Tag: Nasheed

“Amnesty International is biased; sometimes excessive force is absolutely necessary”: Human Rights Ambassador

Human Rights Ambassador of the President’s Office “Sandhaanu” Ahmed Ibrahim Didi has accused Amnesty International of “fabricating stories about the human rights situation in the Maldives” and of releasing reports about the Maldives without conducting any studies or research.

The Human Rights Ambassador has previously held a press conference declaring that there “should be no opposition parties”, and that “I cannot believe, in fact, I do not at all want to believe, that there can be anyone with views opposing that of the government.

He has also labelled the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) an “unlawful organisation which commits terrorist activities and attempts to undermine the powers of the state”, and called for the Elections Commission to dissolve it, on the grounds that “they shouldn’t be allowed to exist.”

In a number of letters to the NGO obtained by Minivan News, the Human Rights Ambassador initially spoke highly of the international human rights NGO, crediting it for the freedoms of assembly and expression currently constitutionally guaranteed to the country’s citizens.

“All Maldivians, especially me, should be very thankful to Amnesty. They helped me immensely back when I was jailed. I must say that, if not for Amnesty, we might still be stuck in an extension of that long 30 year regime [former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s administration]. Back then, we did not even have the rights guaranteed to a German frog. That’s right, even the German frog has won a court case which gave him the right to scream as loudly as he likes,” Ibrahim Didi said at a press briefing held on Wednesday.

“It was an initiative and pressure of Amnesty International that led to Maldives signing the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). When vocal youngsters on the street yell ‘baaghee’ [traitor] and vulgarities at me, I don’t say anything and instead smile at them because they are using a right that I guaranteed for them,” Ibrahim Didi said.

“But when these youthful protesters claim that the freedom of expression they use is a right they ensured for themselves, then they are simply wrong. I did it. I got those rights for us. It is I, who achieved the guarantee of these rights, who is now here is the Human Rights Ambassador,” Ibrahim Didi stated.

“Now, going back to the issue, although Amnesty was of great help, now they are being the exact opposite. Now they are acting wrongfully,” he said.

“Amnesty’s Abbas Faiz claims to have conducted studies, but actually they are righting these reports without having conducted any formal research or studies. They are causing so much trouble in the country,” the ambassador alleged.

“I am deeply saddened to utter such words against Amnesty, words which will doubtless upset them. However, this is my responsibility as the Human Rights Ambassador placed in the President’s Office. I have also twice written directly to Amnesty about these concerns,” he stated.

Ibrahim Didi did not clarify whether or not he had received responses to the letters sent to the international human rights civil society. He shared copies of the letters with the media, the first sent on October 30, 2012 titled “Ref: Police violence as ex-president is arrested on 8th October in Fares Mathoda” and the second sent on March 7, 2013 titled “Ref: Former President’s arrest ‘selective justice’ – Amnesty International.”

“Amnesty report extremely biased”

In a letter sent to the NGO regarding the first arrest of former President Mohamed Nasheed to present him to court in October 2012, Ibrahim Didi called Amnesty’s statements regarding the issue “incorrect and extremely biased”, stating they were issued “blindly without any research.”

The letter then aims to explain why the detention of Nasheed was necessary, stating that it was in relation to the former President having “violated the country’s constitution several times”. The letter, however, only offered as example the contentious case of Nasheed’s detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed, calling the detention “the most ruthless action ever conducted by the military against a citizen of the country in the known history”.

Ibrahim Didi also dismissed any allegations of executive involvement in the arrest of Nasheed, insisting that “the judiciary of the state operates independently.”

He then denied the allegations made in the Amnesty report, repeatedly stating that the NGO had “failed to conduct sufficient research”.

“When [Nasheed] was arrested and there was no confrontation between Nasheed’s supporters and the police. The ex-foreign Minister did not attack the police, for him to be kicked and pepper sprayed on his face as Amnesty’s report says. There was clearly no resistance displayed to use pepper spray in the whole operation. The whole operation was recorded on video and televised on local media,” he claimed in the letter.

“The source of Amnesty’s report was based on an eyewitness and without further investigation it was broadcast, tarnishing the Maldivian police integrity. Hence, we strongly urge Amnesty International to refrain from such exploitations without fully probing into facts as it leads to destruction of peace and harmony in the country.”

The Human Rights Ambassador, while dismissing allegations of police brutality, also offered justification for the police actions of February 8, 2012:

“We vehemently deny any accusation of police brutality during President Mohamed Waheed’s period (since February 2012) but on 8th February the police had to use force to disperse an aggressive Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) supporters who were armed with long sticks and bricks in their hands to batter the police force. And we would also like to note that the police personnel and Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) personnel were extremely exhausted on that day while there was no proper command and control formed after Nasheed’s resignation on 7th February sparking chaos in the whole country.”

In conclusion, Ibrahim Didi wrote that Amnesty International seemed to be highly concerned of human rights violations during Gayyoom’s regime, adding “it appears Amnesty International is indirectly rejecting any process of legality as those allegations against Maumoon not being investigated yet.”

