Tag: parliament

Independent Institutions Committee votes to replace Fahmy in CSC

Parliament’s Independent Institutions Committee voted yesterday to replace Mohamed Fahmy Hassan at the Civil Service Commission (CSC) following Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling reversing parliament’s removal of the CSC chair over allegations of sexual harassment.

The proposal to appoint a replacement for Fahmy by Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ahmed Sameer was passed with five votes in favour and none against.

Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) MP Riyaz Rasheed attempted to disrupt the committee meeting on Monday afternoon and did not participate in the vote. Other government-aligned MPs did not attend the meeting.

Riyaz contended that yesterday’s meeting was called in violation of parliamentary rules of procedure and insisted at length that parliament could not challenge Supreme Court rulings.

Monday’s sitting of parliament was meanwhile called off after MDP MPs objected to the Supreme Court ruling on the grounds that the apex court overstepped its constitutional authority.

Speaking to Minivan News, MDP Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor stated that the MDP did not believe Fahmy should hold his position in the CSC, accusing him of  having  an “issue of integrity”.

“The committee decided today that he [Fahmy] should go and we should continue looking for another person.

“Effectively we are ignoring the Supreme Court’s decision. The MDP will continue to raise this issue in parliament, it is a policy and it is legally non-negotiable. We cannot compromise on that.”

The sitting was first adjourned at 10:00am when MDP MPs raised points of order after Deputy Speaker Ahmed Nazim announced the Supreme Court’s decision.

In regard to the morning announcement, Ghafoor said Nazim did not make the “right call” when informing parliament of the court’s decision.

“He [Nazim] informed us of the three issues to do with the Supreme Court in a language that essentially showed an acceptance of those verdicts. We didn’t like this,” he said.

After the sitting resumed at 1:00pm, Nazim announced the cancellation as the issue was to be taken up at a meeting of the Independent Institutions Committee.

On November 20, 2012, parliament dismissed Fahmy in a 38-32 vote after the Independent Institutions Committee looked into a complaint of sexual harassment by a female employee of the CSC.

Fahmy however contested the dismissal at the Supreme Court, which ruled 6-1 on Thursday night that his removal was unconstitutional. The majority opinion contended that the Independent Institutions Committee violated due process and criminal justice procedures in its inquiry.

The majority opinion held that Fahmy would receive two punishments for the same crime if he was convicted at court following his dismissal by parliament (double jeopardy). The CSC chief returned to work on Sunday.

“Fundamental, revolutionary change”

Writing in his personal blog following the Supreme Court judgment, MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed – chair of the Independent Institutions Committee – argued that the Supreme Court judgment established a legal precedent that would bring “a fundamental, revolutionary change” to employment termination.

On the Supreme Court’s argument that Fahmy was accused of committing a criminal offence, Nasheed noted that sexual harassment at the workplace was not specified as a crime in Maldivian law. Legislation on sexual harassment is however currently before parliament.

In the absence of a law prohibiting the offence, Nasheed wrote, a person could not be prosecuted for sexual harassment.

Fahmy’s dismissal by parliament was therefore a disciplinary action taken by the institution with oversight powers over the CSC, Nasheed explained.

Under article 187(a) of the constitution, a member of the CSC can be removed “on the ground of misconduct, incapacity or incompetence.”

Article 187(b) states, “a finding to that effect by a committee of the People’s Majlis pursuant to article (a), and upon the approval of such finding by the People’s Majlis by a majority of those present and voting, calling for the member’s removal from office, such member shall be deemed removed from office.”

As the process to be followed by parliament was clearly specified in the constitution and parliamentary rules of procedure, Nasheed argued that the Supreme Court could not require parliament to adhere to “new conditions and new procedures”.

“While parliament has the power to remove members of the Civil Service Commission and the process to exercise that power is specified in the constitution, the problem that has risen is that the [Supreme Court] has determined that Majlis cannot use that power even in accordance with the procedure laid out in the constitution and law,” Nasheed wrote.

Nasheed further argued that parliament’s removal of former Auditor General Ibrahim Naeem in March 2010 has now been thrown into question in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling. Naeem was dismissed after the Finance Committee investigated allegations that he used an office credit card for personal benefit.

The ruling has also raised doubts over the legal status of current Auditor General Niyaz Ibrahim, Nasheed wrote.

Nasheed also criticised the Supreme Court’s interpretation of “double jeopardy” in Fahmy’s case. According to the Supreme Court ruling, a person could not be removed from his or her post as a disciplinary action unless he or she was convicted of a crime.

If an employee is accused of a criminal offence, he added, employers would no longer have the right to fire the accused before he or she was found guilty.

“If that is the case, questions have been raised over the dismissal of all police officers, army officer, civil servants and employees of other institutions over cases of misconduct or breach of ethical rules that involves allegations of a criminal offence,” Nasheed explained.

Double jeopardy does not preclude civil, disciplinary or administrative action before or after criminal prosecution, he added.

However, Nasheed argued, the Supreme Court ruling has effectively prohibited employment termination as a disciplinary action as the judgment considered such action “a punishment.”

As a result of the legal precedent established by the Supreme Court, Nasheed wrote, it was “very likely” that most people dismissed from their posts since the adoption of the new constitution in August 2008 would have to be reinstated.

“That is, considering their cases individually, it is certain that no state institution would have adhered to the standard set in this Supreme Court judgment. The standards are that high,” he explained.

Nasheed however stressed at the beginning of his post that he was obliged to accept the Supreme Court ruling as it was the highest court of appeal.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Summary: Testimony of former police intelligence chief to Government Oversight Committee

In January 2013, parliament’s Government Oversight Committee heard testimony from six of the highest-ranking officers of the police and military for its review of the Commission of National Inquiry’s (CoNI’s) report into the transfer of presidential power on February 7, 2012. Minutes of the closed-door sessions (Dhivehi) along with audio recordings were made public on January 16, 2013.

Following is a translated summary of the testimony from former head of police intelligence Chief Superintendent Mohamed Hameed to the oversight committee on January 9, 2013. Hameed was fired in August 2012 by the police disciplinary board over allegations of leaking confidential information. He has since sued the police for unlawful termination.

Mohamed ‘MC’ Hameed joined the Maldives Police Service (MPS) on April 8, 1995. He was appointed head of the police intelligence department on January 17, 2010 following completion of a state-sponsored Masters degree in policing, intelligence and counterterrorism from the University of Sydney, Australia.

