Tag: parliament

Attorney General told CSC and President’s Office Fahmy’s position cannot be reinstated

Attorney General Azima Shukoor has told local media that she had previously informed the President’s Office and Civil Service Commission (CSC) that the commission’s president Fahmy Hassan should not be reinstated.

Fahmy was dismissed from the CSC by the Parliament, after a case was filed against him alleging that he had sexually abused a female staff working at the commission.

Parliament’s Independent Commission decided that there was enough evidence to believe that Fahmy was guilty of the allegations against him.

Azima Shukoor told local media that she had told the CSC and President’s Office that the Supreme Court’s ruling does not state that Fahmy’s position should be reinstated.

However the CSC has said that Fahmy returned to work after he received a letter from the President’s Office.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Ministers fail to attend parliament committee hearing on proposed pork and alcohol ban

Government-aligned Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Shifag Mufeed has heavily criticised President Mohamed Waheed Hassan and his ministers for failing to cooperate with parliament.

Shifag made the remark while speaking during  parliament’s National Security Committee on Wednesday, during the committee’s review of a bill proposing a nationwide ban on sale of pork and alcohol.

In October 2012, Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Nazim Rashad submitted the bill, which was accepted to parliament in a narrow vote in which Speaker Abdulla Shahid cast the deciding vote after it reached a stalemate, with 24 votes on either side.

The former MDP MP who defected to PPM claimed that it was evident that President Waheed did not approve of his cabinet ministers appearing before parliament and parliamentary committees, which the MP claimed was essential in a system of separated powers.

“Evidence suggests that the head of state of this country does not intend to cooperate with the parliament,” Mufeed claimed.

He contended that all the parties in parliament aside from the opposition MDP were working very hard to defend the government and ensure its survival until the scheduled 2013 Presidential Elections, but said the government had found little time to appreciate the work of the parties.

The Fuvamulah MP’s remarks followed the failure of several cabinet ministers to appear before the parliamentary select committee in relation to its review of the bill concerning banning of sale of alcohol and pork.

Parliament had requested presence of Home Minister Mohamed Jameel Ahmed – who is set to face a no-confidence motion on April 8 – Finance Minister Abdulla Jihad, Tourism Minister Ahmed Adheeb and Minister for Islamic Affairs Sheikh Mohamed Shaheem Ali Saeed.

Members of the National Security Committee claimed parliament had requested the ministers to appear before the committee on three different occasions, but said they were yet to receive any form of communication in response.

The bill

Presenting the bill, MP Nazim Rashad argued that the import of haraam (prohibited) products violates article 10(b) of the constitution which states that “no law contrary to any tenet of Islam shall be enacted in the Maldives.”

“We often hear rumours that people have alcohol at home in their fridge, available any time. We’ve heard that kids take alcohol to school to drink during their break. The issue is more serious than we think, it should not be ignored,” Nazim told the house.

The consumption of intoxicants and pork products are prohibited under Islamic law, although these products are available to foreign tourists in the country’s resorts – including those run by Maldivian resort owners.

In response to the December 23 coalition‘s campaign to protect Islam, which saw a number of these tycoons publicly back allegations that the party was ‘anti-Islamic’, the MDP government announced it was considering banning the import of pork and alcohol products.

After being asked in January 2012 for a consultative opinion over whether the Maldives could import pork and alcohol without violating the nation’s Shariah-based constitution, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the case on the grounds that the matter did not need to be addressed at the Supreme Court level.

The Court did note, however, that pork and alcohol have been imported under provisions of the Contraband Act and that there is a regulation in favor of the trade. As no law has declared the regulation unlawful, the import of pork and alcohol is indeed legal, the court claimed.

At the same time, the country’s constitution prohibits the enactment of any laws “contrary to the tenets of Islam”.

Debate

During the preliminary debate on the bill, former Chairperson of MDP, MP Mariya Ahmed Didi called for debate over the sale of alcohol to tourists in local guest houses, in a bid to promote mid-market travel to local islands.

She further argued that the issue of alcohol needed to be “clarified” and “addressed”.

“If this is a religious issue, that is if Islam bans sale of alcohol, it should not be sold in the Maldives as we are a 100 percent Islamic nation. If the sale is allowed, then the question to ask is whether alcohol is needed for the tourist trade to flourish,” she said.