Amnesty International had at the time released a report titled “The Other Side of Paradise: A Human Rights Crisis in the Maldives”, chronicling human rights abuses in the country since the controversial transfer of power in February 2012.

Minister of Home Affairs Mohamed Jameel Ahmed had responded to the report at the time, saying the NGO had failed to seek any comments from the government. He did not, however, appear to dispute the contents of the report.

“Sometimes excessive force is absolutely necessary”

In a more recent letter, Ibrahim Didi once again accuses Amnesty of bias, stating:

“We strongly deny that the filing a court case against Nasheed is a ‘selective justice’ being served here as Amnesty International suspects,” the letter read.

“Former President Gayyoom’s rule has been also investigated for three long years during Nasheed’s 3 year term,” Ibrahim Didi wrote. “Apart from the wages and office expenses a Singapore law firm was hired for 25 million US dollars.”

“So we regret to say that Amnesty’s comments come without any research as usual and the statements are biased, favouring MDP. It looks as it a MDP statement. If one is a little bit fair of the comments of the situation, they would blame on the burning properties, attacking of the peaceful pedestrians in their so-called peaceful demonstrations,” Ibrahim Didi alleged.

“Moreover MDP militant parliamentarians behaved inside the parliament house like thugs, destroying government properties and attacking security forces. They have played hooliganism before foreign dignitaries inside the chambers. In this civilized world no one could see such violent scenarios even in African subcontinent,” he continued.

Ibrahim Didi further stated that contrary to what MDP might say, their protests were not peaceful and hence “to stop this kind of violent protests, sometimes excessive force is absolutely necessary to minimize damages.”

He further labels MDP’s demonstrations as “illegal”, adding “If these demonstrations are legal and peaceful, we the whole Maldivians can come out and demonstrate at any time. Some can come out to demonstrate to hang Nasheed and his power clique for robbing the state wealth, shrinking our economy.”

Ibrahim Didi states that the trial against Nasheed is not the only charge against him, but rather “the beginning of a series”.

Stating that “we always believe Nasheed is a mentally ill person”, Ibrahim Didi lists out a number of accusations against the former President. Among these, he states that “Nasheed used state TV and Radio to propagate his party’s agenda” and that “MDP activists along with chairperson ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik and Nasheed’s right hand lady, Mariya Ahmed Didi had formed Kangaroo Court and conducted rulings on other citizens.”

Ibrahim Didi then refers to the controversial transfer of power of February 7, 2012, saying Nasheed was either “mentally ill” or “intoxicated and his brain was not functioning properly” on the day.

Ibrahim Didi stated that the Commission of National Inquiry’s findings and the HRCM report proves that Nasheed had resigned voluntarily and that “this is not a disputed resignation at all as Amnesty says.”

The Ambassador said that he “wonders why [Nasheed]’s foreign friends love him so much”, and stated he knew why the local ones did.

“They have altogether robbed the state wealth and sold government assets at cut rates and treasured them for future and now looking forward for some more. Now all these criminal are on the street, the drug addicts and the drunkards. Together they are trying to evade from the courts verdict. This has nothing to do with political instability in the country,” he accused.

“The country is not in a red alert situation here because of some paid street hooligans who shout on the roads and attack innocent civilians.”

Following the arrest of Nasheed earlier this month, Amnesty International stated the arrest an example of “selective justice”, which “highlights the failure of the Maldives authorities to investigate other serious human rights abuses in the country.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed’s trial hearing scheduled for April 4

Former President Mohamed Nasheed’s trial has been scheduled for April 4, 2013, local media has reported.

The former President is charged with the controversial detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed during the last days of his presidency.

An official from the Judiciary Media Unit told local media that a summoning chit had been sent to Nasheed, and that the next hearing will see confessions of witnesses presented by the prosecution.

The trial had been postponed by four weeks following the last hearing that took place on March 5.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Construction of 100 housing units in Thulhaadhoo to begin

The foundations for 100 housing units have been laid down on the island of Thulhaadhoo in Baa Atoll in an attempt to alleviate housing difficulties on the island.

Local media reported that the project, which includes a total of 300 units, is to begin shortly and is expected to be completed within two years.

“As Housing is a big problem in Thulhaadhoo, former President Nasheed said he will reclaim land on Thulhaadhoo and that he will make the island habitable for 10,000 people.

“17 hectares were reclaimed and large stones were placed under that project,” Thulhaadhoo Council President Ahmed Rasheed was quoted as saying in local media.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Difficult” to consider elections credible unless Nasheed is allowed to contest: European Union

The European Union (EU) has declared that it would be “difficult” to consider the Maldives’ upcoming presidential elections credible unless former President Mohamed Nasheed is allowed to contest.

Nasheed is currently being tried in the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court over his detention of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed.

His Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) maintain that the charges are a politically-motivated attempt to prevent Nasheed from contesting elections in September, and have condemned the former President’s repeated arrest on the court’s order by squads of masked special operations police.

A number of international institutions including the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Judiciary, Gabriela Knaul, and the UK’s Bar Human Rights Commission, have recently expressed concern about the politicisation of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court it created, and its appointment of the three member panel of judges overhearing the Nasheed trial.