“I attended CoNI on April 15, 2012 and in addition I also attended the reconstituted CoNI. I believe it is because they did not consider what I said there to have much weight that important points from my two statements to CoNI were not highlighted in the report. The reason I am saying this is because what happened on February 6, 7 – I am not a legal expert but I have worked in the police profession for a very long time – I believe what happened with the police those two days should not have been seen from those belonging to a professional police service.”

Hameed believed that elements of the police mutinied on February 6 and 7. The CoNI report however did not highlight police misconduct, alleged brutality and disobedience that he “emphasised” at the commission.

When the new administration took office in November 2008, MPS did not have “a professional intelligence setup.” The previous intelligence department, known as Omega Sector, was referred among police as the “black room”. It was headed by current Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz.

Police intelligence was focused on the political opposition to the then-government and did not provide much assistance or cooperation for routine policing. Hameed’s “main purpose” as the new head of police intelligence in 2010 was “setting up an intelligence mechanism needed for policing or law enforcement.”

At CoNI, Hameed was asked why police intelligence had not learned of a plot to overthrow the government if the events of February 6 and 7 were orchestrated and planned in advance.

“I said very clearly, if intelligence operated in the way it did in the police service before 2008, the incidents of February 6 and 7 would not have happened. It would not have been allowed [to happen].”

Gathering information from the political arena was “not a priority at all” for the department. However, the intelligence department did monitor political activities, especially protests or demonstrations that affect public peace.

“Considering the information I was receiving in my post, I do not believe what occurred on those two days happened spontaneously.”

Police received intelligence that plans were made to carry out anti-government activities with police involvement to disrupt a mass gathering planned by the formerly ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) for February 17, 2012 as part of its campaign for judicial reform.

“We had learned that discussions took place. This information would be recorded in the Maldives Police Service intelligence department intelligence reports and intelligence logs.”

On the night of February 6, when clashes erupted between opposition protesters and government supporters at the artificial beach, the intelligence department was monitoring the situation. Communications from the mutinying police from the Specialist Operations (SO) department at Republic Square were being intercepted.

An off-duty platoon from the SO was active at the artificial beach without orders.

Following the military’s detention of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed on January 16, 2012, anti-government graffiti was discovered in the toilets of the SO accommodation block at Iskandharu Koshi. The graffiti called for Police Commissioner Ahmed Faseeh, Deputy Commissioner Ismail Atheef and President Mohamed Nasheed to be killed.

“I believe that police as a whole was not ready for democratic governance. There were serious problems in the institution.”

The judge’s arrest sparked demonstrations by the opposition coalition for 22 consecutive nights. During that period, police would gather at the Republic Square at 7:00pm every night and follow the protests until 2:30am or 3am.

“The sole focus of police was on these demonstrations. During the whole day, the police service was almost asleep.”

On January 23, 2012, the intelligence department prepared an assessment report of the situation with a recommendation for the Commissioner of Police to seek the release of Judge Abdulla from military detention and find “another settlement” of the issue.

At the demonstrations outside the Maldives Monetary Authority (MMA) building, opposition leaders were publicly claiming that police and army officers would join their protest.

On January 17, 2012, ten senior police officers above the rank of chief inspector met with the Commissioner of Police and informed him that they “did not accept” having to control the protests against the judge’s arrest. The ten senior officers were in charge of police operations.

“One of them indirectly proposed that the commissioner resign that very day.”

In the coming days, police intelligence learned that some of the senior officers had separate meetings with the current Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz, State Minister for Home Affairs Mohamed Fayaz ‘FA’ and Defence Minister Colonel (Retired) Mohamed Nazim.

The ten senior officers were also noticeably absent from the police headquarters during the operations to control the opposition protests.

On January 18, 2012, President Mohamed Nasheed met with police officers of commissioned rank at the police headquarters theatre hall and attempted to explain the reasons for the judge’s arrest. A few days later, an audio clip of President Nasheed’s talk was leaked and broadcast on opposition-aligned DhiTV and Villa TV.

A police officer of a junior rank was meanwhile caught relaying information of the operation to opposition politicians leading the demonstrations. Riot police officers were also seen to be reluctant in taking action against unruly demonstrators.

A few nights before February 6, opposition protesters marched to the Maldives National Broadcasting Corporation (MNBC) building, located near the ruling party’s Haruge (meeting hall). In response, a group of MDP activists led by MDP MPs made their way to the Supreme Court building and MMA area.

In contrast to their attitude towards opposition demonstrators, SO officers deployed at the MMA area forcibly broke up the MDP protest as soon as it reached the police lines.

Police intelligence learned that a SO officer called Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Ahmed Mahloof later that night and bragged of having beaten up MDP supporters. In the intercepted call, MP Mahloof asked the officer why they did not break the leg of MDP MP ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik at the protest.

Based on such intelligence information, the assessment report prepared on January 23 warned that the likelihood of “police and army officers coming out against the government” was high.

In the early hours of February 7, the special assessment unit of the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) responsible for intelligence regarding domestic security relayed information that PPM council member ‘Marz’ Ahmed Saleem was coordinating efforts to send speedboats to Dhoonidhoo and Feydhoo Finolhu to bring more police officers to join the mutinying police at the Republic Square.

Police intelligence also learned that some army officers inside military headquarters told the mutinying police around 4:00am that the soldiers would join the mutiny if they held on for four more hours. The intercepted calls between army and police officers were provided by MNDF intelligence.

At 10:30am on February 7, mutinying police assaulted Hameed and other senior officers inside the conference room on the 5th floor of the police headquarters and dragged them out “by the cuff”.

Hameed made his way to the office of the Police Commissioner on the 4th floor. At 11:00am, Chief Superintendent Abdulla Fairoosh came into the office, sat down and informed the commissioner that a team was going into the military headquarters to give President Nasheed an ultimatum. Fairoosh asked the commissioner what he intended to do.

“I took that indirectly [to mean] ‘I am taking over, so the commissioner of police should step aside or resign.’”

The commissioner then went to the conference room and made his parting remarks. All commissioned officers in Male’ were present, some in uniform and others in plainclothes. After the commissioner left, a vote was taken among the senior officers to appoint Fairoosh interim commissioner. Two assistant commissioners were present.

After Fairoosh took charge, Chief Superintendent Ahmed Saudhee then told Hameed that he was no longer head of the intelligence department. Hameed was to be replaced by Chief Inspector Abdul Mannan Yoosuf, who had been studying Business Administration in the UK and was in Male’ at the time on holiday.

