Tag: Nasheed

Comment: Constructing the truth – CoNI and the coup, part one

This article originally appeared on DhivehiSitee. Republished with permission.

There are no facts, only interpretations.

– Frederich Nietzsche

When the allegation lacks substance or reality, nothing is required in response.

– Commission of National Inquiry (CoNI)

The idea that an objective truth can exist independent of political power is a myth dating back to Plato. On the contrary, truth and political power are intricately woven together—one cannot exist without the other. Instead of an ‘objective truth’, what becomes accepted as ‘reality’ is based on what those in power are willing to include as ‘true’ and what they exclude as ‘false’ in what they say and do about a given issue. While such power/truth relations are normally hidden from surface observations and casual scrutiny, the Report of the Commission of National Inquiry, Maldives is a document that blatantly demonstrates how ‘truth’ is produced in this manner and how the truth so constructed is used to exercise power and control over society.

It is CoNI’s conclusion that there was “No coup, no duress, no mutiny” in the Maldives on 7 February 2012. To arrive at this ‘truth’, the CoNI Report excludes all information it regards as false and includes only what it deems true according to preconceived notions and beliefs.  “When the allegation lacks substance or reality”, it states, “nothing is required in response.” How CoNI decided what ‘lacks substance or reality’ and, therefore, can be dismissed as not worthy of a response, is not explained. It is an arbitrary measurement, composed and set up by the Commission according to a standard that itself decided on, and which it decided not to make public.

Some statements contained in the report, however, do provide an indication as to the criteria used by CoNI to decide which of the 293 witnesses it interviewed were telling the truth, and which of them were judged as simply repeating ‘hearsay’ or enthusiastically relaying fantasies of a confused mind susceptible to suggestion.

Take, for example, the following statement:

Just as a question has no evidential value unless the person answering accepts or adopts the fact contained in the question, allegations have no evidential value just because someone has articulated them repeatedly.

What does this confused and confusing statement mean? If a question is being asked in order to establish the facts of an event, why then does the question itself contain a fact that the answer must first accept for it to be considered valid? Is CoNI saying that a decision was made from the very beginning to exclude as invalid all the answers that did not first accept ‘the fact’—as stated in CoNI’s findings—that ‘there was no coup’?

How much evidence was excluded on this basis? Is this the grounds on which the evidence of Nasheed’s wife, Laila, for instance, was given no consideration by CoNI? In an investigation of the validity of Nasheed’s claim that he resigned under duress, fearful not just of a public bloodbath but also for the safety of himself and his family, would the evidence of his wife not be essential to verifying his explanation?

It is not just Laila’s evidence that seems to have no place in CoNI’s deliberations. Although one of the appendices to the report provides a list of 49 pieces of documentary evidence submitted by various witnesses, there are only seven such documents it refers to as having ‘comprehensively reviewed by the Commission’.

Of these, what it relied on most was its own Timeline, published on 6 June 2012, over two months before it completed its deliberations. [The English translation of the Timeline published on the CoNI website on its official letterhead was copied verbatim—except for an occasional substitution of a word here and there—from Dhivehi Sitee with neither permission nor acknowledgement, or shame for that matter.]

According to the CoNI Report this Timeline, published prior to interviewing some of the most important witnesses to the events of 7 February, was the truest document of them all. There was nothing anybody could say to challenge its version of events, for it contained CoNI’s ‘truth’.

It must be noted also that despite the many alternative scenarios which have been produced internally and internationally, there has been virtually no challenge of any substance to what was recorded in the Timeline.

Indeed. Not when all evidence that was excluded from the Timeline remained excluded as unworthy of inclusion.

This is an analysis of some of the most blatant exclusions of fact the CoNI Report relied upon to construct a particular ‘truth’ about the events of 7th February 2012. It is part one in a series of in-depth analyses of the CoNI Report which, if accepted in its current form as ‘what really happened’ in the Maldives on that day, renders the 2008 Constitution of the Maldives meaningless and creates the conditions in which the illegal overthrow of a government can be deemed legal.

Azra Naseem holds a doctorate in International Relations.

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)

The lesson of the Maldives: can a coup win, asks Time Magazine

In a part of the world not lacking in unstable, politically fractious countries, it’s easy to overlook the Maldives, writes Ishaan Tharoor for Time Magazine.

But the Indian Ocean archipelago state of under 400,000 people, known for its paradisiac atolls and honeymoon hotels, has gone through months of turmoil after democratically elected President Mohamed Nasheed was unseated by what some observers deemed a coup in February. Prominent figures in the three-decade-old dictatorship that preceded Nasheed’s government have insinuated themselves back into the frame. All the while, human-rights groups have documented systematic abuse by security forces allied to the current regime.