The JSC’s members include several of Nasheed’s direct political opponents, including rival presidential candidate, resort tycoon and Jumhoree Party (JP) leader Gasim Ibrahim.

Last week, several members of the JSC also testified to parliament’s independent commissions oversight committee that the creation of the court and appointment of the judges were politically suspect.

JSC Member appointed by the public, Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman, last week revealed that the JSC had openly discussed their intent to eliminate Nasheed from the upcoming elections.

Chair of the Commission, Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed, had abused his post and powers as the chair to try and eliminate Nasheed from contesting the elections, said Shuaib, alleging that Adam Mohamed had “used the commission as a political tool”.

“The politics of the majority control the commission, hence the rule of law, due process and due diligence do not exist in the JSC,” Sheikh Rahman stated. “The commission has no amount of respect for constitutional principles.”

“It is common now to hear a lot of MDP and Nasheed bashing in commission meetings. This was not how things usually were before. I believe politically biased comments like this have increased since Gasim joined the JSC as a representative of the parliament,” Sheikh Rahman said.

In a statement on Thursday, the European Union said it “reiterates its view that the participation of the preferred candidates from all political formations in the Maldives is essential to ensuring the success of the forthcoming elections; it would be difficult to consider them credible and inclusive if Mr Nasheed and his party were to be prevented from standing or campaigning.”

“The EU takes note of the acceptance by the prosecution of a defence request to defer the trial until after the upcoming presidential elections in September and hopes that this would offer the means to ensure that ex-President Nasheed is able to participate in the electoral campaign, under the same conditions as other candidates,” stated EU High Representative Catherine Ashton.

In the statement, the EU also reminded Maldivian authorities of their “commitment to ensuring [Nasheed’s] personal safety and security.”

“The EU encourages all parties to exercise restraint, to act responsibly, and to work together to ensure that the outcome of these elections fully reflects the wishes of the Maldivian people, so safeguarding the Maldives’ democratic institutions and enabling its next government to confront the serious economic, social and environmental challenges which the country faces,” the statement concluded.

Following the EU’s comments, President’s Office Spokesperson Masood Imad tweeted on Saturday (March 16) that “it’s not proper for governments to discredit the independence and integrity of our judiciary. Doing so is undermining Democracy in Maldives.”

Masood added that the 2013 elections would be free, fair and exclusive, but would be “exclusive” of individuals who did not meet the legal criteria.

Nasheed’s trial is meanwhile due to resume on April 4 following a four week recess granted by the court.  The hearing has been scheduled despite the state prosecution stating it had no objection to delaying the trial until after the September 7 elections.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Documents from JSC show Gasim is lobbying Hulhumale’ court bench: MDP

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has alleged there is evidence to support claims that parliament’s member to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), Gasim Ibrahim, has influenced the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench.

The party’s comments follow a recently submitted motion by MDP Parliamentary Group Member Ibrahim ‘Bondey’ Rasheed to remove Gasim – who is also the leader and presidential candidate of Jumhoree Party – from the JSC.

Rasheed accused Gasim of influencing the legal processes in place to make judges accountable, adding that it “is not right” for a party president to sit on the JSC, local media reported.

Speaking to Minivan News today, MDP Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor claimed that Parliament’s Independent Commissions Oversight Committee had received documents from the JSC, showing that Gasim had been lobbying the Hulhumale’ Court bench.

The JSC was responsible for both creating the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court in which the former President of the Maldives and leader of the MDP, Mohamed Nasheed, is currently facing trial, and appointing the panel of judges hearing the case.

The MDP have maintained that the charges against Nasheed are a politically motivated attempt to bar him from the election in September – in which Gasim is also competing.

“The oversight committee received a total of 18 documents and a number of minutes from the JSC. The documents show that a magistrate [from Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court] had originally proposed a bench of judges for the court to the JSC on September 2, 2012,” Hamid claimed.

According to the MDP Spokesperson, the JSC had responded to the proposal by letter on September 4, calling for the aforementioned magistrate to “not do anything”.

“On the same day [September 4, 2012], The JSC then held a meeting at 12:30 whereby they proposed a new bench before ratifying it and sending it to the Supreme Court for approval.

“The JSC received the approval from the court on the same day and the bench proposed by the magistrate was never even discussed,” he added.

Responding to the MDP’s claims, JP Spokesperson Moosa Ramiz stated that Gasim had “every right” to sit on the JSC under the Maldivian constitution.

“Actually Mr Gasim is the JSC member not on behalf of the Jumhooree Party, but is there from the people’s majilis, so there are no more comments from the party on this matter,” Ramiz stated.

Gasim Ibrahim was not responding to calls from Minivan News at time of press.

Local media reported on Tuesday (March 12) that Ramiz had claimed the MDP’s motion to remove Gasim from the JSC was an attempt to tarnish Gasim’s reputation and “good name”.

Furthermore, Ramiz was quoted as saying that the slanderous statements made by the MDP were done because they feared Gasim’s popularity as a presidential candidate.

The parliament secretary general confirmed to local newspaper Haveeru that the motion to remove Gasim from the 10 member JSC had been received.

Last month, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul raised concerns over the politicisation of the JSC.

