Tag: ousted President Mohamed Nasheed

Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court re-accepts ex-President Nasheed’s prosecution case

Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court has decided to re-accept the prosecution case of former President Mohamed Nasheed, who has himself called for any trial against him to be expedited.

Nasheed along with former Defence Minister Tholath Ibrahim kaleyfaan and three Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) officers are being charged for their alleged role in detaining Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Abdulla Mohamed, who was a central figure in the downfall of former President Nasheed, was brought under military detention after Nasheed’s government accused him of political bias, obstructing police, stalling cases, having links with organized crime and “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist” to protect key figures of the former dictatorship from human rights and corruption cases.

The three MNDF officers facing charges are former Chief of Defense Forces Moosa Ali Jaleel, Brigadier-Retired General Ibrahim Mohamed Didi and Colonel Mohamed Ziyad.

General Didi, who was serving as the Male’ area commander at the time of Judge Abdulla’s arrest, penned his“premature” resignation” after 32 years of service in the military upon the PG’s decision to prosecute him.

Ex-Chief of Defence Force Jaleel had also retired following the controversial transfer of power on February 7, while Colonel Ziyad has maintained he would be present in his uniform to defend himself in the court.

Initially the magistrate court refused to proceed with the trial stating that it did not have the jurisdiction to deal with such cases under the Judicature Act.

Magistrate of the court, Moosa Naseem at the time told Minivan News that they had “studied” the case and had identified that the court “did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the case” referring to article 66 of Judicature Act.

According to article 66(b) of the act, Naseem contended that the Hulhumale’-based court could only accept the case after the Chief Justice issued a decree in agreement with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and the Judicial Council.

Article 66(b) of the Judicature Act states that: “in accordance with section (a) of this article, if additions or omission to the jurisdictions stipulated in schedule 5 of this Act has to be carried out, the modification has to be done in agreement with the Judicial Service Commission and the Judicial Council and by a decree issued by the Chief Justice.”

The Magistrate court’s decision to overturn its initial refusal follows the High Court’s invalidation of its decision, following appeals from the authorities.

In invalidating the magistrate court ruling, the High Court stated the case was based on the “unlawful detention” of a person, adding that magistrate courts in the country had the jurisdiction to proceed with such cases.

The ruling also said that as the incident occurred in Male’ area, the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court again had the jurisdiction to proceed with the case.

An official from the Prosecutor General’s Office told Minivan News today that the case was submitted yesterday afternoon along with that of the other MNDF officers.

The Judicial Administration department today announced that the hearings of the case will be conducted in the Justice Building, located in Male’.

An official from the department told local media that the decision was made after considering the fact that holding the trials in the Justice Building would ease the administrative process and that the facilities available would also be an advantage.

“The trials will proceed at the hall in the ground floor of the building,” he added.

The letter

Following High Court’s decision, ex-President Nasheed stated in a press conference held last Friday that he had sent a letter requesting the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court to expedite the case.

Initially, the magistrate court denied the receipt of Nasheed’s letter but later in a press statement acknowledged the reception of the letter and stated that steps were being taken to commence the trial as soon as possible.

Nasheed maintained that he is willing to be present at court to defend his decision to arrest the Judge, reiterating that if he should return to power again, he would still do the same, alleging that Judge Abdulla was central to the flawed criminal justice system of the country.

In April, Nasheed told the UK’s Guardian that he did not like arresting a judge, but he “just couldn’t let him [Abdulla Mohamed] sit on the bench.”

“There is a huge lack of confidence in the judiciary, and I had to do something and the constitution calls upon me to do that. It’s not a nice thing to do. And it’s not a thing that I would want to do. And it’s not a thing that I liked doing. But it had to be done,” he added.

Nasheed, who is also now the presidential candidate of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), stands charged with violating Article 81 of the Penal Code, which states that the detention of a government employee who has not been found guilty of a crime is illegal.

If found guilty, Nasheed and Tholhath will face a jail sentence or banishment for three years or a Rf 3000 fine (US$193.5), a sentence that would bar him from contesting the elections.

The opposition MDP has claimed that the case is politically motivated by Nasheed’s opponents in an attempt to bar him from running for future elections.

Home Minister Mohamed Jameel in a post on social media service Twitter has said the “historic criminal trial” is the “first step towards the national healing process.”

