Tag: parliament

MPs raise concern over “spy devices, toxic gas, poison” in parliament

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Abdulla Jabir has claimed that security forces have planted ‘spy devices’ throughout parliament, local media reported.

During today’s parliament session, Jabir claimed that ‘information’ had been received regarding the bugging and that security forces were not listening in to the conversations of MPs, a report in local media stated.

In response to Jabir’s allegations, Parliament Speaker Abdulla Shahid said that the matter is to be taken up as a “matter of serious concern”.

Local media reported that immediately after Jabir’s claim, Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) MP Riyaz Rasheed then claimed that he had information that meals provided in parliament were laced with drugs.

“Various effects were felt even yesterday after consuming some of the food,” Rasheed was quoted as saying in local newspaper Haveeru.

A further claim was then made by Milandhoo constituency MP Ali Riyaz, who said that he had received more information that toxic gas would be put into the air-conditioning in parliament to poison the members.

Shahid assured the MPs that the allegations would be thoroughly investigated.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Eleven parties face dissolution after parliament overrules president on political parties bill

Parliament has overruled President Mohamed Waheed’s veto on the political parties bill by a majority of 60 votes.

The political parties’ bill – which requires political parties to have a minimum 10,000 members before they are recognised as such, was passed by the parliament on December 2012.

However, President Mohamed Waheed – whose party Gaumee Iththihaadh Party (GIP) has a membership of just over 3,000 members – refused to ratify the bill and sent it back to parliament for reconsideration in January.

During Tuesday’s session, both parliament’s minority leader and majority leader unanimously supported to pass the bill without any amendments, forcing it through.

Out of the 67 members present during the vote, 60 voted in favor of the passage of the bill while six voted against the bill and one MP abstained.

During the debate on the matter, the government-aligned Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) and Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MPs both alleged that President Waheed had rejected the bill because it involved his personal interests and that his party GIP would be one of the first few parties to be dissolved after soon the law came into force.

However, Deputy Leader of Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) MP Riyaz Rasheed spoke in favor of President Waheed’s decision to reject the bill, claiming that the top four parties are trying to destroy the remaining political parties operating in the country – including the DQP, of which Home Minister Mohamed Jameel and Waheed’s Special Advisor Hassan Saeed are members.

According to the constitution, if a bill sent back to parliament by the president is passed again without making any changes, the bill automatically becomes law without the need of a presidential ratification.

Upon ratification, the bill will provide a three month period for any political party with fewer than 10,000 members to reach the required amount or face being dissolved.

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

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

The legislation passed today also stipulates that the Male’ City Council (MCC) must provide a 1,000 square feet plot in the capital for parties with membership exceeding 20,000.  The plot would be used as an administrative office or meeting hall, for which the party would be required to pay rent.

Earlier, an amendment proposed by MP Ibrahim Muttalib to lower the figure to 5,000 was defeated 59-6.

Of the 16 parties currently in existence, only five parties now have more than 10,000 registered members, including the formerly ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) as well as the government-aligned parties DRP, PPM, Business tycoon MP Gasim Ibrahim’s Jumhoree Party (JP) and most recently, the religious conservative party Adhaalath Party (AP).

Following the passage of the bill, Adhaalath Party leaders claimed the legislation was a direct attempt to dissolve the party and in the long run “eradicate” Islamic ideology from Maldivian politics and “defeat” the party’s efforts to oppose alleged attempts to secularise the country.

“This is a big political and legal challenge [they] placed before Adhaalath Party. The way the political sphere in the country is shaped today, it is very important for a political party like Adhaalath Party to exist,” said its leader Sheikh Imran Abdulla at the time.

However, on Monday, the Elections Commission informed the party that it had attained the needed 10,000 members. The party had carried out a vigorous membership campaign during which slogans such as “sign for Adhaalath party for Islam” and “defend Islam” were used.

DQP Leader Hassan Saeed followed the Adhaalath Party in warning that he would seek to invalidate the bill through the Supreme Court if it was ratified. Latest statistics shows that the DQP’s membership currently stands less than 3,000 members.

“While it is a constitutional right for anybody to form political parties, I do also believe that a right could be limited through legislation. But such a limit should be placed in accordance to principles justified in other free and democratic societies. The current bill demanding a certain membership size in order for a political party to be registered is a big problem,” Saeed was quoted saying in local media.

Political parties were first authorised in the Maldives in May 2005 following an executive decree by then-President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

The regulation required 3,000 members for registration and did not stipulate whether parties with membership numbers falling below the figure would be dissolved.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Illegitimate address by coup president warrants no official response”: MDP PG Leader Ibu Solih

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Parliament Group Leader Ibrahim Mohamed Solih (Ibu Solih) has stated that the party will not be responding to the presidential address delivered by President Mohamed Waheed Hassan during Monday’s parliament opening ceremony.

Solih said the statement held no legitimacy as Waheed himself was an illegally installed president, and hence warranted no official response.

“Waheed is in his position through a coup d’etat. A year having passed since does not change that fact. That is what we demonstrated in parliament today,” Solih told local media.

“We are only obliged to respond to a presidential address given by a legitimate leader.”

If Waheed were to be a legal president, then he would be representing MDP. Were it so, then MDP would not need to respond to the address, and the task would be for some other party. So, in either of those instances, MDP has no obligation to respond to Waheed’s statement,” he continued.