She added that if alcohol proved to be a vital element in the tourism sector, then the sale of alcohol should be allowed for “registered places” to which a permit is given to accommodate tourists including resorts, safari boats and guest houses.

“If the objection to the sale of alcohol is on [religious] grounds, it should not be sold in places where Maldivians reside. But Maldivians do reside on resorts as employees. If we deny Maldivians the employment opportunities in the resorts, then the income from resorts will be restricted to those who own resorts, that would give way to increase in expatriate workers and foreign currency drainage,” she explained.

Jumhoree Party (JP) MP Abdulla Abdul Raheem – who voted in favour of accepting the bill – stated that as alcohol was banned under Islam, it was illegal in the Maldives to create laws and regulations concerning it.

Local resort and business tycoon Gasim Ibrahim – who owns the Villa Hotels chain and is one of the largest importers of pork and alcohol – abstained from the vote, along with fellow resort owners Abdulla Jabir and Ahmed Hamza.

Gasim was a central figure during the December 2011 demonstration, declaring that there was “no such thing as moderate Islam”.

“We don’t know there is a moderate, higher or lower Islam. We only know Islam, which is above all the religion. The only road we must follow is based of Allah’s callings,” the resort tycoon told the crowds.

According to customs records for 2011, Gasim’s properties – including the Royal, Paradise, Sun, and Holiday Island resorts, in 2011 imported approximately 121,234.51 litres of beer, 2048 litres of whiskey, 3684 litres of vodka and 219.96 kilograms of pork sausages.

Resort owner and leader of newly formed Maldivian Development Alliance (MDA) Leader Ahmed ‘Sun Travel’ Shiyam voted in favour of accepting the bill, while Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP) Leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali, Independent MP Mohamed Nasheed and PPM Parliamentary Group Leader and now Presidential Candidate Abdulla Yameen voted against accepting the bill.

Regulation permitting the sale of pork and alcohol in tourism establishments was passed by the Ministry of Economic Development in 1975. Parliament did not reject the regulation on the sale of pork and alcohol in 2009 following the introduction of the new constitution, thus allowing it to stand by default.

However the 2008 constitution explicitly states that no regulations against a tenet of Islam may be passed in the Maldives, in apparent contradiction of those laws allowing the import and sale of haraam commodities.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Artur brothers “direct threat to national security”: MP Fahmy

Parliament passed an extraordinary motion today (April 2) expressing concern that cabinet ministers’ connections to the Artur brothers posed a “direct threat to national security”.

Police meanwhile revealed they became aware of the Artur brothers presence in the Maldives in January, and launched an investigation to determine if they had been conducting any illegal activities in the country.

Police Spokesperson Chief Inspector Hassan Haneef told Minivan News police had contacted “relevant government authorities” in January to inform them of the Artur brothers’ links to drug trafficking, money laundering, raids on media outlets, dealings with senior government officials and other serious crimes in Kenya.

He was reluctant to share any further details given that “this is still an open case under investigation”.

Minivan News understands that relevant authorities, including the Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF), Ministry of Home Affairs, and the President’s Office were officially informed in January of the presence of the Artur brothers, even as Tourism Minister Ahmed Adheeb signed a letter seeking residency permits for the pair.

Immigration Controller Mohamed Ali told local media that Artur Sargasyan left the Maldives on Sunday (March 31). Sargasyan first entered the Maldives on a tourist visa in August 2012 and returned again in October, Ali said. Sargasyan’s associate is still in the Maldives at a resort in Male’ Atoll, Ali told local media.

Photos of the Arturs in the company of Adheeb and Defense Minister Mohamed Nazim emerged on social media over the weekend, apparently taken during the Piston Motor Racing Challenge held on Hulhumale’ between January 25 and 26.

One photo showed Artur Sargsyan next to Adheeb and Nazim, while another has him apparently starting one of the motorcycle races at the event, which was organised by the Maldivian National Defence Force (MNDF). Another image showed Sargsyan at the red carpet opening for the Olympus Cinema.