Meanwhile, the MDP claimed it expects the trial – whether in Hulhumale’ or another court – to go ahead regardless of legality.  The party has alleged the case serves solely as a mean to convict the former president and potentially prevent him from contesting in the next presidential election.

MDP Spokesperson MP Imthiyaz Fahmy did not respond to calls at time of press.

The Arrest

The chief judge was detained by the military, after he had opened the court to order the immediate release of the current Home Minister and deputy leader of the Dhivehi Quamee Party Mohamed Jameel Ahmed.

Jameel was arrested after President’s Office requested an investigation into “slanderous” allegations he made that the government was working under the influence of “Jews and Christian priests” to weaken Islam in the Maldives.

The judge’s whereabouts were not revealed until January 18.

As Judge Abdulla continued to be held, Prosecutor General (PG) Ahmed Muizz later joined the High Court and Supreme Court in condemning the MNDF’s role in the arrest, requesting that the judge be released.

The police are required to go through the Prosecutor General’s (PG) Office to obtain an arrest warrant from the High Court, Muizz said, claiming the MNDF and Nasheed’s administration “haven’t followed the procedures, and the authorities are in breach of law.They could be charged with contempt of the courts.”

He then ordered the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) to investigate the matter.

Judge Abdulla’s arrest sparked three weeks of anti-government protests, beginning in January, while the government appealed for assistance from the Commonwealth and UN to reform the judiciary.

As protests escalated, elements of the police and military mutinied on February 7, alleging Nasheed’s orders to arrest the judge were unlawful. A Commonwealth legal delegation had landed in the capital only days earlier.

Nasheed publicly resigned the same day, but later said he was forced to do so “under duress” in a coup d’état. Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has taken to the streets in recent months calling for an early election.

Judge Abdulla was released on the evening of February 7, and the Criminal Court swiftly issued a warrant for Nasheed’s arrest. Police did not act on the warrant, after international concern quickly mounted.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

President Nasheed’s representative to CNI alleges February 7 draft report missed several facts

Former President Mohamed Nasheed’s representative on the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI), Ahmed ‘Gahaa’ Saeed, has today expressed deep concern over the draft report compiled by investigation’s co-chair, retired Singaporean Judge G P Selvam.

In a brief statement provided to media today outside Muleeaage, Saeed said that the draft report produced by Selvam “somewhat refutes or denies what we Maldivians saw and experienced” on February 7.  Former President Nasheed resigned during the day under what he later claimed was “duress” after elements of police and the army mutinied at Republic Square.

“I accepted membership of the Commission of National Inquiry with the weight of responsibility of carrying the hopes of you, the Maldivian people. The Maldivian people saw the first democratic government formed under the constitution adopted in 2008 as a good reform – a golden opportunity to revise the constitution and establish a democratic system and rule of the people. [The people] saw it as an opportunity to move away from the culture of arresting and banishing previous rulers and establishing a culture of changing governments through the vote and not through coup d’etats,” Saeed said today.

“February 7, 2012 was a day that shocked Maldivians – a day when the Maldivian government was changed in a sudden confusion. Now, however, the report that Judge Selvam has drafted and brought is a draft that somewhat refutes or denies what we Maldivians saw and experienced – or a draft that somewhat confuses things, the way it is now.

“While this is happening, for me to stay here, at Muleeage, would I believe be a betrayal of my country and the Maldivian people. I see the draft report as having been written without considering the witness testimony of many, many people to CoNI as well as the many scenes we saw.”

Saeed added that he would continue to work to “include my concerns” in the final report. He was not responding to calls from Minivan News at time of press regarding his comments.

Following Saeed’s statement, the formerly ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) convened an emergency meeting of the party’s National Council.

A resolution proposed by former minister Mohamed Shihab and seconded by MP Mariya Ahmed Didi expressing concern in line with Saeed’s views on the draft report was adopted with unanimous consent.

Speaking to Minivan News, MDP Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor said that the information in the current “domestic draft” report was not acceptable.

“What [Saeed] is saying is that they have omitted several details that they found from the investigations, so he is asking to make the report accurate in reflecting this,” he explained.

However, he observed there was room for the CNI’s findings to still find consensus before its public release on Thursday (August 30).

“The CNI report should be something that all its members have to agree upon so without MDP’s word, the report would not be authentic,” Ghafoor said.

“There is a draft out there that appears to conclude that there was no police mutiny [on February 7], this is just not acceptable given what the public saw,” he claimed.

