Tag: Nasheed

JSC asks Supreme Court to look into legality of Hulhumale Magistrate Court

Former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team has stated that neither the Attorney General’s Office nor the Prosecutor General’s Office presented any arguments to confirm the legality of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court at Sunday’s hearing at the High Court.

Member of the legal team, Hisaan Hussain, however stated that the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) had used the opportunity to present its case.

At a press conference held Sunday, Hisaan further stated that they felt it would be unjust for the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court to be presiding over any case after Nasheed’s case was temporarily halted over allegations of the court being unlawfully established.

JSC lawyer Abdul Fahthah stated in court today that the JSC had lodged a case at the Supreme Court on the same morning asking the court to look into the matter of the legality of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Meanwhile, the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court has stated that along with Nasheed’s trial, the trials of the other four persons regarding the arrest of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed have now been temporarily halted.

In addition to Nasheed, former Minister of Defence and National Security Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfanu, former Chief of Defence Force retired Major General Moosa Ali Jaleel, retired Brigadier General Ibrahim Mohamed Didi and Colonel Mohamed Ziyad are also being tried individually for the same case.

The Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court held the first hearing of Nasheed’s case on October 9. The second hearing had been scheduled for November 4, which was cancelled following the injunction granted Sunday morning by the High Court.

Nasheed’s legal team has previously raised concerns about the legality of the Hulhumale’ court, citing Article 141 (a) of the Constitution and Articles 53 (b) and 62 of the Maldives Judicature Act.

Minivan News was unable to contact the PG Office and the AG Office at the time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP gathering calls for judicial reform ahead of Nasheed trial

Maldivian Democratic Party on Tuesday night held a march around the capital island Male’ calling for judicial reform ahead of the next hearing of former President Mohamed Nasheed’s trial, scheduled for November 4.

Over 500 protesters marched around Male’ with banners and placards displaying messages on the importance of judicial independence and holding the judiciary accountable.

A number of leading MDP figures joined the march, including former Minister of Environment and Housing Mohamed Aslam, MP Ilyas Labeeb, former Ministers of Education Shifa Mohamed and Musthafa Lutfi, former Minister of Foreign Affairs Ahmed Naseem and former Minister of Home Affairs Hassan Afeef.

Some of the messages on the banners observed by Minivan News said: “Do not destroy justice for the sake of political gain” and “No one will benefit through spoiling the judiciary.”

The protest march began in front of the MDP office on Sosun Magu and protesters walked on the streets of Male’ despite the rainy weather. The march stopped at some street junctions where party leaders gave speeches to the gathered crowds. Speakers included Musthafa Lutfi and Shifa Mohamed.

MDP Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Gafoor said that a main focus of the protest was asserting that the judiciary too must be held accountable.

The three judges presiding over the Nasheed case have continued to refuse to attend parliament committee meeting despite repeated summons.

Trial against Nasheed

On October 9, the police presented Nasheed to the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court for the first hearing on the case concerning his arrest of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

He was arrested on the island of FaresMathoda on the previous day and held in the Dhoonidhoo Detention Facility until the hearing, prompting protests by hundreds of his supporters.

After the first hearing, Nasheed was released from custody, though they maintained the previously imposed travel ban, requiring him to get a special permission from the courts prior to any travelling.

Nasheed alleged that the Prosecutor General’s sole purpose was to bar him from contesting in the upcoming presidential elections, stating, “If, as the President of the Maldives I arrested the Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, then it is not as small a crime as is stated in Article 81 (of the Penal Code). The Prosecutor General’s only objective is to ensure that I cannot contest in the next presidential elections. To do so, he has identified an article which would provide just the required period of detention to cancel my candidacy.”

Nasheed’s legal team has previously raised concerns about the trial, stating that case proceedings were against laws and norms. They raised questions about the legality of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court and procedural issues with the three judge panel presiding over the case.

While the next hearing has been scheduled for November 4, two among Nasheed’s lawyers have been barred from court.

