and Jumhooree Party (JP) control 23 and 12 seats respectively.

Judges can be voted out by a two-third majority of MPs present and voting. Faiz and Muthasim have formed the dissenting opinion in several controversial cases, including the Supreme Court’s decision to annul the first round of presidential polls held in September 2013.

MDP divided

MDP chairperson Ali Waheed on Thursday called on the JP to stop “the attempt to bury democracy in the Maldives.”

Meanwhile, opposition leader and former President Mohamed Nasheed in a tweet today said the biggest threat to the Maldivian nation is MPs who accept bribes.

Reliable sources have told Minivan News opposition MPs are being offered MVR2.5 million (US$162,000) each to be absent from the Majlis during the vote.

MDP MP and deputy Speaker Reeko Moosa Manik has said he will abstain from any vote on the Supreme Court bench reduction.

“I do not believe we have to come out in defense of the Chief Justice,” Moosa told newspaper Haveeru on Friday.

Pointing to the apex court’s stripping of three MDP MPs of their seats in the previous Majlis, the decision to annul the first round of presidential polls, and Faiz’s silence on Nasheed’s ouster in February 2012, Moosa said the Supreme Court had caused a lot of damage to MDP.

He had voted for the Judicature Act amendment against a three-whip line, claiming the move would facilitate judicial reform. Moosa has also announced he will contest the MDP primaries for the 2018 presidential polls, and has since accused Nasheed of excessive influence within the party.

MDP MPs Yamin Rasheed, Abdul Bari Abdulla, and Ibrahim Naseer are reportedly out of the country at present.

The MDP’s ‘In Defense of Democracy’ protest is to start at 9:00 am outside the People’s Majlis.

Dissent within PPM?

PPM MP for Kulhudhuffushi Mohamed Nasheed had abstained from the vote on the amendment on Wednesday. Haveeru has since reported of dissent within the PPM regarding the decision to reduce the Supreme Court bench.

When some PPM MPs spoke out against the amendment before it was put to vote, PPM Deputy Leader and Tourism Minister Ahmed Adeeb warned MPs that votes against the amendment would be seen as failure to support the government, Haveeru said.

Adeeb reportedly refused to answer why the government was seeking to reduce the bench.

Nasheed and Malé MP Ahmed Mahloof voted against a three-line whip on the amendment, an anonymous PPM MP told Haveeru.

PPM Parliamentary Group Leader Ahmed Nihan has said “there is no harm” in reducing the Supreme Court bench and described the move as a door to judicial reform.

Speaking to Haveeru, Nihan said: “The constitution does not explicitly state the number of judges on the Supreme Court bench. It doesn’t say whether it’s 13 or seven. There is no legal barrier to reducing the Supreme Court bench.”

The PPM and MDA had pushed the amendment through with 46 votes on Wednesday.

Within hours of its ratification on Thursday, the judicial watchdog Judicial Services Commission (JSC) recommended Faiz and Muthasim’s dismissal.

Article 154 of the Constitution says a judge can only be dismissed if the JSC finds the judge guilty of gross misconduct and incompetence and if a two-third majority of MPs present and voting votes out the judge.

The JSC has declined to reveal any details of Thursday’s meeting, claiming members had decided to keep proceedings confidential until the Majlis vote.

Nihan said he could not challenge the JSC’s decision to dismiss the judges.

“When they say these are the two judges who should be dismissed based on their standards, then we will have to go ahead with it,” he said.

He also expressed surprise at MDP’s opposition to the move, claiming former President Nasheed had called Chief Justice Faiz a liar.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

JSC recommends dismissal of Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz and Justice Muthasim Adnan

The Judicial Services Commission has today recommended Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz and Justice Musthasim Adnan be dismissed from the Supreme Court bench.

The decision comes within hours of President Abdulla Yameen ratifying an amendment to reduce the seven-member Supreme Court to five judges.

According to local media, several members of the judicial watchdog body boycotted today’s extraordinary meeting, claiming the amendment was unconstitutional.

JSC Secretary General Abu Bakr refused to provide details of today’s meeting stating the commission had decided to keep proceedings confidential until the Majlis reaches a decision.

According to the revised Judicature Act, the JSC must deem two of the seven judges unsuitable for the position within three days and the parliament must vote out the judges with a two-thirds majority of members present and voting within seven days. Dismissed judges will be provided a generous compensation package.

Article 154 of the Constitution says a judge can only be removed if the JSC finds a judge guilty of gross incompetence or misconduct.

Dismissal of the judges appear likely as the ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) and coalition partner Maldives Development Alliance (MDA) control 48 seats of the 85-member house.

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and Jumhooree Party (JP), who opposed the amendment, only control 23 and 12 seats respectively.

The amendment was proposed by MDP MP Ibrahim ‘Mavota’ Shareef, but the MDP issued a three line whip against the proposal with opposition leader and former President Mohamed Nasheed saying it would allow President Yameen to stack the Supreme Court bench in his favor.

JP Leader Gasim Ibrahim on December 2 called the amendment unconstitutional and an “atrocity.” He said the amendment will allow the executive and Majlis to change the Supreme Court bench at their whim.

Faiz and Adnan have formed the dissenting opinions in several controversial cases, including the decision to annul the first round of presidential elections held in September 2013.

Since then, the Supreme Court has been involved in numerous controversies both in and out of the court room.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court used a ‘suo moto’ proceeding – allowing the Court to act as both the plaintiff and the judge – against the Elections Comission (EC).

EC president Fuwad Thowfeek and Vice President Ahmed Fayaz were subsequently charged with contempt of court and disobedience to order, being sentenced to six months in jail after the court used testimony given in the People’s Majlis independent commission’s oversight committee.

More recently, the court employed a similar ‘suo moto’ proceeding against the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) after it criticised the judiciary in its Universal Periodic Review (UPR) for the UN Human Rights Council.

The court charged the HRCM with undermining the constitution and sovereignty of the Maldives by spreading lies about the judiciary. It said that the UPR submission– based on a 2013 report by the UN Special Rapporteur for Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul – was “poorly researched”, “irresponsible” and “dangerous”.

June this year also saw Judge Ali Hameed – a sitting judge at the Supreme Court – cleared of a sex tape scandal after three recordings surfaced allegedly showing Ali Hameed engaging in sexual acts with three different woman.

The revised Judicature Act also propose the establishment of two additional branches of the High Court in the northern and southern regions of the Maldives.

The two new branches can only adjudicate the rulings of the magistrate courts. The nine-member High Court is to be divided among the three branches with three judges in each branch.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)