President’s Office spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza and Media secretary Masood Imad were not responding to calls by Minivan News at the time of press.

The first three-member CNI was appointed by President Mohamed Waheed, following a police and military mutiny and Nasheed’s resignation on February 7. Both Nasheed and the MDP allege that his resignation was made under “duress” and was therefore a “coup d’état”.

Facing pressure from the Commonwealth and civil society NGOs, the government eventually agreed to reform the commission to include a retired Singaporean judge and a representative for Nasheed.

Nasheed’s representative, Saeed, who was formerly both Principal of ‘Ahmadiyya School’ and Deputy Principal of the British College of Sri Lanka was finally accepted after the government of President Waheed rejected almost 11 names Nasheed proposed to the commission.

The original members of the CNI subsequently released a ‘timeline’ into events that took place from January 16 to February 7.

The MDP accused the commission of trying to prejudice the work of the new commission, and then released its own version of events in response – the ‘Ameen- Aslam’ report based on interviews with the security services. The government described the publication of this report as a “terrorist act”.

An audio clip of Saeed’s statement

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“DhiTV’s leaked audio clip is a fake”: Office of former President Mohamed Nasheed

Former President Mohamed Nasheed’s office has today released a press statement dismissing a leaked audio clip attributed to him by private broadcaster DhiTV as a fabrication.

“The audio clip broadcasted by DhiTV on August 19, claiming to be President Nasheed is an edited audio clip,” the statement read.

In the recording, Nasheed is alleged to have said that three Commonwealth foreign ministers sent to investigate the controversial power transfer had determined that the events on February 7 did not amount to a “coup”, as alleged by the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

“I asked them, if they decide that that’s what happened, what will I do next? The entire opposition of this country will go to prison,” Nasheed appears to claim in the clip, reported to be an excerpt from a thirty minute-long recording.

Speaking to Minivan News yesterday, MDP spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor had raised doubts on the authenticity of the audio clip claiming that it was “fabrication”.

“It’s difficult to believe that Nasheed would talk about it publicly. I feel it is a fabrication,” said Ghafoor.

Speaking to local TV Station Raajje TV, former President’s Office Undersecretary Ibrahim ‘Hoara’ Rasheed echoed similar remarks to those of Ghafoor concerning the audio clip.

“President Nasheed actually said that if CMAG [Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group] decides it is a coup that would mean the entire opposition would have to go to prison. Nasheed referred opposition to those who were in opposition during his time in government. They just made a simple edit of where he says ‘isn’t this a coup’ to sound like it ‘isn’t a coup’,” he said.

A photo of an audio analysis of the clip in Facebook by MDP-aligned group Kula-Yellow, suggested that it was edited on the 11th second of the 45 second long clip.

After sending its investigative team, CMAG announced in February that it had not been possible to determine the constitutionality of the transfer of power.

The group therefore recommended that an independent investigation, with international representation, be conducted.

The Maldives, which since 2009 had been a member of CMAG – the Commonwealth’s eight nation watchdog group – was subsequently suspended from the body after being placed on its formal agenda.

Continued pressure for inter-party dialogue and early elections from the Commonwealth led to strong criticism of the organisation from local politicians earlier this year, before resulting in the eventual reconstitution of the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI).

The CNI is scheduled to publicly publish its findings on August 30.

Nasheed’s formerly ruling MDP has suggested that he and his ministers be reinstated should the investigation find evidence that a “coup” had taken place.

The party also promised its acquiescence in the event that the CNI find no evidence of illegal activity whatsoever, a likelihood Nasheed does not anticipate.

Meanwhile, the government, which has steadfastly denied it came to power in a “coup d’etat”, has officially refused to speculate on the possible fallout from the CNI report.

Leaders from the minority leadership party in the Majlis, the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), have said that they would challenge at the Supreme Court any results which disputed the legitimacy of the President Waheed’s unity government.

Local newspaper Haveeru today publicly apologized for reporting the leaked audio, stating that the story was published without verifying its authenticity, while DhiTV claimed that it had not tampered with the audio clip’s content.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police failed to state what Nasheed was charged for: former President’s legal team

Ousted President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team on Thursday claimed that the Maldives Police Services had failed to specify what charges Nasheed was being investigated for, after the former President was summoned to police headquarters.

Speaking to local media following the questioning, member of Nasheed’s legal team Hisaan Hussain told local media that even the police gave Nasheed the opportunity to respond to the charges, but despite repeated requests failed to explain exactly what those charges were.