Meanwhile, following an application for a temporary injunction by Nasheed’s legal team, the High Court has declared that it will hold the next hearing of the injunction case on the same day coinciding with Nasheed’s next hearing at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Maldives turns full circle, writes Nasheed in FT

Most people know the Maldives for its luxurious honeymoon suites or “How to spend it” beach villas, writes former President Mohamed Nasheed for the UK’s Financial Times.

But I write this article having spent a night in an altogether different class of accommodation: a Maldivian jail cell. I am no stranger to these institutions, having spent much of my adult life in incarceration, punishment for advocating democracy in my country, an Indian Ocean archipelago of 1,192 islands.

Most recently I was jailed in 2006 when the Maldives was ruled by the dictator Maumoon Gayoom. I faced terrorism charges for giving a speech against corruption, which the regime claimed “terrorised” listeners. After 28 years in power, Mr Gayoom had finally consented to hold a multi-party presidential election and I feared I would be barred from standing. Under pressure from street demonstrations and international protest the regime relented, and I became my country’s first elected president in 2008.

Today things have turned full circle. Once again, I have been jailed. Once again, an authoritarian regime,effectively controlled by the old dictator, is pressing politically motivated charges against me. Once again, I may be prevented from competing in a presidential election, which must be held by the end of next year.

The Maldives, a youthful, Muslim country whose people rose up and shook off decades of authoritarian rule, provides an important lesson for democrats in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and other countries caught in the Arab uprisings. Even after the revolution, the old guard can linger on and suffocate fledgling democracy.

On Sunday I will face an extraordinary court, established especially to hear my case. I am to be tried for abuse of power, in particular for the arrest of a corrupt judge, who was an ally of Mr Gayoom. My conviction is a foregone conclusion. Mohamed Waheed, my former vice-president, may decide to pardon me, but only in a way that ensures I remain barred from seeking office next year. The Maldivian people are seeing their economy collapse and their election stolen from them. If the world is watching, it is seeing a young Muslim democracy fail.

I hope the international community pressures the Waheed regime to make good on its promises: to bring human rights abusers in the security forces to book; to cease the harassment of peaceful political activists; and to allow internationally monitored elections in which all candidates are allowed to stand.

Whether I win or lose is irrelevant. What is important is that a genuine election is held, and the will of the Maldivian people – not the military’s force of arms – is the final adjudicator of my nation’s future.

Read more

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Election-phobic politicians cowering behind judiciary

“So you are proposing to incarcerate Mr Nasheed, are you?” a reporter recently asked a leader in the so-called Maldives Unity Coalition.

“Yes, we are. We will keep him in prison for a long time,” he replied.

The reporter winces.

“I see,” he says, just managing to look respectful. “So, you won’t have him to compete with your candidate to win elections?”

Ingenious, these people must think themselves.

“It’s one way to force you to the top, of course. But I shouldn’t call it civilised, or democratic,” he blurts out. “Justice has to be enforced, so, we don’t look at it like that,” the politician says. “Posterity will.”

The defeat of 2008 common amongst them, political losers of that election have tripped up and toppled the elected government in just three years.

Getting the peculiar lexicon right – the so called “harmonious diplomatic narrative” about the police mutiny amidst-coup and the actions of politicians leading up to the regime-change – took the Commission of National Inquiry (CoNI) a while, and eventually they had to ‘selvam’ the whole thing.

The so-called Unity Coalition that toppled the elected government comprises leaders of parties that have ostensibly not conducted organisational or internal elections in a transparent or an all-inclusive manner since inception. Despite having to resort to stark and obvious giveaways of election-phobia, they are looking to hunker down and stay on in power, obviously for as long as possible.

Getting on about it through the judiciary

Almost all senior MDP members are political victims of the previous regime, many having undergone torture and time in their prisons. However the new democratic regime, seeming to steer clear of paving the way and facilitating transitional justice, probably led opponents to cut up rough and go on talking openly about putting Mr Nasheed away in prison again.

Maldivians know that sitting presently in the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), the oversight body for the judiciary, are political opponents of President Nasheed – opponents in whose personal and political interest it is to incarcerate and disqualify their main challenger prior to elections. They have been publicly talking about it for months.