“I have heard from numerous sources that the current composition of the JSC is inadequate and politicised.

Because of this politicisation, the commission has been subjected to all sorts of external influence and consequently has been unable to function properly,” Knaul stated last month.

Knaul said that she believed it best for such a body to be composed of retired or sitting judges, adding that it may be advisable for some representation of the legal profession or academics to be included.

However, she maintained that no political representation at all should be allowed in a commission such as the JSC.

In response to the Knaul’s findings, Gasim accused her of lying and joking about the state of the Maldivian judiciary.

“[Gabriela Knaul] claimed that the judges were not appointed transparently, I am sure that is an outright lie. She is lying, she did not even check any document at all nor did she listen to anybody.

“She is repeating something that was spoon-fed to her by someone else. I am someone who sits in JSC. She claimed there were no regulations or mechanism there. That is a big joke,” Gasim claimed.

Knaul is an independent expert appointed to deliver recommendations on potential areas of reform to the Maldives’ legal system at the 23rd session of the UN Human Rights Council in May, 2013.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Setbacks in Maldives have security implications for India: Deccan Herald

The Maldives has been generating bad news for some time. On February 12, former president Nasheed refused to honour court summons and threatened with arrest, sought refuge in the Indian embassy. India was in a quandary, writes R S Chhikara for the Deccan Herald.

India wants democracy to take root in the Maldives and Nasheed was the only democratically elected president of the country.

His arrest and conviction would disqualify him from participating in the upcoming elections. Indian diplomacy went into overdrive to ensure participatory elections that would require Nasheed’s participation as a free man. Nasheed expected Indian support but India could not be seen to be partisan.

The government in Male has for the time being desisted from arresting and trying Nasheed but the reprieve is only for a month and there are signs that an agreement to this effect, if one exists, may not after all, be honoured. If that happens, Waheed and Gayoom will have a cake walk. Democracy will lose out.

India’s leverage with Male does not appear to be working and there lies the rub.

After a spell of autocratic rule by Ibrahim Nasir and Abdul Gayoom lasting nearly 45 years, Nesheed became the first elected president of the country in 2008. In January 2012, Nasheed ordered the arrest of Abdullah Mohammad, Chief of Criminal Court who was accused of blocking legitimate legal action against Gayoom. Nasheed was forced to resign at gun point in what was for all purposes, a coup.

It is not too far fetched to imagine that last year’s coup against Nasheed and current efforts to neutralise him as a potential presidential candidate through a judicial verdict could well be a conspiracy by Islamists and others to ensure that democracy does not stabilise and terrorists get the required political patronage.

Read more

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Religious obligation” to bar Nasheed from upcoming election: Home Minister Dr Jameel

Additional Reporting by Mohamed Naahii

Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed has claimed it is a religious obligation to bar former President Mohamed Nasheed from contesting the upcoming presidential elections, scheduled to take place on September 7.

Speaking at a rally held by Progressive Party of Maldives’ (PPM) presidential primary candidate Abdulla Yameen on Saturday (March 9), Jameel accused Nasheed of being a “coward” who ran away after resigning from power, adding that he no longer had the courage to lead the country.

Highlighting Nasheed’s recent stay in the Indian High Commission, Jameel stated that “it was a shame that Nasheed fled when he was supposed to face justice,” before claiming that he would not give the opportunity for someone like Nasheed to come to power.

“Nasheed of Canaryge does not have any chance to come to power. We would not give that chance [to him]. That is something we ought to do. It is both a national and a religious Farḍ (obligation),” he said.

According to local media, the Home Minister stated that “if we complete that task,” God would grant success to those leaders in the upcoming presidential election.

Jameel claimed the country had fallen into a “deep mess” in almost all areas, adding that the country is desperate for a determined leader who can revive the economy.

He contended that Nasheed did not have the qualities the country was expecting from its future leader.

“Unlike Nasheed, President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom whom Nasheed is saying that he would beat easily, had the courage to appear before police for questioning when he was called in,” Jameel said.

He argued that anyone other than Nasheed possesses courage to face law and justice.

Jameel – a former Justice Minister under President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s 30 year autocracy – has previously expressed urgency in concluding Nasheed’s trial before the upcoming elections.

In January, Jameel told local media that it was “crucial to conclude the case against Nasheed before the approaching presidential elections, in the interests of the nation and to maintain peace in it.”

“Every single day that goes by without the case being concluded contributes to creating doubt in the Maldivian people’s minds about the judiciary,” the home minister said at the time.

In January 2012, Jameel – who served as vice president of Dhivehi Quamee Party (DQP) – was questioned by police after Nasheed’s government accused DQP of attempting to incite religious hatred.

A pamphlet released by the DQP called on the public to “rise up and defend Islam”, whilst accusing Nasheed’s government of “operating under the influence of Jews and Christian priests”.

Home Minister Mohamed Jameel Ahmed was not responding to calls from Minivan News at time of press.

Maldives must curb external interference in its internal affairs

Also speaking at the rally on Saturday (March 9), half-brother to former President Gayoom, Abdulla Yameen, claimed that there was no need to allow “outside influence” in the internal affairs of the country.