Another member of Nasheed’s legal team, former Minister of Human Resources, Youth and Sports, Hassan Latheef, also made similar comments in a live interview with local TV station Raajje TV, following Nasheed’s appearance in the police station on Thursday.

He said that police did not send Nasheed a formal summoning chit, but instead sent a letter asking him to present himself at police headquarters. Latheef added that police could not have taken action if Nasheed had declined the request, but said that Nasheed wanted to cooperate with the police in their investigation.

Latheef said that during the questioning, police stated that Nasheed was a suspect for perpetrating attacks against police and police property from May 29 onwards, and claimed that all the acts were carried out under Nasheed’s orders.

“But they failed to provide us with any details of the charges. He repeatedly asked them to clarify the details of his wrongs and what damage were they speaking of,” he said.

Furthermore, Latheef said that representatives from both Police Integrity Commission (PIC) and Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) were present in the room, but claimed it was doubtful what police were intending through their presence.

“The Police Integrity Commission and Human Rights Commission of Maldives were present during the investigations. As a principle I agree it is a good thing but why just this case and not others?” he questioned.

He further alleged that the summoning was a “PR stunt” by the police and raised doubts about their intention as to why they had allowed the independent institutions to be present “specifically” for this case.

In a bid to respond the letter sent by the police, Nasheed left to police headquarters on foot from his personal residence ‘Keneryge’ at about 2:00pm last Thursday. A large number of his supporters followed him.

However, police had blocked almost all the routes to police headquarters, and Nasheed was finally able to reach the police headquarters after an hour of waiting.

Police initially refused allow his supporters to pass the police cordon, however the demonstrators insisted that they would not let Nasheed go alone past the police lines.

After a minor confrontation, Nasheed was allowed to enter along with some of his close aides and parliament members, however he still refused to proceed without the presence “of a free media”.

Following the police decision to not cooperate with local TV station Raajje TV, police had sent the station’s reporters back behind the police lines.

Latheef, recalling the event, stated that police informed Nasheed that if he was not present before 3:00pm, they would consider that he had failed to be present for the inquiry.

Nasheed came out of the police headquarters after more than two hours and refused to speak to the local media in the absence of Raajje TV.

However Nasheed later gave an interview to the TV station outside the police lines but did not go into any specific details of the inquiry.

Police response

The police denied the claims of Nasheed’s legal team. In a statement released following the inquiry, police stated that Nasheed refused to answer the questions during the inquiry but instead provided them with his own written statement.

Police claimed Nasheed came to the police headquarters with a band of his supporters, and came to the police headquarters at about 3:00pm after waiting for a long time in the Republican Square.

Police said that when the inquiry began, Nasheed wanted to remain silent until all the questions were asked, and then give a statement based on the questions that were posed to him.

“After [questions were posed], former President Nasheed stated that he wanted to cooperate with the inquiry but declined to provide answers, claiming that the police were not able to inform him of the charges for which he was summoned,” read the statement.

Police in the statement dismissed these claims, stating that the officers conducting the inquiry had repeatedly briefed him about the charges and the laws that were in concern but despite the efforts, Nasheed repeatedly said that it was not clear to him.

Afterwards, police said that Nasheed discussed the matter with his legal team and decided to produce a written statement regarding the questions that were posed to him.

Minivan News tried contacting police media official Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef, but he was not responding at time of press

Charges

Last Monday, Police sent a letter to ousted President Mohamed Nasheed requesting he present himself at police headquarters on August 2 at 10:00am, regarding an investigation into a phone conversation police last week released to the media. The time was later changed to 2:00pm, on Nasheed’s request.

Police claimed that in the phone conversation, tapped and recorded the day police dismantled the Maldivian Democratic Party(MDP) protest camp ‘Usfasgandu’, Nasheed and former MDP Chairperson Mariya Didi discussed attacking police officers.

Police publicised the telephone conversation which they claimed was retrieved with a court order following information from intelligence sources.

Nasheed and Mariya’s leaked audio conversation appears to have been held during the police’s attempt to dismantle the MDP’s protest camp at Usfasgandu on May 29. Police had obtained a search warrant claiming MDP was performing black magic, conducting criminal activity and damaging public property in the area.