While members of the DRP, PPM and others in that bandwagon actively work to regularise discrepancies in the house, political leaders involved in regime-change such as MP Gasim Ibrahim and Majlis Speaker Abdulla Shahid continue to be influential members of the Judicial Service Commission.

Meanwhile, breaches of the Constitution by the Judicial Service Commission, such as the nullification of Article 285 – which stipulates qualification criteria for judges – by declaring it as a “symbolic article”; the subsequent reappointment of the pre-2008 Constitution judges without required checks; the prevention of meaningful changes and the establishment up of an independent judiciary are all pending in parliament without further inquiry.

The legitimacy of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed’s re-appointment as a judge can only be determined by an inquiry into the Judicial Service Commission and its actions over Article 285. All attempts to address issues of the Judicial Service Commission – especially with regard to its contravening Article 285 and pending complaints against Abdullah Mohamed – have been blocked by the opposition MPs of the DRP, PPM, and the DQP, by systematically disrupting every sitting in which these matters are raised. These MPs have gone so far as to publicly state that they will stonewall and prevaricate all pending issues concerning Article 285.

Ethical misconduct

While Article 285 embodies qualifications for judges, the case ofAbdulla Mohamed, glorified by the opposition as ‘Abdulla Gazi’, the hero of regime-change and victim of Nasheed’s government, have been widely published.  In 2005, then Attorney General Dr Hassan Saeed first forwarded to the President’s Office concerns about the conduct of Abdulla Mohamed after he allegedly requested an underage victim of sexual abuse to reenact her abuse in open Court.

In 2009, the new democratic government forwarded those documents to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), which was requested to launch an investigation into the outstanding complaints as well as the alleged obstruction of “high-profile corruption investigations”.

The JSC decided not to proceed with the investigation on July 30, 2009. However in November that year, the JSC completed an investigation into a complaint of ethical misconduct against the judge.

The case was presented to the JSC in January 2010 by former President’s member of the JSC, Aishath Velezinee, after Abdulla Mohamed appeared on private network DhiTV and expressed “biased political views”.

Velezinee observed at the time that it was the first time the JSC had ever completed an investigation into a judge’s misconduct.

“There are many allegations against Abdulla Mohamed, but one is enough,” she said at the time. “If the JSC decides, all investigation reports, documents and oral statements will be submitted to parliament, which can then decide to remove him with a simple two-thirds majority”, she said.

Weeks later, Ibrahim Shahum Adam of Galolhu Cozy, listed by police as one of the nine most dangerous criminals in Maldives, and in prison for his alleged involvement in a stabbing near Maafannu “Maziya Grounds” during July, 2010 that killed 17-year-old Mohamed Hussein of Maafannu Beauty Flower,  was abruptly released by ‘Abdulla Gazi’ saying he wanted to hold the Health Minister accountable, as police had claimed a difficulty in obtaining a health certificate.

Shahum had also earlier attacked a fellow student attending an Imam course inside a teashop, and the victim, Ahmed Naeem of Carnationmaage, Alif Alif atoll Thoddu, had testified in court .

Days after Shahum was released by Abdullah “Gazi”, he was arrested again by police for the alleged  stabbing murder of 21-year-old Ahusan Basheer of Varudheege, Hithadhoo, Addu City, while the young man was walking along a street in Male’.

In October 2011, the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) appealed for assistance from the international community over the “increasingly blatant collusion between politicians loyal to the former autocratic President, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, and senior members of the judiciary – most of whom were appointed by Gayoom during his 30 years of power.”

On October 26, Judge Abdulla ruled that the arrest of Gassan Maumoon – son of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom – on suspicion of hurling a wooden block at protesters leading to a participant being disabled for life, was unlawful. This established a precedent that police could not arrest suspects without an arrest warrant “unless the arresting officer observes the offence being committed”.

The contentious ruling led police to release 11 suspects while the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) sought legal clarification on criminal justice procedures.

JSC a stakeholder in trial

It is laughable that the Judicial Service Commission is itself a stakeholder in the ongoing case against President Nasheed, as it is the very failure of that Commission to uphold the rule of law and fulfill its Constitutional mandate that underlies the creation of “Judge” Abdulla Mohamed, the subject of the trial.