The PPM presidential primary candidate said that should he be elected, he would protect the independence and sovereignty of the Maldives against the most powerful of nations.

Yameen’s comments come after Nasheed sought refuge in the Indian High Commission in Male’ last month.

For 11 days the former President stayed inside the high commission building, subsequently avoiding a trial hearing at Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

The international community has since called for free, fair and inclusive presidential elections in the Maldives.

Earlier this month Nasheed, who exited the Indian High Commission on February 23, was detained by police and produced at Hulhumale’ court, despite an alleged “understanding” between India and Maldives that he would be able to compete in the upcoming elections.

Nasheed is facing criminal charges over the controversial detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed during the last days of his presidency.

Speaking at the campaign rally, Yameen criticised the Prosecutor General’s (PG) statement made on March 7, which stated that the PG did not object to delaying the trial until presidential elections scheduled for later this year are over.

“The PG is not entirely an independent individual. The PG becomes independent when he executes his responsibilities in accordance with these procedures. The PG cannot say that he has no reservations in delaying Nasheed’s trial for four weeks.

“The PG cannot say for instance that it is alright to put off the trial after the elections. This is something that the PG cannot say,” Yameen was quoted as saying in local media.

Yameen stated that an impartial trial against Nasheed must be held for his actions, and that any other presidential candidate should be held liable for their actions at any given time.

“Why can’t the foreign ambassadors accept the fact that anyone [competing for the Presidential elections] who violates the law must be disqualified.

“We also might fail to meet the criteria. In such a society it is possible for us to violate an individual’s right. If so even I must spend the day in court. How can Nasheed be an exception,” local newspaper Haveeru quoted Yameen as saying.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“JSC politicised, trying to eliminate Nasheed and MDP from elections”: JSC Member Shuaib

Judicial Services Commission (JSC) member Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman has spoken out against the judicial watchdog body, declaring it as politicised and attempting to eliminate former President Mohamed Nasheed from the September 7 elections.

The JSC has not only created the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court in which the former President is being tried, but has appointed the three-member panel of judges overhearing the case. The JSC’s membership includes several of Nasheed’s direct political rivals, including Jumhoree Party leader and resort tycoon Gasim Ibrahim, one of Nasheed’s rival presidential candidates.

Sheikh Rahman, the member of the commission appointed by the public, said political influence of the commission had heightened after Gasim had been appointed.

He is the second JSC member to blow the whistle on the Commission, echoing the concerns of JSC member Aisthath Velezinee who was stabbed in the street in early 2011.

Sheikh Rahman made the remarks during a live appearance on local TV channel Raajje TV, just over a week after UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul also aired concerns over the JSC in a statement following a fact finding mission to the Maldives.

Speaking on the show, Sheikh Rahman said the JSC had openly discussed their intent to ensure the elimination of the Maldivian Democratic Party and presidential candidate former President Mohamed Nasheed from the upcoming elections.

Sheikh Rahman alleged that Chair of the Commission, Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed, had abused his post and powers as the chair to try and eliminate Nasheed from contesting the elections, and alleged that Adam Mohamed had “used the commission as a political tool”.

“The politics of the majority control the commission, hence the rule of law, due process and due diligence do not exist in the JSC,” Sheikh Rahman stated. “The commission has no amount of respect for constitutional principles.”

“It is common now to hear a lot of MDP and Nasheed bashing in commission meetings. This was not how things usually were before. I believe politically biased comments like this have increased since Gasim joined the JSC as a representative of the parliament,” Sheikh Rahman continued.

“Gasim even went to the point of asking the UN Special Rapporteur Knaul when she held a meeting with us to state in her report that it was MDP who torched the courts. I heard him say exactly that,” Sheikh Rahman said.

JSC Chair abuses power to continue running unlawful Hulhumale’ Court

Sheikh Rahman further revealed that the JSC had “handpicked” magistrates to preside over the case against Nasheed, for his detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

He said that the JSC’s intention in assigning the case at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court to the three specific magistrates was for the explicitly stated purpose of “sentencing Nasheed”.

According to Sheikh Rahman, the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was initially established through misinformation and manipulation of the commission on the part of JSC Chair Adam Mohamed.

“The Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court is actually abolished automatically with the concept of judicial districts coming into effect upon the ratification of Judicature Act on 10 August 2010. And yet, they continue to run the court,” Sheikh Rahman stated.

He went on to say that as the constitution defines Hulhumale’ and Villingili as parts of the capital Male’ city, there was no authorisation to set up separate magistrate courts on these islands.

Sheikh Rahman alleged that despite these facts, JSC Chair Adam Mohamed had invoked the theory that Hulhumale’ and Villingili were separate islands and were therefore qualified to have their own magistrate courts.

Appendix 2 of the Constitution of Maldives which defines administrative divisions, states that Male’ is inclusive of Villin’gili and Hulhumale’.

Sheikh Rahman revealed that he had, as a member of the JSC, submitted a complaint to the commission to review the decision regarding the court on the grounds that it was unlawfully established. He stated that his attempts were in vain as Chair Adam Mohamed had once again abused his powers and refused to schedule the matter during the commission sessions.