MDP also refused to respond to Waheed’s address in 2012.

Parliament regulations state that the majority and minority parties in the parliament besides the one that the President represents must issue a response to the presidential address within a period of 14 days after it being issued.

Solih furthermore expressed concern over some actions during Monday’s parliamentary session.

“While the session was in a recess, an MNDF officer attacked one of our MPs. I saw this happen with my own eyes. I have already lodged a complaint about this with the parliament speaker. The security officer was removed from the parliament halls at the time. Incidentally, we have also identified him,” Solih alleged.

Solih also alleged that the party’s objective during this parliamentary year was to pass many of the important bills that have been pending for long periods of time.

“I believe this year we will see a lot of productive work being completed here. One of these pending bills is the Penal Code. Hopefully, this bill will be passed as law within the month,” Solih stated.

Presidential Address in six hours, six attempts

President Mohamed Waheed Hassan delivered the presidential address in parliament on Monday through six separate attempts made through nearly six hours.

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MPs staged protests inside the parliament chambers while simultaneous protests by party supporters carried on outside parliament, with thousands of supporters chanting “coup president resign now” and “we want an interim government now”.

While normal procedure during previous instances where a president speaks in a parliament is to fly the presidential flag alongside the national flag and the parliament flag, no such flag was hoisted during Monday’s session.

Waheed was prevented from entering the main parliament hall twice, and he proceeded to deliver the presidential address in four separate installments. Local media reported that Waheed had omitted much of the 17 page speech that had been distributed to media ahead of the parliament meeting.

Three of these times, he was led out of the hall by Parliament Speaker Abdulla Shahid due to disruptions caused by MDP MPs who were echoing the chants of “baaghee” [traitor] inside.

After Waheed concluded his presidential address, MDP MPs joined the street protests which were being carried out on Sosun Magu.

Former President and MDP Presidential Mohamed Nasheed joined to greet the MPs as they entered the gathering to the sound of loud cheering from party supporters.

Before the protest was concluded, MP Ali Waheed addressed the crowd, stating that the party would continue protesting against what he alleged is a “coup government.”

“What we have witnessed is the beginning of the end of Waheed’s coup administration,” MP Waheed told the gathered crowds.

“Just like the old dictator Maumoon had to retreat into his cave, Waheed will have the same fate,” he said.

“The events we saw in Majlis has proven a lot of things. The fact that members from all the other parties stayed quiet and did not attempt to intervene in our protests say a lot. They have said ‘no to Waheed’ in the loudest form that they can while they are still part of this current government,” Ali Waheed said.

“Around 30 of our MPs managed to hold Waheed back from speaking in parliament for over five hours despite him coming surrounded by police and army. There is hope that we will be victorious,” Ali Waheed said in conclusion of his address before the party marched off, bringing an end to Monday’s protests.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

President delivers address to parliament after six hours of heckling

Additional reporting by Mohamed Naahee.

President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik has delivered his opening address to a boisterous parliament amid protests inside and outside the parliament chamber.

Waheed, who was due to deliver the address at 10:00am this morning, finally finished it at 4:00pm on the fourth attempt after repeated obstruction by opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MPs.  Representatives from the party waved pieces of paper at him with phrases such as “illegitimate president” and “coup boss”.

Under the 2008 constitution, the head of state is required to deliver the opening address at the first sitting of parliament each year. The MDP contend that Waheed’s presidency is illegitimate, following the resignation of President Mohamed Nasheed on February 7, 2012, amid a police and military mutiny. The party disrupted last year’s opening session by blockading the chamber doors from the inside, while outside supporters clashed with police in the streets.

A sit-down protest in the afternoon at the Sosun Magu intersection appeared peaceful, although police had barricaded the roads around the parliament building. Inside, local media reported that five MPs left the chamber voluntarily after being ordered to do so by Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid.

Deputy Parliamentary Group Leader of MDP Ali Waheed announced on Sunday that “usurpers don’t get to deliver presidential addresses”.

In his address, an English summary of which later appeared on the President’s Office website, President Waheed emphasised “independence and territorial dignity” and described his highest priority as “strengthening the principles of Islamic faith among the people.”

“Underscoring that the Maldivians have always defended their independence from foreign influence, President Waheed stressed on the sacrifices made by our ancestors with their lives and blood,” read the statement.

“In his Presidential Address, the President noted that the keystone of our independence is the allegiance of our forefathers to the ideals and integrity of the Maldives, and that the foundation of our unity lies in Islam. The President said that our common faith, language and ethnicity were the reason why our nation should not disintegrate into opposing factions.

“Continuing in this regard, the President reminded the people to be vigilant of the patience and determination necessary to maintain our independence and individuality, and to unwaveringly hold on to our Islamic faith,” the statement concluded.

According to local media, Waheed also remarked that the economy had “fallen into a pit” at the time he took over the presidency, with external debt of US$725 million.

Expropriating the airport from Indian infrastructure giant GMR – at the time the country’s single largest foreign investment at US$511 million – had increased foreign currency coming into the country and relieved the dollar shortage, Waheed said according to Sun Online.

Speaking to Minivan News, Deputy Parliamentary Group Leader of government-aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Abdulla Mausoom said that the party would not support such “extremist” activities on the parliament floor.