In the audio clip, Mariya says: “[Police] are forcing people back! They are using pepper spray! That is why we are unable to hold a national council meeting. And we have also received a second letter, ordering us to vacate the area by ten o’clock tonight. We cannot file an appeal at court or do anything. We cannot even hold the National Council meeting. We won’t have [enough members for] quorum. Shihab is here. But they are using pepper spray and forcing people back. [We] can only vacate the place if we could get in there. This is all very unjust. What shall I do?”

Nasheed then replies, “There’s not much we can do. I don’t know. What is there to do? I think [we] need to get people out to fight if we can get them. If we can get people to fight, get them out. It’s very clear to me; I think we need to fight back, if we can get people to fight. Find kids from Male to fight the police,” Mariya laughs at this point, but Nasheed continues, “That is what I think. I don’t know if we can get people to fight. I want to fight against them.”

Superintendent of Police Abdulla Riyaz at the time said the police had decided to publicise the audio conversation “because we have no other choice.”

Riyaz said Mariya had been summoned for questioning over the audio clip on June 20, but claimed the MDP had spread “baseless allegations” that police were arresting and harassing opposition politicians for no apparent reason. “The time has come to reveal the truth,” Riyaz said.

The audio clip was obtained legally through a court warrant, he added.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Difficulties in getting phone call recordings”: Commission of National Inquiry

In a press conference held this morning, members of the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) stated they have been having experiencing difficulties in getting the phone call recordings from the Telecommunications Authority (TAM).

However, the members said that the TAM had provided them with the telephone call logs.

“We are having difficulties in getting the phone call recordings. [TAM] does not see the importance of having a [regulation to release call recordings]. Apparently they can’t forward us the call recordings,” Dr Ibrahim Yasir said.

He further said that the CNI has been discussing with TAM on how they could share the recordings.

Speaking in the press conference, co-chair G P Selvam, a retired Singaporian Judge, stated that he was “trying to release a report that all members of the commission agrees to” but said that it was not “something he can promise”.

He also added that CNI will complete its investigation and send its report to the authorities on August 29, but the report would be publicly released on August 30.

Selvam stated that the press conference was the Commission’s final press conference before the release of its findings. It would not state against whom the state should press charges – this was for the Prosecutor General (PG) to decide, he said.

“This is not a criminal investigation, and we don’t have the authority to call on the PG to press charges against specific people,” he said.

Asked if the report would be released in a fashion that would ease the ongoing political tensions, Selvam said the CNI did not need to see what was going on in the current political situation, as its only focus was to see whether the former President Nasheed was toppled illegitimately or not.

“We will not release a timeline, we will release a full report, and the CNI will not consider what may happen after the report is released,” Selvam said.

“We do not want to omit any names, but it may be we will not be able to include all 260 individuals who were interviewed. We will not keep from disclosing any information with the excuse of national interest,” he added.

Dr Ali Fawaz Shareef in the press conference stated that they would release one report, and that there would not be a separate report for the authorities.

He further stated that the commission has already interviewed 269 people, and only 16 people remains to be interviewed.

The members also highlighted that two institutions had not cooperated with the inquiry, but said that in general most institutions were very supportive.

They also highlighted that the commission had received reports published by others, including the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s report on the transfer of power written by two former ministers, Ameen Faisal and Mohamed Aslam.

During the press briefing, the members of the CNI announced that Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) Major General Ahmed Shiyam had shared his bank statement with the commission.

Shiyam had told the CNI that he had no objection to revealing his account details to the public, and therefore Selvam said that the CNI report would include an attached copy of his bank statement.

“Major General Shiyam has told us that he has no objection to revealing the details of his bank accounts to the public,” Selvam said.

He further added that there were several other notable figures who had agreed to share their bank statements with the commission, but did not reveal their names.

CNI deadline August 29

Initially, the commission was mandated to release its findings on July 31, but CNI members stated that their final report will be delayed, after hundreds of people have come forward offering new information.

CNI Co-chair Selvam at the time said that the new date for the report’s completion would be the end of August, which would be discussed with the government. The original deadline was July 31.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed’s member on the Commission, Ahmed ‘Gahaa’ Saeed, said at the time that 244 people had registered to provide information to the commission following the reforming of the CNI.

“There has been a lot of interest. We will speak to each and every single one,” he said.

The new names joined the 87 spoken to by the government’s original three member panel, taking the total number of contributors to 331.

“That’s one contributor for every 1000 of population,” Saeed remarked.