Thus it is difficult to ‘selvam’ the fact that it is contradictory to the principle of natural justice for the Judicial Service Commission to decide the bench or in any way interfere and/or influence the trial.

The Judicial Service Commission intervened in Nasheed’s trial with blatant impunity, by abusing its powers to appoint judges to courts and deciding the bench for the trial itself. The Judicial Service Commission temporarily transferred three magistrates from other magistrate courts specifically to create the three member panel that is presiding over President Nasheed’s trial.

Some months earlier, the Anti Corruption Commission was widely quoted in the press on the appointment of the wife of a JSC member, Magistrate Shiyama, to the so-called Hulhumale’ Court, and the allegations continue that the Hulhumale’ Court is kept by the Judicial Service Commission in violation of the Judicature Act as a reward to Shiyama who, with a diploma in legal studies, does not qualify for appointment as a magistrate to a superior court.

Meanwhile, many people who attended the enforced first hearing of this so called trial believe that the Prosecutor General filed the case against President Nasheed invoking Article 81 of the Penal Code in open contravention of Article 17 of the Maldives Constitution under which every citizen is entitled to rights and freedoms without any discrimination, regardless of their political beliefs.

There has been no previous instance of a magistrates’ panel being convened to prosecute any case or individual charged under Article 81 of the Penal Code. Thus, it is common belief that appointing a magistrates’ panel to prosecute this case, by appointing magistrates from different jurisdictions including one who is currently under investigation by the Judicial Services Commission, is a direct violation of Article 17 of the Maldives Constitution.

Calls for Judicial reform get louder

Calls for judicial reform in Maldives are getting broader acceptance with talk rife these days in tea shops, coffee houses and Usfasgandu, of widespread corruption and corruptibility among judges.

Meanwhile some lawyers are publicly detailing tactics used by various judges to deny litigants due process.  Alleged such tactics include intimidation, muzzling, ignoring court rules, creating new rules, fabrication of facts, testifying for a party, issuance of absurd legal opinions, torturing the law as well as other creative means that have boggled the minds of numerous laypeople, lawyers and even judges.

These discussions are removing the halo of honorability that surrounds many “respected” judges and demonstrating how, for many judges, the canons of judicial conduct and Article 285 were enacted only for public consumption. It also demonstrates how certain judges, when challenged to explain their decision or stance, act no different than the same common criminals they were appointed to judge.

Judges accused of being corrupt are acting with the knowledge that their decisions will most likely be affirmed by fellow judges on appeal, pursuant to a tacit “fraternity” code. In other words, trial court judges openly utter absurdities in their opinions with the knowledge that fellow judges at the appellate court are not too keen on reversals.

They are also accused of acting with the knowledge that any commission charged with investigating judicial misconduct at the state level can at present ‘selvam’ such reports and dismiss any complaints against fellow judges.

Can they ‘selvam’ the vote?

Out in Singapore and Bangalore, schemes are going on at full blast to ‘selvam’ a submission in procuring Dr Duhbuhlyoo a good international job, after his much lauded and ruthless puppet role here. After all, the deputy, Duhbuhlyoo D, other friends among glorified foreign touts, and merchants of blood-oranges, all parodying here in the guise of diplomats and others flaunting professional respectability, are thinking of questionable money transactions in the PR, hospitality, border control and other deals pegged to Maldives.

Here in the Maldives, those who have faith in human ingenuity and meaningful change for the good, those who consider it necessary every once in a while for the right-thinking element of the community to slip it across certain of the baser sort – are at it regular like these days. They exude the confidence that all this will begin to come right again soon, through ballots proving the best weapon, against both a shady judiciary and those cowering behind it.

Mohamed Zuhair was former President Mohamed Nasheed’s Press Secretary from November 2008 to February 2012.

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Go through process, but do not allow trial to disenfranchise former president: McKinnon

While the Maldives’ judiciary is “not the strongest of the democratic institutions in the Maldives”, the international spotlight would encourage a fair trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed, Sir Don McKinnon has told ABC Radio Australia.