“DRP will never support such activities. We will support to uphold rule of law and therefore the party would behave and strictly follow the parliamentary regulations,” he said.

He further claimed that “irresponsibility” and “stubbornness” within the parliament would not favour the MDP, and said the party should replace its leadership with “democrats” instead of “rogue extremists”.

“There are a lot of democrats working with the MDP. Many of them are in the parliament as well. But their hands are tied, their mouths taped and their pens capped. They should not bow down to the extremist elements within MDP,” Mausoom said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Translation: PPM Deputy Leader Umar Naseer’s statement to CoNI

This article first appeared on Dhivehi Sitee. Republished with permission

On 13 May 2012, PPM Interim Deputy Leader and 2013 presidential candidate, Umar Naseer, gave an interview to the Commission of National Inquiry (CoNI) on how the events of 7 February 2012 unfolded. This is a translation of the part of the interview focusing specifically on the protests of 6 February and the subsequent events that culminated in President Nasheed’s resignation.

Oh, yes. When this Mohamed Nasheed got power in 2008 he was already accused of being an irreligious man who would shatter the economy and destroy our religion. So, as a senior leader of a responsible political party, we were watching it very closely. The more we watched, the more we saw how he was establishing relations with Israel, what he was receiving from various churches to spread Christianity in the Maldives, how he was selling our natural resources to foreigners, and what he was doing to end our sovereignty.

Watching all this, we were certain that it was incumbent upon every single one of us to end this man’s rule. The question for us political leaders was whether to end it within or outside of the law. We decided to end that man’s rule from within the law. We did everything we could to achieve this goal. Protests, submitting numerous petitions to Majlis [parliament], filing court cases…we did all this continuously.

At the same time Mohamed Nasheed was issuing various unconstitutional orders. Through the government, he was also making attempts to force police and military to follow unconstitutional orders. We know he was doing this. We know a lot of people in the military, the police and the government. They were informing us.

By the evening of 6 February, we had shown very clearly to the people of the Maldives that Mohamed Nasheed is a man trying to spread other religions in the Maldives, that Mohamed Nasheed is a man who was trying to sell our sovereignty to other countries. We were able to convince every Maldivian that he had directly violated our Constitution. It took a huge combined effort over three years to arrive at this point: protests that continued for 22 consecutive nights and the many previous protests, the cases that were filed in court. It had been made blatantly clear to all Maldivians.

So, that protest on the night of the 6th , well that was a protest we weren’t planning on ending.

Before this, by the 2nd, MDP had started bringing out its paid thugs to confront our protests. These included criminals released under the Second Chance [government rehabilitation programme for offenders] and paid gangsters from all over Male’. Before we started our protests, they tried to intimidate us, coming there with knives and such like. So we were encouraging PPM activists and others to confront them.

Anyway, on the evening of 6th February, a large number of Second Chance criminals and gangsters paid by Mohamed Nasheed intended to confront us with iron rods and bars. They faced us at the Artificial Beach, where our protests started near the stage. They started their protests about 50 feet away from us, with loudspeakers. Their intention was to stop our protest. Police intervened, set up a cordon separating the two sides, and remained between them.

We were continuously telling the police that Mohamed Nasheed arrested Abdulla Ghaazee against the Constitution and that he should be released immediately. It was not just about Abdulla Ghaazee; the plan was to attack the whole judiciary.

We had information that on 8 February Mohamed Nasheed would close other courts in the Maldives, send all judges home, and acting on his own, would establish a Judicial Reform Commission. From then onwards, it would be this Commission that would appoint all magistrates. We knew this. The plan, so, was to destroy the country’s entire judicial system. We were sharing this information with various people who were in this with us.

The night of the 7th was the turning point.

If we give them space until the 8th, they would destroy the entire Maldivian judiciary.

On that day we confronted them with our—and their—biggest thugs. If attack became necessary, we were ready. That’s how we came out that night to the Artificial Beach.

The other side also brought out their full force.

The police came between the two sides—why? Because they knew that night’s would be the biggest of confrontations. I notified Faseeh [Commissioner of Police] by SMS that there would be a bloodbath there that evening if he did not monitor the situation properly. Faseeh guaranteed that police would maintain control and peace.

Anyway, on one side our people were speaking, and on the other side, they were speaking over loudspeakers, too. It did not go to a confrontation, but people on both sides were throwing things like water bottles at each other. All of a sudden we saw the police withdraw. I think Farhad Fikry was the main police officer there. I sent him a text message asking him why the police had withdrawn.

“The military are going to takeover. We have received orders from the Home Minister,” Farhaad replied.

I sent a message to Faseeh. He did not reply.

I told senior MNDF officers that the military will find it difficult to control the situation. They don’t have much training in controlling civil disorder unlike the police, an elite force in such situations. We saw the military going in, police withdrawing, and then the military withdrawing shortly afterwards. When we saw the military withdrawing, we knew Mohamed Nasheed’s plan was to get both sides agitated so he could declare a state of emergency.

That’s the plan Mohamed Nasheed had prepared for 8 February to destroy the judiciary: take it under his personal control; sack judges and other appointments made by the JSC; close all the courts; extralegally appoint people he and Maria approve of to the Judicial Reform Commission, which will then takeover all powers of the judiciary. Getting PPM and its coalition partners in a confrontation with thugs paid for by the MDP, causing a bloodbath, and then using it as an excuse to declare emergency—that was the last phase of that plan. We knew that.