Sheikh Rahman stated that he had made multiple requests for a decision on the Hulhumale’ Court, all of which was rejected by the chair. He confirmed that he had not received any written or official responses to the motions he submitted on the matter.

“Another false justification that Adam Mohamed used is that the matter cannot be discussed in the commission as it referred to an ‘ongoing case’,” he said.

UN Special Rapporteur Gabriella Knaul also criticised the ‘arbitrary appointment’ of judges to Nasheed’s case. She also stated that the Hulhumale’ Court did not have the constitutional mandate to oversee the specific case.

Former JSC member Velezinee also repeated her concerns about the politicisation of the JSC at a recent press conference held to share her remarks on the preliminary findings of UN Special Rapporteur Gabriela Knaul.

Incumbent JSC Member Gasim Ibrahim, meanwhile called Knaul’s findings ‘lies and jokes’ at a JP party rally.

The Hulhumale’ Court meanwhile on Wednesday refused to delay Nasheed’s trial until after the elections, despite the prosecution stating they had no objection to such a decision.

Gasim Ibrahim was not responding to calls at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Translation: PPM Deputy Leader Umar Naseer’s statement to CoNI

This article first appeared on Dhivehi Sitee. Republished with permission

On 13 May 2012, PPM Interim Deputy Leader and 2013 presidential candidate, Umar Naseer, gave an interview to the Commission of National Inquiry (CoNI) on how the events of 7 February 2012 unfolded. This is a translation of the part of the interview focusing specifically on the protests of 6 February and the subsequent events that culminated in President Nasheed’s resignation.

Oh, yes. When this Mohamed Nasheed got power in 2008 he was already accused of being an irreligious man who would shatter the economy and destroy our religion. So, as a senior leader of a responsible political party, we were watching it very closely. The more we watched, the more we saw how he was establishing relations with Israel, what he was receiving from various churches to spread Christianity in the Maldives, how he was selling our natural resources to foreigners, and what he was doing to end our sovereignty.

Watching all this, we were certain that it was incumbent upon every single one of us to end this man’s rule. The question for us political leaders was whether to end it within or outside of the law. We decided to end that man’s rule from within the law. We did everything we could to achieve this goal. Protests, submitting numerous petitions to Majlis [parliament], filing court cases…we did all this continuously.

At the same time Mohamed Nasheed was issuing various unconstitutional orders. Through the government, he was also making attempts to force police and military to follow unconstitutional orders. We know he was doing this. We know a lot of people in the military, the police and the government. They were informing us.

By the evening of 6 February, we had shown very clearly to the people of the Maldives that Mohamed Nasheed is a man trying to spread other religions in the Maldives, that Mohamed Nasheed is a man who was trying to sell our sovereignty to other countries. We were able to convince every Maldivian that he had directly violated our Constitution. It took a huge combined effort over three years to arrive at this point: protests that continued for 22 consecutive nights and the many previous protests, the cases that were filed in court. It had been made blatantly clear to all Maldivians.

So, that protest on the night of the 6th , well that was a protest we weren’t planning on ending.

Before this, by the 2nd, MDP had started bringing out its paid thugs to confront our protests. These included criminals released under the Second Chance [government rehabilitation programme for offenders] and paid gangsters from all over Male’. Before we started our protests, they tried to intimidate us, coming there with knives and such like. So we were encouraging PPM activists and others to confront them.

Anyway, on the evening of 6th February, a large number of Second Chance criminals and gangsters paid by Mohamed Nasheed intended to confront us with iron rods and bars. They faced us at the Artificial Beach, where our protests started near the stage. They started their protests about 50 feet away from us, with loudspeakers. Their intention was to stop our protest. Police intervened, set up a cordon separating the two sides, and remained between them.

We were continuously telling the police that Mohamed Nasheed arrested Abdulla Ghaazee against the Constitution and that he should be released immediately. It was not just about Abdulla Ghaazee; the plan was to attack the whole judiciary.

We had information that on 8 February Mohamed Nasheed would close other courts in the Maldives, send all judges home, and acting on his own, would establish a Judicial Reform Commission. From then onwards, it would be this Commission that would appoint all magistrates. We knew this. The plan, so, was to destroy the country’s entire judicial system. We were sharing this information with various people who were in this with us.

The night of the 7th was the turning point.

If we give them space until the 8th, they would destroy the entire Maldivian judiciary.

On that day we confronted them with our—and their—biggest thugs. If attack became necessary, we were ready. That’s how we came out that night to the Artificial Beach.

The other side also brought out their full force.

The police came between the two sides—why? Because they knew that night’s would be the biggest of confrontations. I notified Faseeh [Commissioner of Police] by SMS that there would be a bloodbath there that evening if he did not monitor the situation properly. Faseeh guaranteed that police would maintain control and peace.

Anyway, on one side our people were speaking, and on the other side, they were speaking over loudspeakers, too. It did not go to a confrontation, but people on both sides were throwing things like water bottles at each other. All of a sudden we saw the police withdraw. I think Farhad Fikry was the main police officer there. I sent him a text message asking him why the police had withdrawn.

“The military are going to takeover. We have received orders from the Home Minister,” Farhaad replied.