Following the appointment of Abdulla Riyaz as commissioner on the night of February 8, 2012, Hameed was made a member of the executive team and appointed head of the service development directorate.

Earlier in the day, confronted by thousands of MDP supporters in a march across Male’, Hameed saw that the senior officers were “in shock” and appeared not to have command and control. Individual officers at the scene acted without orders.

As vice chair of the promotion board, Hameed also noted that 1,112 police officers were promoted on March 31, 2012 while only 600 forms were submitted under the normal promotion procedure. Commissioner of Police Riyaz had instructed heads of directorates to submit a list of officers in their departments for promotion.

Under promotion rules that were supposed to have been amended by then, the commissioner is authorised to “deviate from the normal promotion routine” and promote officers who have shown “special” qualities or exceptional performance.

The new lists were hastily approved during a promotion board meeting after midnight on March 31 while the promotion ceremony was scheduled for 10:00am the next morning. The board meeting was chaired first by Commissioner Riyaz and then Deputy Commissioner Hussain Waheed. The latter was receiving phone calls as late as 3:00am to add new names to the list of officers to be promoted.

Hameed’s objection to promoting officers suspected of brutality and breach of ethics on February 6, 7 and 8 was ignored. SO officers involved in the events were given single and double promotions.

“What we saw was that officers with a disciplinary record from the floor to the ceiling were given promotion by the executive board.”

Hameed further noted that failure to preserve CCTV footage from February 7 cast doubt on the “integrity of the current [police] leadership.” The footage was automatically wiped out on March 7, 2012.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court rules secret ballot, dismissal of CSC chair unconstitutional

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that contested decisions by parliament to remove Civil Service Commission (CSC) Chair Mohamed Fahmy Hassan and conduct no-confidence votes through secret ballot are unconstitutional.

On December 3, 2012, parliament voted 41-34 to approve amendments to the parliamentary rules of procedure to conduct no-confidence votes to impeach the President and remove cabinet members through secret ballot. The house rules were changed with pending no-confidence motions against President Dr Mohamed Waheed and Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed submitted by the formerly ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

In late November, parliament dismissed Fahmy in a 38-32 vote after the Independent Institutions Committee investigated a complaint of sexual harassment by a female employee of the CSC.

Both moves were challenged at the Supreme Court, which issued injunctions or stay orders to parliament to halt both conducting no-confidence votes through secret ballot and appointing a replacement to the CSC, pending rulings on the legality of the decisions.

In its judgment (Dhivehi) on the constitutionality of secret ballots for no-confidence votes, the Supreme Court ruled 6-1 to strike down the amendment to parliament’s standing orders as unconstitutional. The majority opinion contended that the move contravened article 85 of the constitution as well as parliamentary principles and norms of free and democratic societies.

Article 85 stipulates that meetings of the People’s Majlis and its committees must be open to the public.

In the second judgment (Dhivehi) on Thursday night, the Supreme Court noted that Fahmy was alleged to have committed a criminal offence and contended that the Independent Institutions Committee violated due process and principles of criminal justice procedure in dealing with the accused.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that Fahmy would receive two punishments for the same crime if he was convicted at court following his dismissal by parliament (double jeopardy). Following the judgment, Fahmy would be reinstated and compensated for lost wages since December 2012.

Delivering the judgment, Supreme Court Justice Abdulla Saeed reportedly said that a person should be considered innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law and was entitled to protect his reputation and dignity.

Dissenting opinion

Meanwhile, Justice Ahmed Muthasim Adnan – the only Supreme Court justice with a background in common law – issued dissenting opinions in both cases.

On the constitutionality of the secret ballot, Justice Adnan noted that article 101(f) of the constitution states that “the regulations governing the functioning of the People’s Majlis shall specify the principles and procedures concerning a resolution to remove the President or Vice President from office as provided in this Constitution.”

Unless a clause added to the regulation was explicitly in violation of the constitution, Justice Adnan said that he believed it “could not be challenged in any court in the Maldives.”

He further noted that while article 85 of the constitution requires parliamentary proceedings to be open to the public, 85(b) states that a majority of MPs present and voting could decide to exclude the public or press “if there is a compelling need to do so in the interest of public order or national security.”

Moreover, article 85(c) states, “Article (b) does not prevent the People’s Majlis from specifying additional reasons for excluding the public from all or any part of a committee meeting of the People’s Majlis.”

He added that the secret ballot would be taken at a sitting open to the public.

In the case submitted by Fahmy contesting his dismissal, Justice Adnan’s dissenting opinion noted that article 187(a) of the constitution authorised parliament to remove members of the CSC “on the ground of misconduct, incapacity or incompetence.”

Article 187(b) meanwhile states, “a finding to that effect by a committee of the People’s Majlis pursuant to article (a), and upon the approval of such finding by the People’s Majlis by a majority of those present and voting, calling for the member’s removal from office, such member shall be deemed removed from office.”

Justice Adnan argued that an inquiry by a parliamentary committee into alleged misconduct would not be a criminal investigation. Therefore, he added, the oversight committee would not be required to prove guilt to the extent required at trial before making a decision.

He further noted that parliament’s dismissal under the authority of article 187 and a possible conviction at a late date could not be considered meting out two punishments for the same offence.

Separation of powers

Following the injunctions issued by the Supreme Court in December 2012, MDP MP Eva Abdulla told Minivan News that the supremacy of parliament was at stake in the cases before the apex court.

“By its actions, the Supreme Court is challenging the separation of powers that underpins the constitutional basis of governance,” Eva said.

Meanwhile, Independent MP for Kulhudhufushi South, Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed, contended in his blog on December 12 that the Supreme Court did not have the legal or constitutional authority to issue the injunctive orders against parliament.

Moreover, the Supreme Court “does not have the power to even accept those cases,” he wrote.

Article 88(b) of the constitution states: “Unless otherwise specified in this constitution, the validity of any proceedings in the People’s Majlis shall not be questioned in any court of law.”

Nasheed argued that decisions made by parliament could not be challenged in court except in instances clearly specified in the constitution, which did not include dismissal of members of independent institutions and amendments to Majlis regulations.

The purpose of article 88 was to prevent parliament’s decisions being challenged or overturned, Nasheed said, as in the absence of such a clause the Supreme Court would become a “People’s Appeal Majlis” with supremacy over the house of elected representatives.