I said this immediately to our supporters, that declaring emergency was the other government’s strategy. I told them this is why a fight was being prepared for.

Even as the military began withdrawing, I said to senior MNDF officials:

“We know the strategy. It is to declare emergency. We won’t obey any such emergency,” I told them.

The confrontation was imminent.

Suddenly, we saw Mohamed Nasheed’s thugs begin throwing stones. Our line retreated a bit. Soon, though, our line recovered and advanced with equal force. Throwing stones, we made them retreat. We were in very close combat when we saw police arriving at the scene.

I don’t know what sort of orders they were following, we didn’t know if any orders had been given at all. They came and sprayed tear gas on both sides and separated them. Our troops backed down and moved near our jagaha [party base]. Troops on the other side retreated.

On our side, the command was for our troops to keep advancing without attacking, and to control our territory. We received news that police were running after the MDP thugs. We were still in position when we heard the police had gathered at the Republic Square and declared their refusal to obey unconstitutional orders. This gave us much encouragement.

Why? Because that’s what we wanted. No Maldivian should follow any illegal orders.

We ordered our supporters to gather at the Republic Square, which they did. But the other military came out and stopped them from getting in. They blocked off the MMA area, Chandhani Magu intersection and Bandara Mosque. This led to a bit of a confrontation between our supporters and the military. Tear gas canisters—about 10 of them—were thrown at us. Our focus was on getting our supporters onto the Republic Square, so, we continued to engage despite the canisters.

Suddenly, those Second Chance criminals of MDP I was talking about, and MDP thugs, approached from the direction of Bandara Miskiyy [Mosque]. Armed with iron rods and bars, they began attacking our people near the MMA. Our people retreated in shock. Some tried to flee. But, when the leaders among our people advanced as one group and counter-attacked, the MDP thugs retreated. There was a lot of violence at that point. An MDP person had to be hospitalised.

We learned later that these people had been drinking alcohol. Waheed Deen [current Vice President] was the supplier. At the time, Waheed Deen was a big MDP supporter. It was inside Mulee Aage the plan to attack us near MMA was hatched. Usually they ply these people with alcohol before sending them out. That night they couldn’t get any alcohol, until they found some from Bandos [Island Resort]. Waheed Deen made the arrangements. We know that.

He is the Vice President now, but Waheed Deen is a man who made several attempts to stop our activities. It is after doing all this in vain, and when we heated things up, that he came and joined this government. These MDP thugs, drunk on the booze supplied by Waheed Deen, attacked our line and caused head injuries to about five of our people. One of our main lieutenants got an iron bar in his chest. It wasn’t put into the chest, but it caused serious injuries. About 10 of our people were hospitalised. I was informed of this by our people guarding the hospital.

That was MDP’s first attack on us that night.

Still, we continued to engage with the military. They were firing gas canisters. We kept up our attempts to get onto the Republic Square. Our purpose was to support and encourage the police not to follow unconstitutional orders. That’s a basic right the Constitution gives us, that’s why.

Amidst these attempts came MDP’s second offensive of the night. This was also carried out by a big group of drunkards. We, all our activists, got together and foiled that attack too. There were no more attacks from MDP that night.

The confrontation between us and the military was still continuing. Tear gas canisters were still being thrown. We forced them to retreat, too. Our troops continued to engage with the military. The purpose was to get to the police.

As the sun came up, we saw the military abandon their positions and leave. All our supporters spilled on to the Republic Square. Once there, we worked with the police, really. We gave them all the assistance they needed. We knew they hadn’t had any food all night, they had no water to drink, nothing. We told the police that the water, the energy drinks. All that we were supplying them, we would supply them to the military too, and to any member of the public who wanted them. So, we supplied everything to everybody.

Then, as the sun rose, we saw Mariya [Didi] and some MDP MPs forcing their way into the Republic Square. We saw them shouting at the police, almost assaulting our people. Again, there was a violent episode. Why? Because MDP people came with planks and things. Mariya and them may not have been carrying such implements themselves, but the MDP people who came with them had metal bars, rods, knives and the likes. Our people had no choice but to confront them. There was major violence. The MDP people who came with Mariya retreated.

I was communicating with the Defence Minister then.

I told him:

“Mohamed Nasheed has two options tonight: release Abdulla Ghaazee to respect the constitution or resign voluntarily.”

By then I had communicated with the Defence Minister about four times. The Defence Minister and I, we are very close. We trained together in the military, and we had been classmates. We did all our military training together. So we are very close. We were in communication with each other.

“Choose one of the two options, or face mortal danger” I kept telling Tolhath [to tell the President].

I did not mean that the threat to life came from the police or the military. There were thousands of people gathered there, they were trying to get into the military headquarters. We knew that even if they managed to get in, the military would not dare shoot them. Which means their lives were in danger. Our control was lost at the time too.

Although we were the direct moral authority, we knew that right then—with a crowd that large—things could only go the way the crowd wanted it to. We knew very clearly it wanted: Mohamed Nasheed’s resignation. It was very obvious to us. That’s what they were all calling for. It was not the police or the military who were demanding it; it was the public. The public were demanding Mohamed Nasheed to resign immediately, to release Abdullah Ghaazee immediately.