“The police seem to think they’ve impunity,” says Nasheed, who spoke to TIME over the phone from the Maldivian capital, Male. “They’ve gone on the rampage and beaten up so many activists and reporters.” An Amnesty International report published earlier this month charted “a campaign of violent repression” against Nasheed’s supporters and the country’s nascent civil society. Protesters have been met with egregious force and subject to arbitrary arrests. “The picture [these actions] paint,” reads the report, “is completely at odds with the tranquility of the waters and scenic islands of this elegant archipelago.”

Nasheed says the new government, led by his former deputy, Mohammed Waheed, knows that it would lose an election to Nasheed and his allies if it was held in the near future and is doing what it can to create conditions tilted in their favor.

“It’s perfectly mapped now, they’ve got all their people exactly in the places they want,” says Nasheed, who speculates that relatives of the septuagenarian Gayoom will challenge soon for the presidency.

Meanwhile, a worrying trend has developed in the once laissez-faire archipelago: a strain of Saudi-funded Wahabist Islam has taken root. Islamists were at the forefront of those calling for Nasheed’s removal from power; some even attempted to brand him a blasphemer, a loaded charge in a country that’s technically 100% Sunni Muslim. This past week, the country’s Islamic Ministry issued an order prohibiting mixed-gender dancing, while Maldivian protesters angered by the fringe American film Innocence of Muslims attempted to storm the U.N. headquarters in Male, wielding placards that read, among other slogans, “Maldives: Future Graveyard for Americans and Jews.”

Read more

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Chair of UK parliamentary group visits President

President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan today met with the Chairman of the UK-Maldives All Parliamentary Group (APG) MP David Amess.

The President’s Office reported that the discussion involved the recent political history of the Maldives and the upholding of democratic values.

Amess’s visit to the President’s Office came as former President Mohamed Nasheed met with UK Foreign Secretary William Hague in the Maldives in London.

Nasheed is expected to lobby the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) regarding the recently released Commission of National Inquiry report during the trip.

He will also speak at the Royal Commonwealth Society on Wednesday evening.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

‘February in history’: Himal Southasian

“What happened in the Maldives on 7 February this year has been the subject of constant debate ever since. The completion of the investigation into these events last month did little other than confirm the one thing that everybody already knew: that the winners of the power struggle that day were those who found themselves in charge come 8 February,” writes Daniel Bosley for Himal Southasian magazine.

“The old maxim that history is written by the victors appeared to have been borne out as the Commission of National Inquiry (CoNI) not only absolved all those in the current government of any wrongdoing in the suspicious ousting of former president Mohamed Nasheed, but also laid upon Nasheed the blame for all the events preceding his resignation.

After a quasi-legal investigation, the final report read more like a political justification for the removal of an opponent than a genuine attempt to untangle the confusion surrounding the events, which many believe to have been a coup d’état.

After half a year, the addition of two new members, and an additional month’s delay, the commission’s credibility was already under question. It came as no surprise, then, that the final draft brought no real agreement over the circumstances surrounding Mohamed Waheed Hassan’s ascension to the presidency.

What the CoNI report has done, however, is to enter the first official account of the fateful day’s events in the ledger of Maldivian history. Anti-climactic and unsatisfactory, can the CoNI still mark the beginning of a new chapter in Maldivian democracy?”
Read more

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Maldives backtracking on democracy”: International Federation for Human Rights

The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) yesterday released its report into human rights in the Maldives, titled “From Sunrise to Sunset: Maldives backtracking on democracy”.

In a statement accompanying the report’s release, the group stated that it had witnessed a deterioration in the freedom of assembly and the freedom of the press as well as the “influence of radical groups detrimental to women’s rights”.

“The appointment of close allies of the former dictator Gayoom the new administration these past months, is another worrying sign that questions the respect for democratic principles and the rule of law in the country,” read the statement.

FIDH arranged a fact finding mission to the Maldives at the end of July, meeting with politicians, activists, civil society members and journalists.

The Paris-based group’s President Souhayr Belhassen called on the government to respect democratic gains made in the country, particularly implementing the recommendations of the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) and strengthening independent institutions.

The CNI’s final report, whilst absolving the current government of any wrong-doing during February’s transfer of power, acknowledged that the police had been guilty of acts of brutality on February 8 which must be investigated.