“If every decision of the People’s Majlis is appealed at the Supreme Court in the manner that any judgement by the High Court can be appealed at the Supreme Court, then there is no difference between the People’s Majlis and the High Court,” Nasheed wrote.

This was against the separation of powers envisioned in the constitution, Nasheed said, which vested legislative powers in parliament and clearly specified instances where its decisions could be challenged at court.

Former legal reform minister Nasheed is chair of the Independent Institutions Committee. Asked by the Supreme Court to hand over minutes of the committee inquiry, Nasheed had refused.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Summary: Testimony of Brigadier General Nilam to Government Oversight Committee

Following is a summary of the testimony (Dhivehi) of Brigadier General Ahmed Nilam of the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) to parliament’s Government Oversight Committee on January 9, 2013.

Brigadier General Ahmed Nilam was head of military intelligence until late 2011. At the time of the transfer of power, General Nilam was commander of the marine corp. In the wake of his testimony to the Government Oversight Committee, General Nilam was suspended and relieved of his duties by Defence Minister Colonel (Retired) Mohamed Nazim on January 18, 2013.

As his first intimation of a plot to overthrow the government through the security services, Nilam took note of an opposition demonstration on January 24, 2010, during which Umar Naseer led protesters to the MNDF headquarters and rattled the gates.

“My field officers [in the intelligence department] said they were seeing signs of something abnormal about to happen. But we could not know what it was, right?”

Nilam ordered the gates to be shut before the protesters made their way to the Republic Square or the “green zone” where gatherings are prohibited.

“I see now that there is a connection between the incidents that night and February 6. This is what I feel.”

In November 2010, a senior officer serving under the Vice Chief of Defence Forces Farhath Shaheer shared information of an alleged plot to assassinate President Mohamed Nasheed during a live-fire exercise on November 11, 2010. Based on the forewarning, President Nasheed did not attend the Republic Day function. The case was sent to police for further investigation.

In late 2011, then-Defence Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaan removed Nilam from his post as head of military intelligence. Within three months, he was appointed to two posts before being made commander of the marine corp.

Nilam learned that Tholhath made the decision on his own without consulting the commander-in-chief. Nilam saw that President Nasheed trusted the defence minister.

In November 2011, Nilam sent a six or seven page letter to President Nasheed expressing concern with Tholhath’s actions. The defence minister was interested in “very quickly purchasing expensive instruments.” Tholhath also made a number of changes to the military top brass, shuffling senior officers, including Commander of Special Forces Colonel Giyas.

A month after Nilam was removed as head of intelligence, his former deputy, Colonel Abdulla Zuhuree, was also transferred.

Prior to the arrest of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed, General Nilam participated in a meeting on January 15, 2012 with the Supreme Court bench, senior police officers and military officers to discuss national security threats posed by the judiciary.

In a meeting with senior military officers a day before, Tholhath spoke about taking the judge under military custody. Nilam opined that any person could be detained if he was a threat to national security. He however advised against moving too quickly and suggested planning and coordination with other institutions.

But the minister wanted it done immediately and asserted that he would take responsibility “even after 40 years.” Police had officially requested military assistance at the time in accordance with the law.

On the night of February 6, 2012, Nilam was unaware that the military was brought to red alert, the highest security status. He found out later from a timeline of events. Contrary to normal procedure, the duty head did not inform him nor was a message sent.

Nilam was having coffee with Chief of Defence Forces Major General Moosa Ali Jaleel when he saw Specialist Operations (SO) police on television running towards the artificial beach. The generals then made their way to the operation room. Both were in plainclothes. Nilam did not have any operational command at the time.

Shortly afterwards, SO officers returned to the Republic Square and began their protest or strike. Nilam decided against going to the barracks at Kalhuthukkala Koshi for his uniform.

“I felt staying inside would be better than going because it was unclear how this was unfolding. So I stayed as I was. It kept getting dragged on and on. And as I recall the then-President came [to the military headquarters] some time around dawn.”

Fearful of the potential threat to domestic security, Nilam remained inside the operation room and returned to the room despite being sent out six or seven times by Tholhath.

Nilam stayed close to President Nasheed, who was asking the operation commanders to clear the Republic Square of mutinying police. Nilam warned of dangerous consequences if the situation dragged on and worsened. He later learned that the military ranks were not functioning and some soldiers wanted to join the mutiny.

Nilam thought that a violent confrontation between police and the military might have been the desired outcome of the then-opposition. After the break of dawn, President Nasheed went out and addressed the mutinying police but they remained defiant.

More police officers kept joining the protest at Republic Square as false rumours began to circulate. About 45 soldiers from Kalhuthukkala Koshi came to the Republic Square. Nilam learned later that military police opened the gates to let the soldiers out.

Military officers also joined the police officers and opposition activists in taking over state broadcaster MNBC.

The president, defence minister and chief of defence forces were issuing orders because “the [military] lines weren’t working.”

“I was really saddened. This was not something I ever saw inside the military. There has been insubordination. There are former officers here [among MPs on the committee]. There is insubordination. But things have never happened like this in such an operation.”

Nilam saw a president in a “very helpless state”, which was “a sad moment.”

“We are entrusted with the duty and responsibility of protecting the country’s independence and sovereignty. It is truly disturbing to see something like that from [the military].”

The situation inside the barracks was chaotic. Soldiers were filming on their phones or cameras although it was strictly prohibited.

Nilam also learned that the military did not have “any control of [presidential residence] Muleeage after 7:00am or 7:30am in the morning.”

Police and ex-servicemen entered Muleeage after 7:15am on February 7. Nilam heard later that some officers of the Special Protection Group (SPG) guarding the President and Vice-President had joined the mutiny.

He also learned later that First Lady Madam Laila Ali was taken out of the presidential residence in a car whose number plates had been changed to avoid detection.

Nilam was surprised and saddened when the CoNI report did not include any recommendations for the MNDF. He believed it was important to thoroughly investigate the role of the military in the events of the day.

“That is because if something like this happens and it is not investigated, the consequences will be very dangerous. We are in that state now.”

Following the change of government, Defence Minister Nazim asked Nilam if he believed the transfer of power amounted to a coup or a revolution.

Nilam replied, “Looking at it academically, this has all the characteristics of a coup. Some signs are what would happen before while other signs are what occurs during the event. Then we have what happens afterward. I have even looked into this and studied this along principles that academicians would consider. So I told [Nazim] that this has all the characteristics. He didn’t say anything else.”