That’s what I relayed to the Defence Minister.

He suggested that I go in and speak to the people, and asked for some time for the government to make a decision on Abdulla Ghaazee.

“There has been enough time. It has been 22 days. No more time to give. Now there are only two options left. Pick one, or face mortal danger,” I said.

By mortal danger, again, I mean danger from the public, the possibility that the public may force their way into the military HQ.

As these exchanges continued, around 7:00 that morning, we grew certain that Mohamed Nasheed’s rule could no longer continue.

Why? Because by then they had used up all the tools in their possession against us. All their thugs had been used. We had responded to all attacks by the thugs and destroyed everything. We had been monitoring their jagaha. The motivation and morale there was very low. We knew they were no longer capable of regrouping and launching a counter-attack. We were sure of this by about 7:00 that morning. Their last attack, like I said, was the attack by Mariya.

So we were sure that Mohamed Nasheed’s rule was at an end.

The only way to maintain it was for the military to come out and start shooting. We knew the military wouldn’t do that. I don’t think the Maldivian military would ever fire a gun again. They were blamed for shooting someone that needed to be shot in jail. We knew they would never shoot anyone after that. But we also knew they would use rubber bullets, tear gas, every other power technic they could, to disperse the public.

Once we were sure that MDP would not attack again, I said to Tolhath:

“Tholhath, all your options are exhausted. Tell President Nasheed to resign or release Abdullah Ghaazee immediately.”

He did not reply.

Later, around 8:00 am I received news that some of our people were getting ready to go to the airport, to get it back from GMR. I forbade my troops from going to the airport, and immediately called Indian High Commissioner Mulay.

“On behalf of all Maldivians gathered here, I assure you that nobody would attack Indian interests,” I told him.

President Nasheed phoned me on the Defence Minister’s phone.

“I have now decided to resign,” the President told me. “Why don’t you come in to the military HQ and discuss this with us?”

“I’ll think about it,” I told him.

There were many lawyers with me at the time. They advised me against it.

“It’s too dangerous. They might kill you. We don’t know what the situation is inside, what the plan is. You shouldn’t go in there.”

“I can’t go. Tell me what you have to say,” I told Mohamed Nasheed.

“I want to go to the President’s Office, hold a cabinet meeting, inform them of my reasons for resigning,” he said. “You have to guarantee me safe passage to the President’s Office and full protection for my family.”

“It is not our intention—leaders of the political parties—to harm your family or endanger life.”

At this stage we heard [Mohamed] Nazim was inside the military HQ. I never told Nazim to go there. He had not been a part of our political activities, nor was Abdulla Riyaz a part of it. I only knew of their presence in the HQ when they telephoned and told me so. Before that, I only heard of their presence from reports on the ground, but there was no contact between us and them.

I rang Nazim.

“This Mohamed Nasheed wants to go to the President’s Office. He must go there under full protection. Under no circumstances is he to walk.  He must be under full police protection. I would prefer if you took him in a BRDM.” My instructions to Nazim were very clear.

BRDMs are these large military vehicles.

“He will get full protection. He will go there under full protection,” Nazim assured.

This is how Mohamed Nasheed’s request to go to the President’s Office was arranged.

By then Mohamed Nasheed had told us of his intention to resign, and so had the Defence Minister.

We were watching as he went, dressed in a suit and under full police protection. We saw him in the President’s Office.

I ordered our supporters to fetch Abdullah Ghaazee from Girifushi [island]. Our supporters spoke to police on the ground and left for Girifushi on two police speed boats to bring back Abdulla Ghaazee.

“Let’s go!” our supporters told Abdulla Ghaazee. I don’t think he understood what was happening. The police put him on their phone to me.

“You are free now,” I told him. “Come to Male’.”

So, Abdulla Ghaazee was brought to Male’.

It was on TV I was watching all this.

Our troops—that is to say, our supporters—were in Republic Square. Once it was all done, Mohamed Nasheed had resigned and everything was complete, I went to the Republic Square and gave an address standing on a lorry.

“Maldives has been freed of Mohamed Nasheed.” I said. “Maldives will now see a completely different picture, God willing.”

Then we saw Mohamed Nasheed resigning, without any duress, on live television.

That’s how it happened.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police Commissioner challenges Parliament Committee to Supreme Court battle

Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz has declared that police officers will appear before parliament’s Executive Oversight Committee (EOC) only if the Supreme Court orders police to do so.

Riyaz made the remarks in an interview given to local newspaper Haveeru.

On Tuesday, ]Riyaz sent a letter to parliament stating that he will not appear before the EOC – which has an opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) majority – claiming that he had received advice from Attorney General Azima Shukoor not to do so.

In the letter, the commissioner contended that it was not in the mandate of the committee to hold police accountable. Instead, this was the responsibility of parliament’s National Security Committee – known as the 241 Committee – established under article 241 of the constitution.

Riyaz repeated his claim that the parliamentary committee was attempting to discredit the police. He alleged that the committee members were employing ‘bully-boy’ tactics rather than holding the institution accountable.

He also expressed disappointment over the committee’s decision to summon the police officer who struck a fleeing suspect on a motorbike, that led to the death of bystander Abdulla Gasim, 43.

A leaked CCTV footage showed a police officer stepping in front of the speeding motorcycle and appearing to hit the rider on the head with a baton.