Meanwhile the Artur’s US$6000 bill at the Club Faru resort – recently taken over by the government-owned Maldives Tourism Development Corporation (MTDC) – was paid by a ”top official of the resort management”, according to Haveeru.

Picking up the story today, Kenyan media reported that the brothers’ practice of publicly ingratiating themselves with senior government officials appeared not to have changed.

“The Arturs’ mode of operation where they show up in the company of top and well-connected government leaders appears to have been replicated in the Maldives. Their presence in the Maldives comes days after ousted leader Mohammed Nasheed expressed fear over his life,” reported Kenya’s Daily Nation publication.

Parliament concerned about connections with cabinet ministers

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Imthiyaz Fahmy submitted the motion to parliament to raise concerns about the Artur brothers’ presence in the country and their possible connections with Nazim and Adheeb.

“The Artur brothers are a direct threat to national security since they are – true to their old style and from the experiences of other countries – directly linked to the top government officials including Mr Mohamed Nazim who is both the Defense Minister and the acting Transport Minister, as well as Mr Ahmed Adheeb who is the Tourism Minister,” Fahmy told Minivan News.

“These are the most crucial government ministries with which the Artur brothers are looking to have special links to achieve their objectives,” he contended.

Fahmy said the Artur brothers were believed to have carried out “all sorts of serious illegal activities internationally” and that the Maldives “is incapable of handling these notorious conmen from Armenia. They are capable of taking local criminal gangs to different heights.”

Fahmy explained that immigration laws do not permit entry into the Maldives if the visitor is “even suspected” of being involved in human smuggling or trafficking; may be [considered] a national threat, or otherwise may commit crimes against the state.”

“Given all these facts – and that the Artur brothers are  world-infamous for carrying out criminal activities of this sort – they were allowed into the country and seen publicly with top government officials,” Fahmy added, alleging that the pair have three meetings with Adheeb and Nazim on Hulhumale’ and on Club Faru.

National security concerns politicised

While the extraordinary motion passed with 27 votes in favour to 10 against,  most MPs from non-MDP parties “were not in favor of this serious issue”, Fahmy claimed.

The Parliamentary Committee on National Security will “seriously look into the matter”, however because it is not an MDP-majority committee, Fahmy believes said it would not be easy for the opposition to hold Nazim and Adheeb accountable.

“You could see how much the Artur brothers have penetrated into the parliament from the number of no votes for this motion today,” he claimed.

During today’s parliamentary debate the MDP was accused of being connected with the Artur brothers by MPs, who claimed the Maldivian shareholder in a company registered by the brothers was affiliated with the party.

Ismail Waseem of H. Ever Chance was listed as holding a 3 percent share in ‘Artur Brothers World Connections’, registered in the Maldives in October 2012.

Waseem’s share was subsequently transferred to Abdulla Shaffath of H. Ever Peace on November 25.

“No member holding a position in the party has anything to do with the Artur brothers,” Fahmy claimed. “Instead President Dr Waheed Hassan Manik, or his top government officials, are known to have been directly involved with them. It is this coup-government that has brought those conmen into this country,” Fahmy said.

Today’s parliamentary session was prolonged for an additional hour due to the extraordinary motion submitted.

Denials

Defense Minister Nazim and Tourism Minister Adheeb have meanwhile denied any involvement with infamous pair of Armenian brothers.

“I came to know about them after the rumours started spreading on social media networks. But no country had informed of us anything officially,” local media reported Nazim as saying.

“To my knowledge those two men have left the Maldives,” he said.

Adheeb acknowledged meeting the brothers during the Piston Cup event, but bemoaned to Haveeru how “information about this issue is being spread by the media rather negatively. I have no links with them.”

Speaking to Minivan News, Adheeb reiterated that he had no personal links with the Artur brothers, whom he said had now left the country on his recommendation.

According to Adheeb, the Artur brothers had previously invested in the country through a registered joint venture company with members of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

Adheeb said he “advised them to leave peacefully and they agreed to sort out their visa and leave. They have now left.”

Likes(1)Dislikes(0)

Parliament committee to probe Sheikh Ilyas Hussain’s “false preaching” over draft penal code

Parliament’s committee responsible for drafting the new penal code has slammed the “false preaching” of the Chair of Adhaalath Party’s Scholars Council Sheikh Ilyas Hussain over the bill.