Under Maldivian law, a “coup d’etat” could not be carried out without the military’s involvement as the offence is specified and prohibited in the Defence Forces Act of 2008.

Inside the military headquarters, Nilam overheard President Nasheed refuse assistance from two foreign nations before he decided to resign.

“[The President] said this is an internal matter. He answered both calls in much the same way.”

Considering the chaotic situation at the Republic Square, there was possibility of bloodshed “if it dragged on” and the president’s life was in danger.

Nilam was present when current Defence Minister Nazim relayed the ultimatum to Tholhath for the president’s “unconditional” resignation.

Nilam saw military officers bang the president’s car with their boots while he was escorted to the President’s Office from the military headquarters. He also noted that current Chief of Defence Forces General Ahmed Shiyam took over as acting chief before President Nasheed officially resigned.

“There are a lot of questions here. I believe that this should be investigated thoroughly and looked into. These are very serious matters.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC acted unconstitutionally in assigning panel of judges to Hulhumale’ Court: Speaker Shahid

Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid, who is also a member of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), appeared before Parliament’s Independent Commissions Oversight Committee on Tuesday to answer questions regarding the the appointment of a panel of three magistrates to the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

This panel of three judges were appointed to preside over the case against former President Mohamed Nasheed for his detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed, and cases against other officials from the former government involved in the detention.

Prior to Shahid’s appearance, JSC Vice Chair Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Didi and member appointed to JSC from among the public, Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman, have attended the committee over the same matter.

Meanwhile, JSC Chair Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed has refused to attend the committee on the grounds the matter is related to an ‘ongoing case.’

JSC acted outside its mandate: Speaker Shahid

Speaking at the committee meeting, Shahid stated that he believed that the judicial watchdog had acted unconstitutionally in assigning magistrates to a particular case.

“In deciding upon the bench, the JSC did follow its rules of procedures. As in, it was voted upon in an official meeting and six of the seven members in attendance voted on the matter. The seventh member being the Chair, does not vote in matters,” Shahid explained.

“However, whether it is within the commission’s mandate to appoint a panel of judges in this manner is an issue which raised doubt in the minds of more than one of my fellow members.”

Shahid then referred to the existing legal framework, quoting articles to back his statement that he did not believe the matter was within the responsibilities of the commission.

He quoted Article 21 of the JSC Act, Articles 48 and 49 of the Judges Act, and from the Judicature Act.

Article 21 of the JSC Act outlines in detail the responsibilities and powers of the commission.

Article 48 of the Judges Act states “A judge can be temporarily appointed to another court in the instance that the court is unable to sufficiently complete assigned work, or if the court has difficulties providing services, or if the judges serving in the court has been suspended from their duties. or if other circumstances which may cause a delay in the completion of work assigned to the court occur.”

Article 49 of the same act states “It is the Judicial Services Commission, with the counsel of the Judicial Council, which will come to a decision on the transfer of judges to oversee cases in other courts.”

Article 55 (a) of the Judicature Act states “In addition to the responsibilities assigned by other laws, the responsibilities of the Senior Judge of a superior court are the following: (a) Determine the Judges who would adjudicate the cases of that court.”

“None of these articles say anything about assigning cases concerning a particular individual to a specific set of people. The JSC is mandated with the appointment and transfer of judges. But it does not say anywhere here that the JSC holds the powers to assign cases to specific judges,” Shahid said.

“Hence, I do not believe that the appointment of a panel of magistrates to the Hulhumale’ Magistrate falls into the mandate of the JSC,” Shahid stated.

“The reason why I need to state this here is because the constitution explicitly guarantees the right to a fair trial to all individuals. When things proceed as they are going now, this is being compromised. So I must speak out,” he said.

Responding to a question posed by Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ahmed Abdulla, Shahid said he did not “feel it was the right course of action” to remove then Senior Magistrate of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court Moosa Naseem from the case after he had assumed responsibility for the case.

“Moosa Naseem, who was then in charge of the Hulhumale’ Court sent in his recommendations for magistrates who are to sit on Nasheed’s case to the JSC for comments. This list included his own name. The JSC then replaced all three of these magistrates. Do you feel this was done in the rightful manner?” Abdulla asked.

“I do not think removing Naseem was the right course of action. There should be a good reason to remove a judge from a case from which the judge has not recused himself. I think that is a good issue for this committee to further investigate,” Shahid responded.

Asked about the formation of the Hulhumale’ Court, Shahid answered that his summons letter had detailed that he would be asked specifically about the assignment of the panel, adding that therefore he felt it “unnecessary to even extend [his] thoughts” to any other topic.

Political competitiveness

“As Speaker of Parliament, you have been working with us 77 MPs for years now, in a very politically volatile environment. You are also one of the most senior council members of Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), and we belong to your political opponent, MDP,” MDP MP Ali Waheed addressed Shahid.

“In these past few years, there have been times when we have acted very harshly against you. We even initiated a no confidence motion against you. Now to come back, you have just told us that you don’t think the assignment of the Hulhumale’ Court panel is legitimate. This is the panel which will be ruling on the presidential candidate of your political opposition,” Ali Waheed continued.

“My question to you is, under these circumstances, can you tell us in what light you see the events that are unfolding? Do you think the trial that is being conducted by this panel we speak of can be free and impartial?”

Shahid promptly responded that he did not entertain any political thoughts while serving as a JSC member.

“You have pointed out that I come from a specific political party, and you are right. Nevertheless, I was voted in as Parliament Speaker through votes cast by MPs from various parties. When I sit as speaker, I do not see any political action, and instead work as per the regulations and the constitution,” Shahid answered.

“I sit in the JSC because of my role as speaker, and hence as a rule, I have no right to harbour any political thoughts or mindset in the work I do there, nor will I do so,”’he said.

“In casting my vote in JSC or advocating for different matters in the commission’s meetings, the only focus I keep is on doing what is constitutionally mandated. Hence, even at a politically turbulent time, on a very politically contentious matter, I am sitting here in this chair and telling you that in my personal capacity I believe the JSC acted wrongfully in having appointed that panel,” Shahid repeated.

Chair of the Independent Commissions Oversight Committee Independent MP Mohamed Nasheed did not attend Tuesday’s committee meeting. He was also not present at the last two meetings of the committee where JSC members Abdulla Didi and Sheikh Rahman were summoned.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

President Waheed ratifies controversial bills as AG vows to challenge in court

President Mohamed Waheed has ratified the two controversial bills – the Parliament’s Privileges Bill and Political Parties Bill – despite previous claims that the two bills had several lapses and “unconstitutional” elements.