The FIDH report describes how the past decade’s democratic reforms have stalled owing to political polarisation and institutional inertia.

“The 2008 constitution guarantees most of Maldives’ human rights obligations; however these have so far failed to be translated into domestic law,” it says.

It also suggests that the failure of the Nasheed administration to prosecute past human rights offenders has contributed to a “culture of impunity for perpetrators of past human rights violations.”

Civil society that was “flourishing and vocal during the democratic struggle became less visible during the presidency of Mohamed Nasheed”, says the report, arguing that it had become another casualty of the polarised environment.

The report detials the difficulties the country has had with separating the powers of the executive, the legislature and the judiciary which had previously been dominated by former President Gayoom.

“Tensions with the judiciary and the opposition-dominated parliament, led [Nasheed] to take unilateral decisions that exceeded his prerogatives, such as ordering the arrest of opposition leaders and a judge without following due process, or by declaring the Supreme Court defunct. Since Mohamed Waheed took over power, executive interference has continued,” read the report.

Regarding the state of the judiciary, FIDH argues that testimonies gathered from its members show that, “under the successive administrations, no political party has actually ever shown any willingness to establish an independent judiciary since each seems to benefit from the existing system.”

FIDH also notes that the government of President Mohamed Waheed Hassan has been accused of a wide range of human right violations, including violent harassment of street protesters, torture and harassment of pro-opposition media as wells as legal and physical harassment of the opposition.

“Practices to silence political dissent that had disappeared in the course of Nasheed’s presidency, have once again become prevalent under Mohamed Waheed’s presidency,” said FIDH.

The report highlights what it sees as impartial investigations of crimes, citing in particular the attempted murder of blogger Ismail ‘Hilath’ Rasheed.

The issue of the use of religion for political gains is criticised in the report: “The exploitation of religion for political gains has posed a threat to the drafting of new legislations by potentially limiting existing human rights.”

FIDH also expressed its concerns that tentative gains in women’s rights, as typified by the recent domestic violence bill, could be reversed if government aligned religious groups push for full implementation of Sharia law.

The report also criticises the apparent enthusiasm amongst politicians for implementation of the death penalty, saying: “With the current state of the judiciary and the incapacity of the police to properly investigate crimes, analysts fear judicial errors would result in the death of innocent people.”

In its recommendations to the Maldives government, FIDH urges the Maldives to remove from the domestic legal framework provisions that restrict individual right based on “race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other statu” to conform with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Amongst its other recommendations, the report urges the government to strengthen independent institutions, to enact relevant legislation which will enable the country to fulfil its human rights obligations  and to order a thorough investigation into the attack on ‘Hilath’ Rasheed.

“The situation remains at the time of release of this report relatively confused and uncertain,” concludes the report, “however, the coming weeks will be crucial to test the Government’s ability and willingness to prevent further acts of police brutality and, in general, a deterioration of the human rights situation.”

FIDH’s report follows the release of an Amnesty International report last week which highlighted a number of politically motivated attacks by police on February 8.

Following the government’s claims that Amnesty had produced a one-sided report without seeking comment from the government, an Amnesty spokesperson stressed that the organisation was without political affiliation and had not been the only group to highlight human rights violations in the Maldives this year.

“In compiling our report we talked at length with government and police officials in Malé and Addu during our visit to the country in late February and early March. On the occasions they responded we have included their comments in our documents,” said the spokesperson.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

How to plan the perfect coup: Huffington Post

In 2006, in the Pacific island nation of Fiji, troops overran the capital city, threatened the Prime Minister, forced his resignation, placed him under house arrest, imposed censorship on the media, and the coup leader, in the form of the head of the army, went on television to declare himself the new ruler of the country, writes former President Mohamed Nasheed for the Huffington Post.

In 2012, in my country, the Indian Ocean island nation of the Maldives, mutinying police and soldiers overran the capital city, gave me, the President, an ultimatum to resign within the hour or face bloodshed, placed me under effective house arrest, raided the headquarters of the national broadcaster, and the coup leader, in the form of the Vice President, went on television to declare himself the new ruler of the country.

In the case of Fiji, the international community swiftly condemned the coup, blackballed Fiji from the club of civilized nations and suspended it from the Commonwealth. In the case of the Maldives, a report drafted by a Commission of National Inquiry (CoNI) which was dominated by hand-picked appointees of the coup-installed government, and endorsed by the Commonwealth, has just whitewashed the coup, declaring it a perfectly legitimate and constitutional transfer of power.