The Commonwealth Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for the Maldives told the channel that the international community was watching the matter “very closely”.

Nasheed was arrested by the police on Monday acting on a warrant from the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, where the Prosecutor General has filed charges concerning the former president’s detention of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, Abdulla Mohamed, while in office.

Nasheed has maintained that the detention was justified on grounds of national security following the failure of other institutions to hold the judge accountable, and alleged that the charges against him are a politically-motivated attempt to prevent him from contesting the 2013 elections.

“All the major players that have been talking to the Maldives recently are also saying go through your processes, but do not allow this to disenfranchise the former president,” McKinnon told ABC Radio.

Asked whether he shared Nasheed’s concerns that he would not be tried fairly, “I think on this particular case [the judiciary] know very well that there’s more than just a few Maldivian people watching this trial.”

“The international players are watching and I believe that the Maldivian judiciary will be very careful,” McKinnon said.

“It certainly can be fair and it should be fair. These people know exactly what is expected of a judiciary, but there is a high level of political sensitivity in that country, there’s a tense atmosphere which does get more difficult from time to time. But there is still the possibility of having a fair trial, yes,” he said.

Asked about the country’s future, McKinnon suggested that “we who live in Western countries expect things to happen very fast. I began my dealings with the Maldives probably about seven years ago, encouraging them to have a new constitution, have free and fair elections, which they did. And that was the first time they’d really had free and fair elections in 2008.

“Now on that basis Maldives democracy is really only four years old, so there’s still a lot of elbowing people around, much of the political structure within the Maldives is based on personalities, there’s not great ideological divides, there are six or seven different parties in and out of the margins right now. There are many things that it is grappling with that it’s never had to grapple with before, and the important thing is the international community give them support to allow this very fledgling democracy to mature.”

Failure to defend democracy

Former President Nasheed has meanwhile told the UK’s Guardian newspaper that the international community had failed to defend democracy in the Maldives, saying that it was “difficult for me to believe that democracy is sacred for the international community”.

“The people of the Maldives have lost faith with the international community … which has taken a very narrow view,” Nasheed told the paper.

“It is very certain that they can’t win [the election] with me [standing] as a candidate so they are trying all sorts of ways to stop me … It is really quite chilling,” he said, noting that his party had decided to boycott the election if he was excluded from running.

“No travel ban”

The government has meanwhile issued a statement noting concerns raised by the UK, US and European Union regarding the arrest of Nasheed.

Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Dunya Maumoon – daughter of Nasheed’s predecessor Maumoon Abdul Gayoom – said the government was “fully committed to strengthening democracy and rule of law in the Maldives”.

“[Nasheed was released from police custody after the first hearing. He was taken into custody following a court order issued by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, after he ignored court summons and refused to appear for the first hearing of the case which had been originally scheduled for 1 October 2012 and rescheduled for 7 October 2012,” she said.

“Contrary to claims by the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), and also by Amnesty International, police did not use excessive force during the arrest of the former President Nasheed. His safety and security had been the priority and no one was harmed or pepper sprayed during the operation,” the statement read.

“The Police Integrity Commission (PIC) and the Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) had been invited to observe the operation. While in custody, former President Nasheed was afforded the right to an attorney and meet with his family members. There is no travel ban on him and he is currently travelling out to some of the atolls.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

UK, EU express “concern” over arrest of Nasheed

The UK and the EU have issued statements expressing concern over the arrest of former President Mohamed Nasheed.

“Along with our international partners, we call on the Maldivian authorities to ensure any trial is fair and transparent,” said UK Foreign Office Minister Alistair Burt.

“These latest developments underline the need for all parties to resume dialogue and work together to implement the democratic reforms identified by the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) in August. We look forward to peaceful, free and fair elections next year, in which all political parties are able to participate fully,” Burt added.

Meanwhile in Europe, “it is with great concern that the High Representative [of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Catherine Ashton] learned about the arrest of former President Nasheed of the Maldives.”