I sent a message to Faseeh. He did not reply.

I told senior MNDF officers that the military will find it difficult to control the situation. They don’t have much training in controlling civil disorder unlike the police, an elite force in such situations. We saw the military going in, police withdrawing, and then the military withdrawing shortly afterwards. When we saw the military withdrawing, we knew Mohamed Nasheed’s plan was to get both sides agitated so he could declare a state of emergency.

That’s the plan Mohamed Nasheed had prepared for 8 February to destroy the judiciary: take it under his personal control; sack judges and other appointments made by the JSC; close all the courts; extralegally appoint people he and Maria approve of to the Judicial Reform Commission, which will then takeover all powers of the judiciary. Getting PPM and its coalition partners in a confrontation with thugs paid for by the MDP, causing a bloodbath, and then using it as an excuse to declare emergency—that was the last phase of that plan. We knew that.

I said this immediately to our supporters, that declaring emergency was the other government’s strategy. I told them this is why a fight was being prepared for.

Even as the military began withdrawing, I said to senior MNDF officials:

“We know the strategy. It is to declare emergency. We won’t obey any such emergency,” I told them.

The confrontation was imminent.

Suddenly, we saw Mohamed Nasheed’s thugs begin throwing stones. Our line retreated a bit. Soon, though, our line recovered and advanced with equal force. Throwing stones, we made them retreat. We were in very close combat when we saw police arriving at the scene.

I don’t know what sort of orders they were following, we didn’t know if any orders had been given at all. They came and sprayed tear gas on both sides and separated them. Our troops backed down and moved near our jagaha [party base]. Troops on the other side retreated.

On our side, the command was for our troops to keep advancing without attacking, and to control our territory. We received news that police were running after the MDP thugs. We were still in position when we heard the police had gathered at the Republic Square and declared their refusal to obey unconstitutional orders. This gave us much encouragement.

Why? Because that’s what we wanted. No Maldivian should follow any illegal orders.

We ordered our supporters to gather at the Republic Square, which they did. But the other military came out and stopped them from getting in. They blocked off the MMA area, Chandhani Magu intersection and Bandara Mosque. This led to a bit of a confrontation between our supporters and the military. Tear gas canisters—about 10 of them—were thrown at us. Our focus was on getting our supporters onto the Republic Square, so, we continued to engage despite the canisters.

Suddenly, those Second Chance criminals of MDP I was talking about, and MDP thugs, approached from the direction of Bandara Miskiyy [Mosque]. Armed with iron rods and bars, they began attacking our people near the MMA. Our people retreated in shock. Some tried to flee. But, when the leaders among our people advanced as one group and counter-attacked, the MDP thugs retreated. There was a lot of violence at that point. An MDP person had to be hospitalised.

We learned later that these people had been drinking alcohol. Waheed Deen [current Vice President] was the supplier. At the time, Waheed Deen was a big MDP supporter. It was inside Mulee Aage the plan to attack us near MMA was hatched. Usually they ply these people with alcohol before sending them out. That night they couldn’t get any alcohol, until they found some from Bandos [Island Resort]. Waheed Deen made the arrangements. We know that.

He is the Vice President now, but Waheed Deen is a man who made several attempts to stop our activities. It is after doing all this in vain, and when we heated things up, that he came and joined this government. These MDP thugs, drunk on the booze supplied by Waheed Deen, attacked our line and caused head injuries to about five of our people. One of our main lieutenants got an iron bar in his chest. It wasn’t put into the chest, but it caused serious injuries. About 10 of our people were hospitalised. I was informed of this by our people guarding the hospital.

That was MDP’s first attack on us that night.

Still, we continued to engage with the military. They were firing gas canisters. We kept up our attempts to get onto the Republic Square. Our purpose was to support and encourage the police not to follow unconstitutional orders. That’s a basic right the Constitution gives us, that’s why.

Amidst these attempts came MDP’s second offensive of the night. This was also carried out by a big group of drunkards. We, all our activists, got together and foiled that attack too. There were no more attacks from MDP that night.

The confrontation between us and the military was still continuing. Tear gas canisters were still being thrown. We forced them to retreat, too. Our troops continued to engage with the military. The purpose was to get to the police.

As the sun came up, we saw the military abandon their positions and leave. All our supporters spilled on to the Republic Square. Once there, we worked with the police, really. We gave them all the assistance they needed. We knew they hadn’t had any food all night, they had no water to drink, nothing. We told the police that the water, the energy drinks. All that we were supplying them, we would supply them to the military too, and to any member of the public who wanted them. So, we supplied everything to everybody.

Then, as the sun rose, we saw Mariya [Didi] and some MDP MPs forcing their way into the Republic Square. We saw them shouting at the police, almost assaulting our people. Again, there was a violent episode. Why? Because MDP people came with planks and things. Mariya and them may not have been carrying such implements themselves, but the MDP people who came with them had metal bars, rods, knives and the likes. Our people had no choice but to confront them. There was major violence. The MDP people who came with Mariya retreated.

I was communicating with the Defence Minister then.

I told him:

“Mohamed Nasheed has two options tonight: release Abdulla Ghaazee to respect the constitution or resign voluntarily.”