In a sermon given on Friday evening at the Furugaan Mosque, under the title “Purpose of Islamic Sharia”, Sheikh Ilyas declared that the new penal code does not recognise fornication with mutual consent as an offence, said committee’s member MP Nazim Rashaad.

During the parliamentary committee’s meeting held on Tuesday, Thulhaadhoo Constituency MP rejected the claim stating that no such stipulation was included in the draft penal code.

Rashaad said that section 130 of the draft bill states that sexual intercourse with another person without consent is categorised as “rape” under the new bill.

The existing penal code does not explicitly recognise “rape” as a crime, and cases are handled under provisions for sexual offences.

Rashaad contended that whether sheikh or not, nobody could misinterpret the clause and claim that the bill did not recognise “mutually consented sexual intercourse” as an offence, and accused the Sheikh of lying to discredit the bill and parliament.

Briefing committee members on the sections concerning sexual offenses, Rashaad stated that under the draft penal code, both fornication and rape are offences under section 411 of the draft bill.

“These people are deliberately making misleading comments regarding the draft bill without doing proper research.  They are attempting to discredit the bill and incite hatred among people towards the parliament and the members of this committee,” the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP alleged.

Following Rashaad’s comments, Chair of the Committee MP Ahmed Hamza stated that the committee will look into the case.

The committee also decided to send a written request to local radio station Atoll Radio seeking recordings of the sermon which was broadcast.

Amendments to bill

The parliamentary committee’s decision follows its rejection of all but one amendment to the bill suggested by the Fiqh Academy of the Maldives.

Speaking to local media on Monday, Hamza said  the committee had decided to accept only a suggestion concerning the offence of theft.  Other amendments, he said, were merely changes to the wordings of the bill and carried little legal weight.

“They have submitted amendments to abolish certain sections. These include certain legal defences. When we looked into removing those defences, we found this impacted fundamental principles embedded to the draft penal code. So we decided to reject their suggestions,” he said.

Following the decision, Vice President of the Fiqh Academy Sheikh Iyas Abdul Latheef told local newspaper Haveeru that the academy had informed parliament that current draft penal code should not be enforced in the country.

Speaking of amendments proposed by the Fiqh Academy, Latheef claimed that the defence of intoxication included in the bill, if proven in court, could lead to the acquittal of a convict, but said the academy’s proposal to remove the defence had been rejected by the parliament.

“The current draft does not include the Hadds established under Islamic Sharia. There is no mention of the death penalty for murder, the punishment of stoning for fornication, the punishment of amputation for theft and the punishment for apostasy. We proposed amendments to include these punishments,” he said.

Iyas also echoed the remarks made by Sheikh Ilyas Hussain in which he too claimed that the current draft implied that fornication with mutual consent was not an offence.

He also added that the bill stating that a convict should be able to use voluntary intoxication as a defense conflicted with the rules and principles of Islamic Sharia.

Furthermore the vice president of the Fiqh Academy said the draft penal code bill was drafted in such a fashion that it would encourage criminals to commit crimes and disregard the principles behind punishments prescribed under Islamic Sharia.

Along with the Fiqh Academy, the religiously conservative Adhaalath Party has also sent a letter claiming that the bill as a whole contrasts with Article 10(b) of the Constitution which states: “No law contrary to any tenet of Islam shall be enacted in the Maldives.”

Responding to the criticism, Chair of the Committee Ahmed Hamza claimed that even though the committee had decided to reject the suggestions, amendments could be brought to the bill when the committee sends the bill to parliamentary floor.

US assistance with draft

The initial draft of the penal code was prepared by legal expert Professor Paul H Robinson and the University of Pennsylvania Law School of the United States, upon the request of the Attorney General in January, 2006. The project was supported by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP).

Professor Robinson’s team have published two volumes (Volume 1 and Volume 2) consisting of commentaries on sections of the draft bill.

In an interview given to Times Higher Education UK, Professor Robinson was quoted as stating that the draft bill strictly adhered to the principles of Islamic Sharia and Islamic law as the “law in the Maldives is based on Sharia”.