Ashton “recalls the assurances given by the Government of the Maldives as regards the personal safety of Mr Nasheed and his right to a fair trial,” her office stated.

“In view of the importance of the next presidential elections, the High Representative reiterates the need for credible and transparent elections allowing for the full participation of party candidates.”

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has been released from custody following the first hearing of a trial in the Hulhumale Magistrate Court concerning his detention of Chief Criminal Court Judge, Abdulla Mohamed.

Nasheed was temporarily held at Dhoonidhoo detention facility on Monday (8 October) ahead of yesterday’s hearing after he broke a travel ban imposed on him by the court.

The former president and his Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) have maintained that the charges of detaining Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed are a politically motivated attempt to prevent him from contesting the 2013 election.

“The Prosecutor General’s only objective is to ensure I cannot contest next elections,” said Nasheed, at a rally on Tuesday night following his release from court.

“What is the specific moment during the orchestration of the coup that all political actors were noting as most important? The moment when Abdulla Ghazi (Judge Abdulla Mohamed) was released. The coup d’etat that was brought in this country was made possible because our criminal justice system has failed.”

The US Embassy in Colombo earlier issued a statement urging “all parties to find a way forward that respects Maldivian democratic institutions, the rule of law and the Maldivian constitution, as well as protects human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

“We urge all sides to remain calm, reject the use of violence and to avoid rhetoric that could increase tensions. It is our expectation that former President Nasheed be given every due process that the law allows,” the embassy stated.

“In response to statements that somehow the United States was involved in the detention of former President Nasheed, the Embassy strongly denies that claim,” it added.

“We note that all US law enforcement cooperation [with the Maldives] includes activities that focus on professionalisation and professional development of the police and places special emphasis on the need to adhere to international standards of human rights and the strengthening of democratic institutions and the rule of law.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Prosecution’s only objective to ensure I cannot contest next elections”: former President Nasheed

Former President Mohamed Nasheed in a public speech on Tuesday challenged the Prosecutor General (PG) as to why “such a small charge” was being raised against him while he was being accused of “the much larger crime of having hijacked the entire criminal justice system of the Maldives”.

Following Nasheed’s first hearing in the case against him regarding the arrest of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed, the former president addressed a crowd of over 1500 supporters at the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s rally grounds in ‘Usfasgandu’ on Tuesday night.

Speaking at the rally, Nasheed stated that the Prosecutor General had filed a case against him under Article 81 of the Penal Code for the arrest of a judge.

Article 81 of the Penal Code states that it is a criminal offence for any employee of the state to use the constitutional powers to arrest vested on him to deliberately arrest a person who has not committed a crime. The article further details that the maximum penalty for this offence is either a jail sentence or banishment for a period of up to three years, or a fine of up to MVR 2000 (US$130).

“If, as the President of the Maldives, I arrested the Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, then it is not as small a crime as is stated in Article 81. The Prosecutor General’s only objective is to ensure that I cannot contest in the next presidential elections. To do so, he has identified an article which would provide just the required period of detention to cancel my candidacy,” Nasheed explained.

“In truth, if I have committed the crime he is accusing me of, then it is far more serious than he is currently saying. If such a crime has been committed, then the charges must be for having dismantled the whole criminal justice system.”

“That the PG is not charging me for that, and instead is sticking to such a small charge shows beyond any doubt that he is looking at the matter from a political perspective,” Nasheed alleged.

Nasheed said he was confident that his legal team would prove in court the challenges that the criminal justice system of the country was facing, the problems that the whole justice system of the Maldives was facing, the ensuing risks to national security, and that the steps taken by the President of the Maldives to solve the issue fell within the legislative framework of the country.

“What is the specific moment during the orchestration of the coup that all political actors were noting as most important? The moment when Abdulla Ghazi (Judge Abdulla Mohamed) was released. The coup d’etat that was brought in this country was made possible because our criminal justice system has failed,” said Nasheed.

Nasheed also said that government employees in the southern atolls had raised concerns of not having received their monthly salary.

“Hassan Thaajudeen declared a wage system in the 1600s. Since then, the state has never once failed to pay wages, until now. What we are seeing are the effects of the coup,” Nasheed said.