Fiji and the Maldives’ contrasting experiences provide useful tips for coup-plotters everywhere. When planning your coup, remember that first impressions count – so don’t dress like an obvious coup leader. The man who takes over from the democratically elected leader should not wear military fatigues, as Commodore Frank Bainimarama did in Fiji; instead wear a lounge suit, as former Vice President Waheed Hassan did in the Maldives.

Secondly, get your messaging right: never, as in Fiji, publicly state you are overthrowing an elected government; instead, as in the Maldives, announce that the President’s resignation is a run-of-the-mill and Constitutional transfer of power.

Finally, have patience: if you follow steps 1 and 2, sooner or later the international community will tire of political upheaval and accept the new, coup-led political order, regardless of outward commitments to democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

Read more

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“I am very sceptical of the burden we will have to carry”: PIC chair

Chair of the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) Shahinda Ismail has said she is “very sceptical of the burden” the institution will have to carry following the publication last week of the Commission of National Inquiry’s (CNI) findings.

The comments were made after Minister of Home Affairs Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed yesterday said that the PIC would be tasked with investigating breaches of police conduct outlined in the CNI’s findings.

Of primary concern to Shahinda was the CNI’s lack of clarity regarding the cases the PIC was to investigate, as well as loopholes within the Police Act which made it difficult to implement PIC recommendations.

“After the CNI, it’s quite confusing when they have so vaguely blanketed the actions of the police. It would have been clearer to name specific incidents or policemen,” she said

Shahinda has questioned the ability of the PIC to follow through with this mandate after having had almost no contact with, or instruction from, the now-disbanded CNI.

“I was surprised at the dismantling of the CNI. There surely must be further questions from many people,” she said.

“After the Human Rights Commission (HRCM) completed their investigations, they sent a letter to us [to guide our work]. We would like something similar from the CNI,” she said.

Shahinda revealed that, throughout both versions of the CNI, the PIC had only had one meeting and received one letter from the commission.

The meeting involved mainly introductions and talk of future co-operation, whilst the letter from the CNI to the PIC asked only when its investigations into the events of February would be completed, she explained.

Referring to the CNI’s recommendations that the PIC, amongst other institutions, needed to be strengthened, Shahinda responded:

“My question would be – while I don’t claim the PIC is perfect – what information are they working with? Throughout their investigations, they showed no interest. There was no inquiry about specific incidents. To my knowledge, no one was summoned.”

Shahinda explained that the PIC was already investigating a number of incidents relating to February 7 and 8, making the lack of contact doubly confusing.

“They knew we were already investigating specific incidents – that’s what we do,” she said.

Shahinda also outlined what she saw as the weaknesses within the police act that, in certain cases, had allowed the Home Minister the option of ignoring PIC recommendations.

Article 44 of the Police Act states that any parties handed recommendations by the PIC can choose not to act on them if they inform the commission of the decision in writing.

“He is not really bound by the act,” said Shahinda, before alleging that this clause had already resulted in the Home Minister ignoring recommendations forwarded to him.

The PIC chair gave the example of a case involving police officer Ali Ahmed, whom she said had been adjudged unfit to continue to serve by the commission.  Shahinda claimed the case had been forwarded to the Home Minister.

“I know for a fact he is still a policeman and was promoted after this incident” she said.

“It is really upsetting – a huge concern – for me that the police leadership is showing a trend where unlawful officers are acting with impunity. This can only lead to further violence,” added Shahinda.

Dr Jameel was not responding to calls at the time of press.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has recently expressed his belief that around 300 members of the security services were “undermining the public interest of the entire country”.

Following the findings of the CNI’s report, which concluded that Nasheed was not removed from power in a coup, he called for legal action to be taken against implicated officers.

Nasheed’s representative on the commission Ahmed ‘Gahaa’ Saeed resigned the day before the report was published, citing – amongst other things – withheld evidence and non-examination of crucial witnesses.

The report’s findings have been welcomed by the United States, India, and the United Nations as well as the Commonwealth, although the MDP has said it will lobby for the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) to reconsider.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

The Maldives’ foreign relations and the CNI

“It was just a week ago that Maldivian President Dr Mohamed Waheed was in Colombo, meeting diplomats, businesspeople and the media on a mission to strengthen the existing friendly relations between Sri Lanka and the Maldives,” writes Lasanda Kurukulasuriya for Sri Lanka’s Sunday Times.

“The visit came just days ahead of the release of a report by a commission appointed to investigate the controversial circumstances in which he, as deputy to former president Mohamed Nasheed, assumed office as President of the Maldives in February.”