“The cultural norms are quite different,” He said. “What the Maldives will want to criminalise and the ranking of the seriousness of offences will be different in many ways (from the US system). They criminalise adultery, for example, whereas most American jurisdictions have dropped it.”

“Some of these provisions have symbolic religious significance more than practical importance. I’ve never actually heard of anybody who has more than one wife, though it may well be that there are some somewhere,” he was quoted saying.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Attorney General files case requesting Supreme Court prevent dissolution of smaller political parties

The Attorney General has filed a case at the Supreme Court requesting it declare that existing smaller political parties would not be dissolved following the ratification of the new Political Parties Act.

On March 2013, a similar case was filed by the attorney general requesting a writ of mandamus against the Elections Commission to prevent dissolution of those political parties which failed to maintain the required 10,000 members as stipulated in the Political Parties Act.

Following the case, Supreme Court issued a temporary injunction against the Elections Commission ordering it to withhold the dissolution of political parties that did not have the required membership.

During the hearing of the new case filed as an ex parte case on Wednesday, state attorney Ahmed Usham contended that there were legal issues with the Political Parties Act.

Usham argued that although the constitution states that a fundamental right could be limited only through legislation, the state was not of the view that the right to association and form political parties be limited as strictly as stipulated by the act.

He added that political parties were also separate legal entities under both the political parties’ regulation that was in place prior to the enactment of the new act, and therefore would have conducted commercial transactions and hired employees.

Therefore, dissolution of political parties Usham argued, would compromise the rights of several groups of people.

He also contended that requirement of specific number of members in a political party varied from country to country, but countries with larger populations than the Maldives had a lower minimum requirement for party membership.

Though the case is being heard as an ex parte case, tourism magnate Ahmed ‘Sun Travel’ Shiyam’s Maldivian Development Alliance (MDA) also intervened in the case.

Speaking during the hearing, MDA’s lawyer Maumoon Hameed contended that following the enactment of the Political Parties Act, several rights of the political party had been compromised.

He also said that the requirement of 10,000 members was too large compared to the population of the country.

Hameed contended that the bill’s stipulation that newly formed political parties would have a three month period to gain membership, while existing parties did not have the same opportunity, was unfair.

The MDA also requested the Supreme Court declare that existing smaller political parties would not be dissolved according to the law.

Today’s hearing was heard by the full seven member bench of the Supreme Court, and concluded without mention of a further hearing on the matter.

Passage of the bill

The Political Parties bill was passed on December 2012 however, President Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik – whose own Gaumee Iththihaadh Party (GIP) is among those set to be dissolved – refused to ratify the bill and sent it back to parliament for reconsideration in January.

On March 5, with unanimous support from both parliament’s minority leader and majority leader, the bill was forced into law, overruling the presidential veto. Out of the 67 members present during the vote, 60 voted in favour of the passage of the bill while six voted against the bill and one MP abstained.

Article 11 of the law states that at least 10,000 signatures are needed to register a party with the Elections Commission (EC), which would be mandated to monitor that membership does not fall below the figure.

Parties unable to sign 10,000 members would be dissolved.

Immediate dissolution of smaller political parties

Following ratification, President of the Elections Commission (EC) Fuad Thaufeeq stated that the commission’s interpretation of the act suggested that political parties that did not have a minimum of 10,000 members could be abolished immediately.

He stated that once the act was gazetted, the commission was of the view that smaller political parties would immediately be dissolved. However, he said the EC’s legal team was currently reviewing the act and would make a decision based on its report.

“Our legal team is currently reviewing the law before it actually is enacted. That the bill has passed with such a strong majority means that the commission will make all the necessary arrangements to begin enforcing the law,” he said.

He added that the law gives the Elections Commission additional powers to regulate and discipline political parties, and powers to take action against parties violating the law.

Despite several parties facing being dissolved, Thaufeeg said that he hoped to see several parties registered under the new law.

Following the enactment of the act, several smaller political parties including President Waheed’s GIP, his Special Advisor Dr Hassan Saeed’s Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP), MDA and religious conservative Adhaalath Party criticised the Act, stating that they would take the matter to the Supreme Court and seek invalidation of the bill.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament passes amendments to increase child support payments

Parliament has passed amendments to increase the amount of money for child support to MVR 2,000 (US$130) as part of the Family Regulation.