Following the President’s initial vetoing of the two bills, parliament last Tuesday by a house majority overruled the presidential veto and forced the bill into law, giving the president no option but to ratify the bills – one of which would see the dissolution of his own political party.

The bill took a week before it was ratified, with parliamentary group leaders of all major political parties condemning the government for “delaying the ratification of the bill”.

The leaders claimed that Waheed – whose party Gaumee Iththihaadh Party (GIP) is among the first few parties that would be dissolved under the Political Parties Act if it became law – had a personal interest in delaying the bills.

During a ceremony held in President’s office, President Mohamed Waheed after ratifying the bill stated that he did not believe the bill was delayed in ratifying.

According to the President, the bill had been delayed due to certain punctuation errors that needed to be rectified by the parliament before it was ratified.

He stated that the government received the bill on last Thursday but had sent it back as it contained “major punctuation errors”. This, Waheed said, was the cause of delay as the government had only received a ‘punctuation-error free’ version of the bill on Monday.

“I got the corrected bill yesterday after I had sent it to the parliament on Monday. I have to go through the changes before I sign it. Therefore, I do not believe that [the bills] have been delayed to the extent where some parties should go on strike,” he said.

“It is not that we are facing a huge crisis or a world ending. Neither are we facing a medical pandemic here. So I don’t see a reason for me to rush things,” he added.

Waheed contended that the passage of the bill did not concern a financial crisis or the destruction of a person, and argued that he was not purposely delaying the passage of the bills.

Responding to the concerns raised by political party leaders regarding the bill, President Waheed said he respected the parliament, unlike other political leaders, and claimed that on March 4 (Parliament Opening Day) people would know “who did not respect who”.

“I have been working to uphold the law and the constitution from day one. To uphold the rule of law. So what PPM MP Abdulla Yameen said was said very irresponsible,” he said referring specifically to the PPM’s presidential hopeful and half brother of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

Waheed added that he was advised by Attorney General Azima Shukoor to ratify the bills despite the legal and constitutional inconsistencies.

In the meantime, Shukoor said that the government had withdrawn its previous case challenging the political parties’ bill, but stated that she would file the case again as soon as the bills are signed into law.

“We will seek a temporary stay order against the Elections Commission to withhold the immediate dissolution of political parties that failed to attain the required numbers in terms of membership,” she said.

Deputy Solicitor General Ahmed Usham earlier told local media that ratification of the Political Parties Bill meant political parties that do not have the required number of members would be dissolved without any transitional period.

According to Usham, the state has requested the Supreme Court issue a writ that would prevent dissolution of the parties prior to a court decision or until a transitional mechanism is set up.

“Referring to the legal principles employed in other democratic societies, dissolution of a political party that is formed in accordance with the law is only given on very exceptional occasions,” he said at time.

Shukoor was on Tuesday quoted in the local media saying that the government had withdrawn a case it had filed challenging the Parliament’s Privileges Bill as well.

However, she did not give any detail as to what clauses in the bill did the government intend to challenge.

The Attorney General said that she had received concerns from Maldives Police Service regarding the privileges bill and would once again challenge the bill as soon as it is signed into law, and this time “include the concerns raised by police”.

Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz in an interview given to local media earlier expressed concern over the Parliament’s Privileges bill, claiming the MPs are now “technically immune from the law”

Commissioner Riyaz claimed that the act gives enormous privileges to parliamentarians – privileges that are not even given to former presidents, which he said was “very concerning” and meant there would be no equality before the law.

“The [act] says that no person should indulge in an act that obstructs the work of the parliament. I really don’t comprehend what it is trying to say. I don’t think anybody would know beforehand what the parliament may decide to do. I don’t believe that is possible,” he said

Earlier a joint press statement issued by parliamentary group leaders of all major political parties called on the president to respect the constitution and ratify the two bills without any further delay.

Parliamentary group leaders including Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM)’s MP Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom, opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s MP Ibrahim Mohamed Solih, Jumhoree Party (JP) Leader Gasim Ibrahim and Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali had all expressed concern over the delaying of the ratification of the bill.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“The JSC cannot form a court”: JSC Vice Chair Abdulla Didi grilled by Parliamentary Oversight Committee

The Vice Chair of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Didi, attended parliament’s Independent Committees Oversight Committee to answer its queries about the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court and the appointment of the panel of judges hearing the Nasheed trial.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed is being tried for his detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Abdulla Didi attended the committee despite the chair of the judicial watchdog, Adam Mohamed, disputing that the JSC was answerable to parliament on the grounds that the summons referred to an “ongoing case”.

Asked if he believed Adam Mohamed had acted legally in unilaterally deciding that the JSC would not abide by the oversight committee’s summons, Abdulla Didi responded that he “will not say that the Chair acted against the law,” and that he “cannot make any comments on the matter.”

“I personally believe that we must be answerable to the oversight committee. That is why I am here today,” he said.

Conflict of Interest

Before discussions on the scheduled topic began, Abdulla Didi requested that Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ali Waheed leave the committee.

Didi said Ali Waheed currently had a case against him in the Criminal Court of which he the judge, and hence he believed there is a conflict of interest to have the MP question him during Thursday’s meeting.

“I wouldn’t have felt any hesitation if all the JSC members were here. But since I am being questioned separately, I don’t think it is a good idea to have someone who has a criminal case against him question me here,” Abdulla Didi said.

Ali Waheed said he believed he was not required to leave the committee as per the constitution, but was willing to do so as it was “ethically the right thing to do.”

Chair of the committee MDP MP Ahmed Sameer informed Abdulla Didi that Ali Waheed had previously informed the committee that he would not be asking any questions from the JSC member, and that he was only participating in the meeting due to the quorum requirements needed to have the meeting.

“Abdulla Didi is here as a JSC member, and not as a Criminal Court Judge. Likewise, it is the citizen Ali Waheed who has a pending case in the court, not the MP for Thohdoo constituency. As there is no conflict when viewed in the light of the capacities in which you both are participating in this meeting, I am of the opinion that MP Ali Waheed is legally allowed to stay and question you. I would like to state here that if Ali Waheed is leaving, it is only out of his personal accord,” Sameer stated.