The driver loses control and collides with Gasim sitting on his motorcycle just in front of the Justice Building entry, causing both to fly off their vehicles. The police officer retrieves an object from the ground and wanders away, as other police and a military officer rush to the scene. Gasim died of his injuries.

The initial police statement made no mention of police involvement in the crash.

Speaking to Haveeru, Riyaz questioned as to why the negligent officer should be summoned when Riyaz had appeared before the committee on his behalf.

“I have already appeared before the committee and had answered all the questions on behalf of the police, and even the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) has released its report on the incident. What is the purpose of summoning the officer who used the baton?” he questioned. “The purpose is very clear. The purpose, I believe, is to discredit the police institution. They can’t do that under my watch. I am sorry,”

Riyaz claimed that the decision not to cooperate with the parliamentary select committee was made after he observed members of the committee using “foul language” towards police, calling them “unpleasant names” and asking them “unnecessary questions”.

He added that  advice from the attorney general was sought after the committee had turned itself into “a platform to harass the police”.

“After we got the advise from the attorney general, myself and other police officers have now decided not to appear before this committee. If [the committee members] want to change that, they would have to go to the Supreme Court,” he claimed.

Riyaz stated that if the Supreme Court ordered police to appear before the committee, they would adhere to the order.

“My responsibility is to assure the safety and protection to the people. That responsibility falls onto the shoulders of the police. I will not give the opportunity to anyone to harass and intimidate police officers of different ranks. That is why we sought a legal mandate to not appear before the committee,” he explained.

Meanwhile, chair of the EOC Ali Waheed said that even if the commissioner had decided to boycott the committee using the attorney general’s advice as an excuse, the committee did not feel obligated to seek counter-advice.

The Thoddoo MP noted that the Supreme Court had previously ruled that  parliament committees can summon anyone and that until now, Riyaz and other government officials had accepted this fact and attended parliament committees as requested.

In March 2011, the Supreme Court ruled both the Police and the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) should be answerable to parliament and its National Security Committee whenever requested.

The Supreme Court in the ruling stated that, according to article 99 (a) and (b) of the constitution, it was clear that parliament was obliged to supervise every action of the security services and ensure their actions are within the constitution and law.

Article 99(a) of the constitution states – “[The People’s Majlis or any of its committees has the power to] summon any person to appear before it to give evidence under oath, or to produce documents. Any person who is questioned by the People’s Majlis as provided for in this Article shall answer to the best of his knowledge and ability”.

Article 99(b) states – “[The People’s Majlis or any of its committees has the power to] require any person or institution to report to it”.

However, the police commissioner contended that the Supreme Court’s ruling stated that the police should only appear before a “relevant committee” and he did not believe that police could be summoned by “just any committee”.

Speaking to Minivan News, EOC member MP Ahmed Easa dismissed Riyaz’s claims, stating that police had already lost the public’s respect and the confidence once held in the institution, and that there was “no point Riyaz talking about it now.”

“The police lost credibility among the public the day they came out on the streets, toppled an elected democratic government and brutalised the people they were supposed to defend and uphold,” he said at the time.

He also contended that the EOC had the mandate to summon any individual from the executive branch for questioning, and that this was very clearly mentioned in the parliament’s regulations and the constitution.

“If he does not believe what has been clearly set out in the laws of this country, that means he is no longer fit to be commissioner of police,” Easa said.

Abdulla Riyaz’s number was temporarily disconnected when Minivan News called for comment.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police Commissioner, Home Minister, refuse to appear before Government Oversight Committee

Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz has sent a letter to parliament stating that he will not appear before the Government Oversight Committee on advice from Attorney General Azima Shukoor.

In the letter Riyaz said the police accountability did not fall within the mandate of the committee, and that this was rather a responsibility of the National Security Committee established under article 241 of the constitution.

In response, chair of the oversight committee, Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ali Waheed, told local media that the committee will examine the case further with a view to taking action against the police commissioner for refusing to attend the committee.

Ali Waheed noted that the Supreme Court has previously ruled that the parliament committees can summon anyone and that until now, Riyaz and other government officials had accepted this fact and attended parliament committees as requested.

The Government Oversight Committee has summoned Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel and the police commissioner to question them about a previous decision by police to boycott MDP-aligned television station Raajje TV.

The Committee has said it also intends to question the pair about the death of Abdulla Gasim, a bystander who died in motorcycle collision. Police had denied involvement, however CCTV footage of the incident that was subsequently leaked showed a police officer striking a suspect fleeing on a motorcycle with his baton, prior to the fatal collision. Police have defended the officer’s action as in line with regulations.

The Home Minister has meanwhile informed parliament that he cannot attend the committee hearing because he had to attend a cabinet meeting, and said he would then be out of Male’ for the rest of the week.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: ‘Deal’ or ‘no deal’, that’s not a question

With former Maldivian President Mohamed Nasheed walking out of the Indian High Commission (IHC) in Male’ as voluntarily as he entered, political tensions within the country and bilateral relations with New Delhi have eased. Hopes and expectations are that domestic stakeholders would use the coming weeks to create a violence-free, atmosphere conducive to ensuring ‘free, fair and inclusive elections’. The presidential election is tentatively scheduled for September 7, with a run-off second round, if necessary, later that month.

Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has argued that any election without him as its nominee could not be free and fair. They fear his possible disqualification, if the pending ‘Judge Abdulla abduction’ case results in Nasheed serving a prison term exceeding one year. As the single largest political party on record – going by the number of members registered with the Election Commission and given the party’s penchant for taking to the streets – the MDP cannot not be over-looked, or left unheard.

At the same time, questions also remain if political parties can circumvent legal and judicial processes considering Nasheed faces criminal charges. The argument could apply to the presidential hopefuls of a few other existing and active political parties in the country. ‘Criminality in politics’ seemed to have preceded democracy in the country.

The current government could thus be charged with ‘selective’ application of criminal law. The MDP calls it ‘politically-motivated’. While in power, Nasheed’s Government resorted to similar tactics ad infinitum. No one had talked about ‘disqualification’ when cases did not proceed. There were charges the MDP had laid against former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, as well, in its formative days as a ‘pro-democracy movement’ in Maldives.

On the political plane, the reverse could be equally true. What is applicable to others should be applicable to Nasheed. Or, what is applicable to Nasheed (whatever the criminal charges) should be applicable to the rest of them as well. It would then be a question of non-sinners alone being allowed to stone a sinner! Yet, sooner or later, the Maldives as a nation will have to decide its legal position and judicial process regarding ‘accountability issues’.

Personality-driven

A national commitment to addressing ‘accountability issues’ in civilian matters, however, may have to wait until after the presidential polls this year and the subsequent parliamentary elections in May 2014. Political clarity is expected to emerge along with parliamentary stability. The ‘Judge Abdulla abduction case, in which Nasheed is accused number-one, has taken center-stage in the political campaign in the run-up to the presidential polls. Like all issues Nasheed-centric, it remains personality-driven, not probity-driven.

The 2008 Constitution, provides for multi-party elections as well as gives former presidents immunity from political decisions and criminal acts that they could otherwise be charged with during their days in office. In a grand gesture aimed at national reconciliation after a no-holds-barred poll campaign, President-elect Nasheed met with his outgoing predecessor, Gayoom, without any delay whatsoever, and promised similar immunity. President Gayoom, despite motivated speculation to the contrary, arranged for the power-transition without any hiccups.

The perceived dithering by Nasheed’s government in ensuring immunity for Gayoom through appropriate laws and procedures meant that the latter would still need a political party to flag his personal concerns. The government and the MDP argued that the immunity guarantees wouldn’t be matched by similar promises. Gayoom would stay away from active politics for good, so that it could be a one-off affair as part of the ‘transitional justice process’, which was deemed as inactive by some, but pragmatic by most.

Today, Gayoom has the immunity, and a political outfit to call his own. The Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), a distant second to the MDP in terms of parliamentary and membership shares, is expected to provide the challenger to Nasheed in the presidential polls, if he is not disqualified prior to the election. Given that Nasheed was still a pro-active politician when the ‘Judge Abdulla case’ was initiated could be an explanation.

In this crude and curious way, there is a ‘level-playing field’, however the equilibrium could get upset. The question is whether the Maldives deserves and wants political equilibrium or stability of this kind. The sub-text would be to ensure and social peace and political stability between now and the twin polls, where policies, and not personalities are discussed. What then are the alternatives for any future government, in the overall context of policies and programmes for the future? While personality-driven in the electoral context, these things need universal application.

Various political parties now in the long drawn-out electoral race, will be called upon to define, redefine and clarity their positions on issues of national concern, which could upset the Maldivian socio-political peace in more way than one. There could be ‘accountability’ of a different but universal kind. Making political parties to stick to their electoral commitments is an art Maldivians will have to master, an art that their fellow South Asian nations have miserably failed to master.

Reviving the dialogue

The forced Indian interest in current Maldivian affairs has provided twin-opportunities for the islands-nation to move forward on the chosen path of multilateral, multi-layered, multi-party democracy. India has helped diffuse the politico-legal situation created by Nasheed’s unilateral 11 day sit-in in the Indian High Commission. With Nasheed in the Indian High Commission, the judicial processes in Maldives were coming under strain. He and his MDP were losing valuable time during the long run-up to the twin-elections, both of which they would have to win to avoid post-2008 history from repeating itself.

The episode would have once again proved to the MDP and its leadership that it does not have friends in the Maldivian political establishment, which alone mattered. The sympathy and support given by the international community, evident through favorable reactions to his sit-in from the UN, the US and the UK, among others, could only do so much. In an election year, the party and the leader needed votes nearer home, not just words from afar. Despite being the largest political party, the MDP’s political and electoral limitations stand exposed.

On another front, too, the MDP has lessons to learn. Throughout the past months, the Government Oversight Committee of Parliament, dominated by the MDP, has taken up issues of concerns that are closer to its heart and that of its leader, providing them with alibi that would not stick, otherwise. The Committee thus has come to challenge the findings of the Commission of National Inquiry (CoNI), which was an international jury expanded to meet the MDP’s concerns regarding the February 7 power-transfer last year, when Nasheed was replaced by his Vice-President Mohammed Waheed Hassan Manik, now President.