Amendments proposed to article 65 state that that a father who has more than one child must pay MVR 1,000 (US$65) per child per month as child support until the children reaches the age of 18.

According to the amendments, a father who has one child is required to pay MVR 2,000 per month until the child turns 18.

Amendments proposed to article 63 (a) also state that MVR 2,000 per month must be provided during iddah – a period of waiting undertaken by a woman after a divorce.

Previously, the Family Regulation stated that MVR 500 (US$32) should be provided to women during iddah, and MVR 250 (US$16) should be provided as child support, local media reported.

In accordance to article 55 of the Family Act, if a father does not have the financial means to support his children, the court will discuss the issue with the relatives of children in order to make them responsible for the child’s upbringing should they agree.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“When cats are elected they will fight”: Maldives’ plight caused by citizens electing self-interested MPs, says Ibra

The former chairman of the committee responsible for drafting the 2008 Constitution has said the country’s current crisis is the result of Maldivian citizens electing self-interested parliamentarians.

The Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN) released the 2012 Majlis (Parliament) Watch report on Sunday (March 24). The report was launched by Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail, former chairman of the Special Majlis Drafting Committee.

Ibra emphasised that parliamentarians must represent public welfare and national interests foremost and “not exploit their official positions,” as clause 75 of the Constitution specifies.

However he said most parliamentary decisions are influenced by individual, business, and political party interests.

Responsibility for MPs’ prioritising their self-interests above Maldivian citizens’ well-being should be placed with the Maldivian people who elected these “shadowy figures,” Ibra declared.

“I would say the current plight of this country is down to the failure of the 77 parliament members to take note of Article 75 of the constitution. When casting votes in parliament they are thinking what is the best thing for me? How can more political power be given to the person who secures business opportunities for me? How can an Article be written to make it easy for me? I’m not referring to a particular party but to everyone,” Haveeru quoted Ibra as saying.

“During the last parliamentary elections we’ve all heard people saying they would even vote for a cat if it was the candidate from a specific party. So we are seeing the result of that today. When cats are elected they will fight,” he added.

Parliament Watch 2012

MDN’s Executive Director, Humaida ‘Humey’ Abdulghafoor, emphasised that parliament’s main priority should be service to the people and discussed the report’s main findings.

“MDN is not privy to the same information as Ibra. We try to be very objective in what we say, do, and how we present the [Majlis Watch] report,” stated Abdulghafoor.

“We advocate Majlis members serve responsibly as representatives of the people. They should have a clear idea of the lives and livelihood needs of their constituents.

“MPs should monitor the main needs of their constituencies, ask important questions, and highlight issues that relate to the lives of their constituencies. Based on these needs, MPs should prioritise the most relevant legislation that reflects what the people would like to see,” Abdulghafoor added.

Some of the main issues highlighted in the MDN report are in regard to challenges parliament has faced following the controversial transfer of power last February.

“We acknowledge that 2012 was very difficult for the Majlis. Their work has been slowed due to pending issues, which are a reflection of the challenges faced over the last year,” said Abdulghafoor.

“In some months, such as March and August 2012, the number of [committee] meetings were far lower than anticipated. Also, parliament halted for several days in March, because quorum was not achieved,” she added.

Abdulghafoor also discussed how meaningful legislation is often delayed at the committee stage and takes a “number of years” to become law. She stated that MPs must work together to “accelerate and overcome” obstacles that impede the law-making process, so to meet the urgent needs of Maldivian citizens.

“The number of bills submitted was also significantly lower [than expected], because the government is the largest source of bills. After February 7 2012, the government was not able to submit legislation, because the executive (President Waheed Hassan Manik) didn’t have a representative in the Majlis,” she stated.

“In other words, there were no sitting Gaumee Iththihaadh Party (GIP) party members in parliament. To accommodate this challenge, parliament had to change their regulations, which didn’t occur until October,” Abdulghafoor further explained.

Free elections require civic education

MDN also highlighted parliamentarians’ responsibility to create civic awareness among their constituents and ensure elections are legitimate and free from corrupt practices.

“We are advocating for Maldivians to use their vote responsibly to ensure elections are inclusive, free and fair,” Abdulghafoor stated.