Later in the meeting, Sameer referred to Ali Waheed’s voluntary exit from the meeting as an example of abstaining from action in cases of conflict of interest, and asked Abdulla Didi why he had not similarly abstained from voting on deciding the panel overseeing Nasheed’s case.

“You are a member of the JSC which voted on choosing judges for the Hulhumale’ Court panel of magistrates. You also serve as a judge in the Criminal Court. The case which this panel is to preside over concerns the Chief Judge of the court you serve under, Judge Abdulla Mohamed. Under these circumstances, why didn’t you abstain from the vote which decided upon magistrates for the Abdulla Mohamed case?” Sameer asked.

“I had no such intentions like what you are implying. The short answer to that question is that we did not decide on the panel to preside on an ‘Abdulla Mohamed case’. It disturbs me when you refer to the case as such,” Didi responded.

“It is a case regarding the arrest of Abdulla Mohamed, in which some other people are accused of having committed criminal acts. The case is about them, not Abdulla Mohamed,” he said, shaking his head.

Sameer also asked about alleged conflict of interest in the vote taken by the JSC to continue running the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court itself.

“JSC Member Ahmed Rasheed, who is the husband of a Hulhumale’ Court Magistrate, was among the members who voted to establish or continue the said court, isn’t he? And you voted, too. This is extremely concerning, and so I repeat: the case concerns the detention of the Chief Judge of the Criminal Court by the then government. You are a judge serving in that court. Rasheed’s wife is a magistrate in the court trying this case. Do you think this decision is impartial under these circumstances?” Sameer asked.

Didi attempted to dodge the question, stating he was unaware how Rasheed had cast his vote. MP Sameer, however stated he had seen the related documents, and informed him that four members had voted, including Rasheed and Abdulla Didi.

Didi still insisted that he “found it difficult” to answer the question, or decide on the validity of the decision.

The Vice Chair of the judicial watchdog stated that as a norm, if a member felt that he had a conflict of interest in any matter that the commission was taking a vote on, he would state the reasons and excuse himself. He further stated that if a member failed to excuse himself, and yet JSC Chair Adam Mohamed believed such a conflict existed, the chair would then point it out and discuss with the relevant member an agreeable way to proceed.

MDP MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor asked if any such issues had arisen during the vote taken to appoint magistrates to the Hulhumale’ Court panel.

“I cannot recall if any members declared any conflict of interest. Nor can I at all remember whether the Chair noticed such a conflict,” Abdulla Didi said.

The panel

Didi said that discussion about the panel of judges of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court initially began in the JSC after the then head of the court requested the commission assign judges from other courts to preside in a pending case at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

“Once this request came in, we discussed the matter and proposed names for the bench. We then sent these names to the Supreme Court bench, otherwise known as the Judicial Council, for comment. They decided on those names and sent it back to the JSC. This is how the process went,” Didi told the committee.

“This is also completely in line with what the laws state, I refer to Articles 47 to 49 of the Judges’ Act. I might be referring to the previous Judges’ Act. There were some amendments made to it later, which may have changed the order of these articles I quote. I am not sure, I haven’t reviewed it that much,” Abdulla Didi said.

Article 47 of the Judges’ Act states “If a judge is temporarily transferred to preside over a case in a different court, he must be transferred to a court of the same level as the one he is serving in.”

Article 48 states “A judge can be temporarily appointed to another court in the instance that the court is unable to sufficiently complete assigned work, or if the court had difficulties providing services, or if the judges serving in the court has been suspended from their duties, or if other circumstances which may cause a delay in the completion of work assigned to the court occur.”

Article 49 states “It is the Judicial Services Commission, with the counsel of the Judicial Council, which will come to a decision on the transfer of judges to oversee cases in other courts.”

After listening to Abdulla Didi’s version of events, Sameer presented the information previously gathered by the commission.

“The laws state that the JSC has no right to decided on the judges on a panel. Only the head magistrate of the relevant court has the powers to do so,” Sameer said.

“Now, the Chief Magistrate at this court at the time, Huraa Magistrate Moosa Naseem, sent in three names for the panel to JSC asking only for your commission’s comments. The list included his name as well. Can you then tell me what legal right the JSC has to disregard these three names and appoint three completely different magistrates?”

Abdulla Didi said in response: “We at the JSC considered the important cases pending at the Hulhumale’ Court. So we proposed other names with the intention of assigning qualified, experienced judges. I don’t believe this conflicts with any existing laws. What I am saying is, I did not come to any decision. It was after discussion with the other JSC members that we passed it through a vote.”

MDP MP Ahmed Abdulla asked the JSC member why, if the selection was based on merit and experience, the three magistrates proposed by the Hulhumale’ Court had been disregarded while all three were currently serving as chief magistrates of their respective courts.

“Let me explain. According to the Judge’s Act, no judge had the power to bring in judges from other courts to preside on cases. JSC considers the good magistrates in the atoll… That is not to imply that any magistrate is bad at their work, just that because of the nature of this case, we took special care to appoint the most able and appropriate judges who will treat the case with extra care and contemplate the matter deeply,” Abdulla said.

Didi insisted that the JSC that held legal powers to appoint magistrates to the panel, at which point the Chair of the parliamentary committee intervened and advised the judge to refrain from making misleading and non-factual statements.

“I am deeply disturbed that you are making these comments and passing it off ‘as what the law says’. The law says perfectly clearly outlines the role of the chief magistrate, and that if other magistrates are temporarily being brought into a court, they must be from the same judicial jurisdiction,” Sameer intervened.

Didi also claimed the JSC had appointed the panel after the Hulhumale’ Court requested additional magistrates to assist with their work.

However, member appointed from among the public to JSC Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman, who had been interviewed by the committee prior to Abdulla Didi on Thursday, had stated that the request for additional magistrates and other support for the court had come after the appointment of the panel of magistrates.

MP Ghafoor questioned if the bench had been appointed after Nasheed’s case had been referred to the Hulhumale’ Court, to which Didi replied in the affirmative.

Asked if Didi was aware that one of the magistrates appointed to the bench had allegations of disciplinary issues, sexual offences and corruption against him, he responded that he was not aware of such a case.

When MDP MP Rugiyya Mohamed said JSC Member Sheikh Rahman had confirmed that indeed such an allegation was being looked into by the commission, Abdulla Didi then responded that he had heard such rumours via media and had asked administrative staff to look into the matter.

He later said he “did not believe any of the magistrates on the bench would have done anything of the sort.”