Following the remarks by the commission, President Mohamed Waheed Hassan extended the deadline by which the CNI must conclude its report into February’s transfer of power by August 30, 2012.

President’s Office confirmed yesterday that Dr Waheed had issued a decree approving the extension of the report’s deadline.  Once complete, the findings are to be submitted to President Waheed, Parliamentary Speaker Abdulla Shahid and the prosecutor general and attorney general.

The first three-member CNI was appointed by President Mohamed Waheed, following a police and military mutiny and Nasheed’s resignation, in what he and his party have described as a coup d’état.

Facing pressure from the Commonwealth and civil society NGOs, the government eventually agreed to reform the commission to include a retired Singaporean judge and a representative for Nasheed.

The former CNI subsequently released a ‘timeline’ into events that took place from January 16 to February 7. The MDP accused the commission of trying to prejudice the work of new commission, and then released its own version of events in response – the ‘Ameen- Aslam’ report based on interviews with the security services. The government described the publication of this report as a “terrorist act”.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police summon ousted President Nasheed over tapped phone call

The Maldives Police Service (MPS) has sent a letter to ousted President Mohamed Nasheed requesting he present himself at police headquarters on August 2 at 10:00am, regarding an investigation into a phone conversation police last week released to the media.

Police have claimed that in the phone conversation, tapped and recorded the day police dismantled the MDP protest camp ‘Usfasgandu’, Nasheed and  former MDP Chairperson Mariya Didi discussed attacking police officers.

Police publicised the telephone conversation which they claimed was retrieved with a court order following information from intelligence.

Nasheed and Mariya’s leaked audio conversation appears to have been held during the police’s attempt to dismantle the MDP’s protest camp at Usfasgandu on May 29. Police had obtained a search warrant claiming MDP was performing black magic, conducting criminal activity and damaging public property in the area.

In the audio clip, Mariya says: “[Police] are forcing people back! They are using pepper spray! That is why we are unable to hold a national council meeting. And we have also received a second letter, ordering us to vacate the area by ten o’clock tonight. We cannot file an appeal at court or do anything. We cannot even hold the National Council meeting. We won’t have [enough members for] quorum. Shihab is here. But they are using pepper spray and forcing people back. Can only vacate the place if we could only get in there. This is all very unjust. What shall I do?”

Nasheed then replies, “There’s not much we can do. I don’t know. What is there to do? I think [we] need to get people out to fight if we can get them. If we can get people to fight, get them out. It’s very clear to me, I think we need to fight back. If we can get people to fight. Find kids from Male to fight the police,” Mariya laughs at this point, but Nasheed continues, “That is what I think. I don’t know if we can get people to fight. I want to fight against them.”

Superintendent of Police Abdulla Riyaz at the time said the police had decided to publicise the audio conversation “because we have no other choice.”

Riyaz said Mariya had been summoned for questioning over the audio clip on June 20, but claimed the MDP had spread “baseless allegations” that  police were arresting and harassing opposition politicians for no apparent reason. “The time has come to reveal the truth,” Riyaz said.

The audio clip was obtained legally through a court warrant, he added.

Speaking to Minivan News, police media official Haneef confirmed that the letter was sent.

“The retrieved of the phone call was within the law. We can assure that,” he said.

Calls for arrest of Nasheed

Following the controversial transfer of power, several politicians and political parties supporting the current government of President Mohamed Waheed Hassan have openly called on the government to arrest Nasheed.

The latest call came on Saturday night during a rally held by former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), where party council members openly vowed to arrest Nasheed and put him in “solitary confinement”.

During the rally Deputy Minister of Transport Ahmed Nazim highlighted the party’s efforts to topple Nasheed’s government, and praised the patience of those who took to streets to bring an end to Nasheed’s government.

“When we come out to do something, we won’t back down. We proved that when we came out to bring Nasheed down, and we only stopped after bringing an end to Nasheed’s dictatorship,” he said.

“Now we have come out to put an end to all this. I assure you all, we will only stop after putting Nasheed in solitary confinement,” Nazim said.

Speaking at the rally PPM MP Ahmed Nihan Hassan Manik also assured the party supporters that Nasheed would face trial and would be “imprisoned for a very long time”.

“I am saying this as the deputy chair of the parliament’s temporary committee set up to look into crimes that Nasheed has committed. I assure you we will thoroughly investigate what he has done in the last three years,” he said.