“Political parties have a huge responsibility to recruit members ‘cleanly’ as well as inform party members what civic participation entails and what [democratic] political processes are – openness and clarity.

“The recent reports of registered deceased people are a stain on the reputation of the political party,” she declared.

The Elections Commissions (EC) said it has noticed a surge of discrepancies on membership forms submitted by certain political parties including forged documents, forms with false information and even forms filed under the names of dead people.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MP ‘Colonel’ Nasheed blames Home Minister Jameel for evidence bill delay

Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP) MP Mohamed ‘Colonel’ Nasheed has claimed that Home Minister Mohamed Jameel’s failure to give a professional opinion on the pending Evidence Bill is the reason for the bill’s delay.

The remark by the Nolhivaram constituency MP comes at a time where both the Home Minister and Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz have expressed concern over parliament’s delaying of the essential bill.

During a debate in parliament last Wednesday, MP Nasheed claimed that the committee currently reviewing the bill had on numerous occasions requested a professional opinion from the Home Minister.

“We were forced to park the bill because [Jameel] could not spare us time. We are waiting for an opinion from him. Therefore, before opening his mouth to condemn parliament, he must look back at his own actions,” said MP Nasheed.

He contended that along with the evidence bill, other pivotal bills such as the criminal procedure code require professional opinions from the attorney general, the Supreme Court and other members of the judiciary, as well as the police and Home Ministry.

“They are not able to give time for any of this. Kulhudhufushi-South Constituency MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed has neatly carried out parliament’s end of the bargain. He initiated the drafting and other relevant work required from parliament. But, we have to face the truth that [the delay] is due to the Home Minister’s failure to give us his time,” he said.

“We have given time for him on four different occasions, but every time for some reason he calls us and cancels the appointment in the nick of time. How can the evidence bill be passed?” Nasheed questioned.

He reiterated that even though the country was run under a presidential system with separated powers of state, it does not mean that two of those powers could not collaborate in running the affairs of the state.

Police Commissioner’s concerns

Meanwhile, Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz has said it was of utmost importance that a mechanism be set which would speed up the process of obtaining witness statements before the witness is “influenced”.

In a video released on the police website following the Criminal Court’s acquittal of six suspects arrested in connection with the stabbing murder of Ali Shifan, Commissioner Riyaz stated that many people are afraid to give witness to the courts because of threats they face afterwards.

“In several countries, there are mechanisms to protect witnesses. That can only be achieved through legislation. According to our information, a draft witness protection act is currently submitted to the parliament,” he said.

He said such key bills should become law as soon as possible in order for police to continue curbing criminal activities.

“Laws should be made in such a fashion that they guarantee the safety and protection of the people. Importance should be given to that. We hope that the necessary bills are passed as soon as possible which will remove a lot of barriers we are currently facing. It would be a huge assistance,” he said.

The commissioner of police added that it was important to know the extent to which the court would go to accept circumstantial evidences and forensic evidences such as DNA.

He stressed that the constitution clearly mentioned that investigations be carried on the basis of evidence collected, but said there was no evidence act currently in place.

“DNA is one of the most authentic forms of evidence. Another is the fingerprint. Similarly, video evidence id very authentic too. We are talking about the fact that there is no legislation that dictates as to how such evidences will be accepted by the court.”

Following claims that the initial evidence bill proposed in 2009 “made no sense at all”, a new draft of the bill was proposed to Parliament’s Independent Institutions Oversight Committee on October 2012.

The bill was drafted by former Minister of Legal Reform during President Gayoom’s presidency, the current MP for Kulhudhuffushi- South, MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed.

Home Minister Jameel was not responding to calls at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Prison and parole bill returned to committee

The Maldives’ parliament returned the Prison and Parole Bill to the national security committee for review after President Waheed Hassan Manik refused to ratify it, citing the lack of detail regarding establishment of a women’s centre and Maldives Correctional Service institution, reports local media.

The bill was originally submitted three years ago, passed in 2012, and was then returned to parliament by Waheed in January 2013.

The bill mandates establishment of specialised centres for holding women and children in custody.

It would also create the Maldives Correctional Service, however the bill did not specify which state party would be responsible for establishing the institution.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)