“The travel destinations of the Maldivian political leaders (past and present) point to their keen awareness of the geostrategic imperatives in the region. For the small Indian Ocean archipelago these considerations dictate that the support and goodwill of its close South Asian neighbours need to be maintained, whilst simultaneously fostering good relations with China.”

“President Waheed when he visited in May sought to reassure Delhi that ‘China will not replace India.’ But the Maldives, just like others, wants to develop trade links with the economic powerhouse.”

Read more

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

CNI report leaves Maldives with “awkward”, “comical” precedent: Nasheed

Additional reporting by Mariyath Mohamed

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has said he accepts the report produced by the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) subject to the reservations of his member on the Commonwealth-backed commission, Ahmed ‘Gahaa’ Saeed.

The CNI found that there was no coup on February 7, that Nasheed did not resign under duress, and that police and military officers did not mutiny.

Saeed resigned from the commission the evening prior to report’s publication, expressing concern that the CNI had experienced the withholding of evidence, non-cooperation from crucial witnesses, non-examination of witnesses, witnesses being intimidated or obstructed, testimonies and evidence that was not reviewed.  Concern was also expressed over the organisation by the CNI secretariat.

“I believe the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) will consider the reservations about the CNI’s work that Saeed has noted, and that these issues will also be included in the CMAG report,” Nasheed said, at a press conference this afternoon.

The former President observed that the CNI’s report had effectively set a legal precedent under Maldivian law for the overthrow of an elected government through police or mob action.

This, he said, left the Maldives “in a very awkward, and in many ways, very comical” situation, “where toppling the government by brute force is taken to be a reasonable course of action. All you have to do find is a narrative for that course of action.”

“The pronouncement on the transfer of power was a political announcement – not based on findings or facts. This political pronouncement is based in my view on what would be best for the country from now on, not on exactly what happened that day,” Nasheed said.

“I see the report as a document that tries to map a way forward. The commission was of the view that reinstating my 2008 government would be so messy that it would be best to move forward with another election. So the report has tried so hard to come out with this view through a proper narrative. You will have read the narrative and will understand that at times it is comical, but still, it is a narrative.

“I still am of the view that the commission report has established a precedent which in many ways is not very alien to our past practices. Usually if a mob comes to the palace and stands there for a lengthy amount of time, and if other locals are connected to the mob, the king has very little room to maneuver,” Nasheed said.

“We seem to have been unable to get away from this very feudal system of governance. We were hoping the new constitution would be enlightened enough to give us a system whereby governments would change simply through the ballot box, but it now looks like it was not so simple. I think it will take time before we are able to settle down to more democratic forms.

“My message to the international community is when you recommend issues, situations, solutions programmes and projects to other societies and people, it is so very important to understand the detailed intricacies of the local conditions.

“We still hope elections will be held early, and we will go to elections with a programme, as we always have, and we believe that we will win that election in the first round very handsomely. We have no doubt about that.”

Nasheed noted that all major coalition-aligned parties had signalled their acceptance of the report and its recommendations, including former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP) Leader Thasmeen Ali, “and my former vice president Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik”, and emphasised that one of the major recommendations in the report that they had agreed to was for action taken against unlawful acts committed by the security forces.

“We call for a criminal investigation, and they must then be tried in court and be sentenced as due,” he said.

“We are not surprised, this was one outcome the MDP had predicted. If the report suggested there was no duress [in the resignation] but that there were wrongdoings by the police and military, then all these wrongdoings must be addressed immediately within a period of one month, with the international community’s support in doing so,” Nasheed added.

During his speech at the report’s release on Thursday, President Mohamed Waheed did not reveal the CNI’s fourth finding – that there were “acts of police brutality on February 6, 7 and 8 that must be investigated and pursued further by relevant authorities”.

Referring to the CNI report’s conclusion that the controversial February 7 change of power was “constitutional”, Nasheed said that if this were the case, then he believed that parties who were not included in the victorious 2008 coalition had no right to participate in the current unity government, specifically Gayoom’s Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) and the DRP.

Nasheed called for his impending trial at Hulhumale Court – a move recently upheld by the High Court – to be expedited, and also expressed concern at the arbitrary arrest of his supporters for calling police and public officials ‘baghees’ (traitors).

“It is always their hard work that brings things to realisation, that impresses upon everyone the gravity of issues, and if you have a look at who was arrested last night, you can see that the core of them are the intelligentsia of this country,” Nasheed said.

“They are young, highly qualified and they have an opinion. If you want to keep arresting people with an opinion, that says very little about your democratic credentials.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)