“I cannot confirm whether such a matter exists. The thing is, if we are to consider an allegation or a complaint, there has to be some solid reasons that should support the allegation, whether it be proved or not. If it is a solid and believable allegation, then I might not agree to have him on the bench,” he continued.

“I don’t think just being alleged of anything is reason enough to remove any magistrate from the bench. The allegation itself must carry some weight. However, such allegations can only be cleared once the relevant authority investigates it. So, I do believe any such investigations must be expedited. I don’t see any reason why such a magistrate cannot sit on the panel in the meantime.”

Is the Hulhumale court legitimate?

Asked directly whether Abdulla Didi believed the court to be a legitimate entity, he answered, “I am not saying it is a legitimate court. Then again, nor I am I saying it is illegitimate. All I can say is I don’t believe it will be liquidated.”

“I think the JSC cannot establish a court through a vote. I can’t really recall the law too well at this moment, but the JSC certainly cannot form a court,” Abdulla Didi confirmed in response to a question posed by Sameer.

Sameer then asked if the Vice Chair of JSC had cast his vote on the matter of forming the Hulhumale’ Court.

“That’s a huge misunderstanding. We never voted to form a court. We voted to establish that, in accordance with the laws, the Hulhumale’ Court will not be automatically cancelled. The court was in existence even before [the vote],” Abdulla Didi answered.

However, Sameer challenged Abdulla Didi’s statement. He stated that in 2007, the President’s Office had created an administrative office called the Hulhumale’ Courts Section, and not a court, saying that the existence of a magistrate court in Hulhumale’ is not noted on any paperwork.

“We have documents proving that after the ratification of the Judicature Act, that under a decision of the JSC itself, the budget, stamp and even staff of this Hulhumale’ Court Section office were transferred to the Family Court in Male’. And then, out of the blue, your commission decided there is a Magistrate Court in Hulhumale’,” Sameer stated.

“You are aware that a case against the Hulhumale’ Court was filed in a lower court. The JSC then referred it to the Supreme Court. Then JSC Chair Adam Mohamed, who is a Supreme Court Judge, cast the deciding vote on the case. Do you believe this was conducted in due process?” Sameer asked.

Abdulla Didi refused to answer the question on the grounds that he could comment on a decision of the Supreme Court. He said “there is no way I can call that a bad ruling.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament could force journalists to reveal sources under new Privileges Act, warn police, MJA

The Maldives Journalist Association (MJA) and Maldives Police Service have both expressed concern over the recently passed Parliamentary Privileges Act.

The bill was forced into law last week after parliamentarians voted by a majority of 41 to overrule a previous presidential veto. The Majlis had originally approved the bill and sent it for ratification on December 27, 2012.

The bill was later returned by President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik.

In a statement released on Sunday (March 10), the MJA claimed the legislation posed serious challenges for free and independent journalism.  The association therefore urged parliament to “immediately” change the extra-constitutional clauses that it said compromised the rights and freedom given to journalists by the constitution.

MJA contended that stipulations stated in Section 17(a) of the act – which concerns the summoning of parties to give witness to parliament or its committees – meant that journalists could be forced by the parliament to reveal their sources. The association contended that such a clause to provide sources would undermine Article 28 of the Maldives Constitution.

Section 17(a) of the Parliamentary Privileges Act states: “[Parliament or a Parliamentary Committee has the power to] summon anyone to parliament or one of its committees to give witness or to hand over any information which the parliament wish to seek.”

However, Article 28 of the constitution states – “Everyone has the right to freedom of the press, and other means of communication, including the right to espouse, disseminate and publish news, information, views and ideas. No person shall be compelled to disclose the source of any information that is espoused, disseminated or published by that person.”

The MJA, in its statement, claimed that such contradictions gave “reason for doubt” on the legality of the stated article of the Parliamentary Privileges Act.

It also claimed that certain clauses of the act were too vague and ambiguous, and could leave questions as to how a person can violate the privilege of the parliament open to interpretation.

The association claimed former President Mohamed Nasheed’s administration had previously tried to limit instances where journalists faced criminal prosecutions.

However, in its most recent statement, the MJA said it questioned whether Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) had now changed its stand towards the issue.

The Parliamentary Privileges Act was passed with bipartisan support including that of the opposition MDP, which presently holds the largest number of elected officials in parliament.

Police concerns

Meanwhile, Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz in an interview given to local media also expressed concern over the act, claiming the MPs are now “technically immune from the law”.

The commissioner of police stated that the act meant police would not be allowed to arrest a parliamentarian even if he was involved in severe corruption and bribery.

Section 3(b) of the Privileges Act states: “A member of parliament should not be arrested while he is on his way to execute his parliamentary duties or while he is inside the premises of the parliament or while he is on his way from the parliament. However, the section does not obstruct arresting a member of parliament who is found committing a crime and the due legal process involving the arrest.”

In the event that an MP has to be arrested under different circumstances, police must provide a court order obtained through an application by the Prosecutor General, according to the act.

Commissioner Riyaz claimed that the act gives enormous privileges to parliamentarians – privileges that are not even given to former presidents, which he said was “very concerning” and meant there would be no equality before the law.

“The [act] says that no person should indulge in an act that obstructs the work of the parliament. I really don’t comprehend what it is trying to say. I don’t think anybody would know beforehand what the parliament may decide to do. I don’t believe that is possible,” he said.

Riyaz further stated that he had requested Attorney General Azima Shukoor find a solution through the Supreme Court concerning the sections which obstructed the execution of police duty.

“The law even does not bar judges from being taken in for questioning. But according to this act, it seems to claim that MPs cannot be arrested at all,” he said.

He further criticised the bill for including the punishment of imprisonment for the offence of violating parliamentary privilege, stating that such criminalisation did not fit with modern democratic practices and standards.

According to the act, a person found guilty of committing offences deemed disrespectful towards parliament, or that interferes with the Majlis work, would face a fine or a jail sentence of between three to six months.

It further stipulates that members of the public found guilty of disruption while attending the People’s Majlis to view proceedings would either be fined between MVR 500 (US$32) or MVR 1000 (US$65) or sentenced to jail for three to six months.

Moreover, persons found guilty of providing false information to the parliament or any of its committees would be fined an amount between MVR 3,000 (US$195) and MVR 10,000 (US$650) or sentenced to three to six months in jail.

Parliament Counsel General Fathimath Filza was not responding at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)