Regarding the actions of the police, Nasheed stated that there were many police officers who worked with the national interest in mind. He said that these officers were following the orders of their “political leaders” with reluctance.

“The Home Minister may have instructed (police) to shoot me in the head and bring me back. Home Minister may have asked them to bring me with my hands cuffed behind my back. The Home Minister may also have asked them to completely destroy Aslam’s house, or destroy Fares-Mathoda and bring me back. We do not at all doubt that the state has the means and manpower to do so. However, these past few days have made it even clearer to me that there are lots of police and soldiers who are aligned with the national spirit,” Nasheed stated.

Nasheed further stated that the MDP’s campaign trip to the southern atolls, the “Journey of Pledges” had been interrupted by the state with the use of force disproportionate to the situation.

“Some days we fall, but then we get back up even faster,” Nasheed said, stating that the campaign trip would resume on Wednesday morning.

After the first hearing of the case on Tuesday, the court has scheduled the next hearing to be held on November 4. Although Nasheed has been freed from police custody after Tuesday’s hearing, he is still effectively under island arrest.

“We have heard the manifesto of our political opponents. They vow only to detain President Nasheed for a long period of time. There is nothing for the benefit of the people,” Nasheed said.

“Our party’s and my own first pledge is that my name will be on the ballot paper,” Nasheed declared, prompting loud cheers from his supporters.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Former President Nasheed presented to court hearing, protesters gathered outside

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has been presented to a court hearing under police custody, following his arrest on Monday on an order issued by Hulhumale Magistrate Court.

Hundreds of protesters are gathered in the area surrounding the court. Protesters claim that the Hulhumale’ court is unlawful and are calling for Nasheed to be freed.

The arrest of Nasheed on the island of Fares-Mathoda by the police followed a decision by Nasheed’s party to ignore two previous summons and a travel ban issued by the court, which the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) contend has no legitimacy under the 2008 Constitution. The matter is currently being considered by the Supreme Court.

Excessive force used in arrest: Amnesty

International human rights NGO Amnesty International has stated that the Maldives Police Services (MPS) used “excessive force” during the arrest of Nasheed.

The statement noted eyewitness accounts of the police vandalising the house of former Minister of Housing and Environment Mohamed Aslam, where Nasheed was staying at the time of arrest. It also highlighted accounts of attacks against supporters outside the residence who were exercising their right to protest peacefully.

Regarding the case against Nasheed, the statement further says that although it is “positive” that the Maldivian authorities are investigating the case, the organisation is concerned that the human rights violations during the 30 year presidency of Maumoon Abdul Gayyoom and those that have occurred since Mohamed Waheed Hassan assumed office in February 2012 were being ignored.

“Investigations into past abuses are always welcome. However, accountability must not be selective – all authorities including former presidents should be held accountable for human rights violations. The focus on human rights violations during only Nasheed’s presidency appears politically motivated,” said Amnesty International’s Researcher on Maldives Abbas Faiz.

Arrest was carried out “very professionally”: police

Police have released a statement claiming that police officers acted “very professionally” in bringing Nasheed into police custody.

The statement says that the police had initially requested Nasheed to hand himself over to the police. According to the police, officers broke down the door of the room Nasheed was in and detained him after he failed to respond to the initial commands. The statemen claims that this is the general course of action used by police in similar situations.

The police denied that any officers used offensive language or that any physical or that psychological trauma was caused to anyone during the arrest.

The statement further notes that from the time Nasheed was brought to the Dhoonidhoo Detention Centre last night, the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives and the Police Integrity Commission have been provided with the opportunity to observe the proceedings of the operation to arrest Nasheed.

Police have also stated that Nasheed is allowed access to legal counsel and family under the arranged regulations.

“No chance of a fair trial”

The MDP has claimed there is no chance of a fair trial in the Maldives for former President Nasheed, and Nasheed’s legal team have complained about the “extraordinary way” the trial is being conducted.

President Nasheed’s legal team said they had not received official notifications from the court about trial dates., and were instead learning this information from local media reports.