By then I had communicated with the Defence Minister about four times. The Defence Minister and I, we are very close. We trained together in the military, and we had been classmates. We did all our military training together. So we are very close. We were in communication with each other.

“Choose one of the two options, or face mortal danger” I kept telling Tolhath [to tell the President].

I did not mean that the threat to life came from the police or the military. There were thousands of people gathered there, they were trying to get into the military headquarters. We knew that even if they managed to get in, the military would not dare shoot them. Which means their lives were in danger. Our control was lost at the time too.

Although we were the direct moral authority, we knew that right then—with a crowd that large—things could only go the way the crowd wanted it to. We knew very clearly it wanted: Mohamed Nasheed’s resignation. It was very obvious to us. That’s what they were all calling for. It was not the police or the military who were demanding it; it was the public. The public were demanding Mohamed Nasheed to resign immediately, to release Abdullah Ghaazee immediately.

That’s what I relayed to the Defence Minister.

He suggested that I go in and speak to the people, and asked for some time for the government to make a decision on Abdulla Ghaazee.

“There has been enough time. It has been 22 days. No more time to give. Now there are only two options left. Pick one, or face mortal danger,” I said.

By mortal danger, again, I mean danger from the public, the possibility that the public may force their way into the military HQ.

As these exchanges continued, around 7:00 that morning, we grew certain that Mohamed Nasheed’s rule could no longer continue.

Why? Because by then they had used up all the tools in their possession against us. All their thugs had been used. We had responded to all attacks by the thugs and destroyed everything. We had been monitoring their jagaha. The motivation and morale there was very low. We knew they were no longer capable of regrouping and launching a counter-attack. We were sure of this by about 7:00 that morning. Their last attack, like I said, was the attack by Mariya.

So we were sure that Mohamed Nasheed’s rule was at an end.

The only way to maintain it was for the military to come out and start shooting. We knew the military wouldn’t do that. I don’t think the Maldivian military would ever fire a gun again. They were blamed for shooting someone that needed to be shot in jail. We knew they would never shoot anyone after that. But we also knew they would use rubber bullets, tear gas, every other power technic they could, to disperse the public.

Once we were sure that MDP would not attack again, I said to Tolhath:

“Tholhath, all your options are exhausted. Tell President Nasheed to resign or release Abdullah Ghaazee immediately.”

He did not reply.

Later, around 8:00 am I received news that some of our people were getting ready to go to the airport, to get it back from GMR. I forbade my troops from going to the airport, and immediately called Indian High Commissioner Mulay.

“On behalf of all Maldivians gathered here, I assure you that nobody would attack Indian interests,” I told him.

President Nasheed phoned me on the Defence Minister’s phone.

“I have now decided to resign,” the President told me. “Why don’t you come in to the military HQ and discuss this with us?”

“I’ll think about it,” I told him.

There were many lawyers with me at the time. They advised me against it.

“It’s too dangerous. They might kill you. We don’t know what the situation is inside, what the plan is. You shouldn’t go in there.”

“I can’t go. Tell me what you have to say,” I told Mohamed Nasheed.

“I want to go to the President’s Office, hold a cabinet meeting, inform them of my reasons for resigning,” he said. “You have to guarantee me safe passage to the President’s Office and full protection for my family.”

“It is not our intention—leaders of the political parties—to harm your family or endanger life.”

At this stage we heard [Mohamed] Nazim was inside the military HQ. I never told Nazim to go there. He had not been a part of our political activities, nor was Abdulla Riyaz a part of it. I only knew of their presence in the HQ when they telephoned and told me so. Before that, I only heard of their presence from reports on the ground, but there was no contact between us and them.

I rang Nazim.

“This Mohamed Nasheed wants to go to the President’s Office. He must go there under full protection. Under no circumstances is he to walk.  He must be under full police protection. I would prefer if you took him in a BRDM.” My instructions to Nazim were very clear.

BRDMs are these large military vehicles.

“He will get full protection. He will go there under full protection,” Nazim assured.

This is how Mohamed Nasheed’s request to go to the President’s Office was arranged.

By then Mohamed Nasheed had told us of his intention to resign, and so had the Defence Minister.

We were watching as he went, dressed in a suit and under full police protection. We saw him in the President’s Office.

I ordered our supporters to fetch Abdullah Ghaazee from Girifushi [island]. Our supporters spoke to police on the ground and left for Girifushi on two police speed boats to bring back Abdulla Ghaazee.

“Let’s go!” our supporters told Abdulla Ghaazee. I don’t think he understood what was happening. The police put him on their phone to me.

“You are free now,” I told him. “Come to Male’.”

So, Abdulla Ghaazee was brought to Male’.

It was on TV I was watching all this.

Our troops—that is to say, our supporters—were in Republic Square. Once it was all done, Mohamed Nasheed had resigned and everything was complete, I went to the Republic Square and gave an address standing on a lorry.

“Maldives has been freed of Mohamed Nasheed.” I said. “Maldives will now see a completely different picture, God willing.”

Then we saw Mohamed Nasheed resigning, without any duress, on live television.

That’s how it happened.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)