Last month, Interim vice Preisdent of PPM Umar Naseer expressed his confidence that the Prosecutor General’s (PG) investigation into charges against former President Mohamed Nasheed will see his imprisonment before the scheduled elections in July 2013.

“We will make sure that the Maldivian state does this. We will not let him go; the leader who unlawfully ordered the police and military to kidnap a judge and detain him for 22 days will be brought to justice,” he said at the time.

He further added that the PG had told him that Nasheed would be prosecuted.

“He is an independent person. I hope he will prosecute this case. He has said that he will. I have no doubt that he will,” Naseer said.

Pepper sprayed

On June 16, local TV station aired a video showing the police pepper-spraying Nasheed while he was participating in the MDP led protests calling for an end to police brutality and the holding of early elections.

The video shows a riot police officer reaching over a crowd of people surrounding Nasheed and spraying him in the face. Nasheed turns away as the spray hits him, and is taken away by his supporters, but later returned to the protest.

Police initially denied use of any excessive force or pepper spray on the protesters.

“Maldives Police did not use any excessive force nor was pepper spray directed to anyone’s face,” police said in a statement at the time.

“The Maldives Police strongly denies MDP allegations of directly pepper spraying on individuals eyes at close range, especially ex-president Mohamed Nasheed, and urge the Maldivian Democratic Party to publish statements responsibly,” police said.

Police admitted using the spray to control the crowd during their recovery of barricades removed by the demonstrators, but denied intentionally targeting the former President.

“Pepper spray was used to halt the charging demonstrators on July 14th night against police barricades set for security reasons. This spraying was never in any case directed to human eyes in close range but into the air to avert possible regulation violations by demonstrators,” the statement read.

“The allegations made by the Maldivian Democratic Party against Maldives Police pepper spraying directly on Ex-president Nasheed’s face are not true. The Maldives Police Service have no intentions on directly pepper spraying on Ex-President Mohamed Nasheed nor any other individuals; however, the incident is currently being looked into and necessary actions will be taken against any officer who uses excessive force.”

However to the surprise of many, police later told the media that Nasheed’s body guards did not see him being pepper sprayed to an inquiry.

Police questioned the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) Special Protection Group (SPG) bodyguards assigned to Nasheed, after the media publicised video footage of a police officer pepper spraying Nasheed’s face while he was with a group of MDP supporters at a protest.

In a statement issued on following the allegations, police said that Nasheed’s bodyguards said that while they were aware pepper spray was being used in the area, they could not identify the officer using it.

Police said officers that working that night to control the protest were also questioned, and said they had used pepper spray after protesters moved inside the cordoned area and refused to move back after police advised the protesters to do so.

Police said they did not spray at any individual, and that the pepper spray was targeted at the crowed, the police statement said.

Charges

On July 15, PG Ahmed Muizz has filed charges against Nasheed and the former defense minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu for their alleged role in detaining Criminal Court Chief Justice Abdulla Mohamed in January.

Nasheed and Tholhath were charged with violating Article 81 of the Penal Code, which states that the detention of a government employee who has not been found guilty of a crime is illegal. If found guilty, Nasheed and Tholhath will face a jail sentence or banishment for three years or a Rf 3000 fine (US$193.5).

The case, if lost may bar Nasheed from any upcoming presidential elections was filed in Hulhumale Magistrate Court instead of Criminal Court, where PG stated that the decision was because there was a conflict of interest.

However, Hulhumale Court rejected the case on July 18 stating that it did not have the jurisdiction to preside on the case.

Hulhumale’ Court Magistrate Moosa Naseem told Minivan News at the time that the case was sent back to the Prosecutor General’s Office after the court stated it did not have the jurisdiction to deal with such cases under the Judicature Act.

‘’We studied the case and we found that we do not have the jurisdiction to deal with the case according to article 66 of the Judicature Act,’’ Naseem said.

Naseem told local media that the Hulhumale’-based court can only accept the case after the Chief Justice issues a decree in agreement with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and the Judicial Council as stated in the article 66[b] of the Judicature Act.

Following the decision, PG asked the court to review its decision.

Deputy PG Hussein Shameem following the decision said that Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court does have the jurisdiction to hear the case of former President Mohamed Nasheed over his role in the detention of a Criminal Court Chief Judge.

Shameem contended that should the court maintain its decision against hearing the case, there were few other judicial alternatives in trying to ensure a “fair trial”.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)