“Moreover, in an unprecedented move, the Judicial Services Commission, which includes President Nasheed’s political rivals (such as resort tycoon and Jumhoree Party (JP) leader Gasim Ibrahim), have hand-picked a panel of three magistrates to oversee the case, whose names have been kept secret. This is in breach of normal practice and in violation of the Judicature Act,” the party stated.

“The coup has not been fully completed,” said MDP spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor. “There is no point bringing President Nasheed down in a police mutiny if he then goes on to win presidential elections 18 months later. To ensure its survival, Mr Waheed’s regime needs to remove President Nasheed from the political equation and that is precisely what they intend to do.”

He noted that the UN Human Rights Committee, the International Commission of Jurists, Amnesty International, FIDH, and the Commonwealth had all have expressed concern over the independence and competence of the Maldivian judiciary and called for reform.

Police used force despite Nasheed not showing resistance: Aslam

Former Minister of Housing and Environment, who had accompanied Nasheed on the police boat along with MDP MPs Imthiyaz Fahmy and Ilyas Labeeb, told Minivan News on Monday that Nasheed had not shown any resistance to being arrested, but the police had used undue force in the arrest.

Aslam further said that the police had forced themselves into the house, damaging property in the process. He further said that the police had “pushed around” people inside the house.

In addition to riot guns, Aslam also alleged that police had been carrying firearms.

“We also later on knew that they had pistols. I don’t know what sort of pistols they were. But we saw them packing them away after escorting us on to the boat,” Aslam said.

MDP Chairperson ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik gave a press briefing following a visit to Nasheed in Dhoonidhoo on Tuesday afternoon, stating that the former president was being kept in detention outside of the normal systems and deprived of his freedoms. He said that he condemned the police treating Nasheed “like a convicted criminal”.

No force used after Nasheed was brought to Dhoonidhoo: PIC

Police Integrity Commission (PIC)’s Vice President Abdullah Waheed confirmed Tuesday that a three member team had visited Dhoonidhoo on Monday night following Nasheed’s transfer to the detention centre.

Speaking to Minivan News, Waheed said that observers had not accompanied the police who had travelled to FaresMathoda to arrest Nasheed, but had stayed at Dhoonidhoo from the time he was brought until midnight.

“During their visit to Dhoonidhoo, our team did not see any force being used against Nasheed,” Waheed said.

“We have not received any complaints from anyone alleging anything was done wrong by police during Nasheed’s arrest,” Waheed said, adding that the commission only looked into matters when an official complaint was filed.

Vice President of Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) Ahmed Tholal confirmed to Minivan News that himself and the President of HRCM Mariyam Azra had made a visit to Dhoonidhoo last night in relation to Nasheed’s arrest.

He said that more information could be provided following a commission members meeting, but did not respond to calls later.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed treated like “a fugitive”, MDP tells New York Times

The former president of the Maldives, Mohamed Nasheed, was detained on Monday for failing to turn up for a court hearing in a case involving the unlawful arrest of a High Court judge when Mr Nasheed was president, writes Sruthi Gottipati for the New York Times.

Mr. Nasheed was arrested by the police while on a campaign stop in Fares-Maathodaa island, one of the 1,200 islands that make up the tiny Indian Ocean nation of the Maldives, ahead of the presidential elections in July next year.

While there’s little argument that the police took Mr. Nasheed into custody, there’s plenty of disagreement concerning the manner in which it took place.

Mr. Nasheed’s supporters said he had just eaten breakfast at a party member’s home when masked police broke into the house armed in full riot gear, spewing obscenities, and swept the former president out in what his supporters contend was a politically motivated move solely aimed at stopping him from campaigning.

Maldivian Democratic Party workers said that former ministers and aides in Mr. Nasheed’s government who were in the house were pepper-sprayed and violently dragged out.

“You could only see their eyes,” said Hamid Abdul Ghafoor, the spokesman for Mr. Nasheed’s party, describing the police who he said had burst in to brutally arrest their party leader. “They wanted to make it look like they were catching a fugitive.”

Read more

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)