It has become increasingly clear that Nasheed’s sit-in and street-protests by the party ongoing throughout much of the past year, has not brought in a substantial number of new converts to the cause, other than those who may have signed in at the time of power-transfer. The party needs more votes, which some of the government coalition parties at this point in time may have had already in their pool. By making things difficult for intended allies through acts like public protests and the contestable sit-in, the MDP may not be able to achieve what it ultimately intends to despite the element of ‘nationalism’ and ‘patriotism’ too underlying their actions.

The reverse is true of the government leadership, and all non-MDP parties that otherwise form part of the Waheed dispensation. They need to ask themselves if by barring Nasheed from candidacy, they could marginalize the ‘MDP mind-set’ overall, or would they be buying more trouble without them in the mainstream. They also need to acknowledge that without the IHC sit-in, Nasheed could still have generated the same issue and concern in the international community, perhaps through an indefinite fast, the Gandhian-way. Doing so would have flummoxed the government for a solution and avoided direct involvement by India. Subsequently, India was blamed for interfering in Maldivian national politics by certain circles in Male’, but without their engagement, the current crisis could not have been solved in the first place.
In the final analysis, the sit-in may have delayed the judicial process in Maldives, but has not prevented it. Waheed’s government has said it did not strike a political deal to facilitate Nasheed’s reviving his normal social and political life by letting himself out of the IHC. In context, India had only extended basic courtesies of the kind that former Heads of State have had the habit of receiving, but usually under less imaginative and less strenuous circumstances.

New Delhi still understood the limitations and accompanying strains. In dispatching a high-level team under Joint Secretary Harsh Varshan Shringla, from the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), to try and diffuse the situation, India seemed to be looking at the possibilities of reviving the forgotten ‘leaders’ dialogue’ that President Waheed had purportedly initiated but did not continue. With able assistance from outgoing Indian High Commissioner Dyaneshwar Mulay and company, the Indian delegation has been able to diffuse the current situation. The rest is left to Maldives and Maldivians to take forward.

The forgotten ‘leaders’ dialogue’ was a take-off from the more successful ‘roadmap talks’, which coincidentally Indian Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai was facilitating, after the power-transfer controversy this time last year. While coincidental in every way, the Indian engagement this time round should help the domestic stake-holders to revive the political processes aimed at national reconciliation.

India has clearly stated that it has not had a role in any dialogue of the kind, nor is it interested in directing the dialogue in a particular direction. They have also denied that a deal has been struck over Nasheed ending his IHC sit-in and re-entering Maldivian mainstream, as well as his social and political life. In his early media reactions after walking out of the IHC, Nasheed has at best been vague about any deal, linking his exit from the IHC to a commitment about his being able to contest elections.

Any initiative for reviving the Maldivian political dialogue now should rest with President Waheed, whose office gives him the authority to attempt national reconciliation of the kind. The MDP can be expected to insist on linking Nasheed’s disqualification to participation in any process of the kind, but the judicial process could be expected to have a impact, adding social pressures to the party’s own political compulsions.

Courts and the case

A lot however will depend on the course of the judicial process that the ‘Judge Abdulla abduction case’ has set in motion. A day after Nasheed exited the Indian High Commission, Brig-Gen Ibrahim Didi (retired), who is co-accused in the case, told the suburban Hulhumale’ court that President Nasheed had ‘ordered’ the arrest. Defence Minister Thol’hath Ibrahim Kaleygefaan ‘executed’ the order given by Nasheed, as he was then Male’ Area commander of the Maldivian National Defence Force (MNDF).

Didi’s defence team questioned the ‘innocence’ of Judge Abdulla, and contested the prosecution’s claim that there are precedents to Article-81 Penal Code prosecution against government officials for illegal detention of the kind. According to media reports, the prosecution argued that Judge Abdulla was ‘innocent’ until proven guilty, and promised to produce details of precedents from 1979 and 1980, at the next hearing of the case against Didi, now set for March 20.
At the height of the ‘Nasheed sit-in’, the three-Judge Hulhumale’ court heard Thol’hath’s defence argue against his ordering the illegal detention of Judge Abdulla, saying that as Minister, he was not in a position to either order or execute any order in the matter. The defence seemed to be arguing that the legal responsibility, accountability or liability for the same lies elsewhere. The court will now hear the evidence against him on March 13.

President Nasheed, the former MNDF chief, Maj-Gen Moosal Ali Jaleel, and Col Mohammed Ziyad are others accused in the case. Of them, Col Ziyad’s case is being taken up along with that against Thol'[hath and Didi. Like Nasheed did before emplaning to India for a week, Gen Jaleel had also obtained court’s permission to travel abroad. It remains to be seen how fast the cases would proceed, how fast the appeals court will become involved, and whether the pronouncements of the trial court will reach a finality ahead of the presidential polls.

It is unclear if Nasheed’s defence team has exhausted all opportunities for interlocutory petitions, going up to the Supreme Court through the High Court or, if it has further ammunition of the kind in its legal armor. Inadvertently, Nasheed’s staying away from the court on three occasions over the past four months, the last two in quick succession, and his seeking court’s permission to go overseas twice in as many months may have had the effect of buying him and his defence the much-needed time. They have delayed Nasheed having to face the politico-legal consequences flowing from the trial court verdict in the ‘Judge Abdulla case’.

For his part, independent Prosecutor-General (PG) Ahmed Muizzu clarified after meeting with the visiting Indian officials that there was no question of his office seeking to delay the pending prosecution against Nasheed. The PG’s office was among the first to criticize the Nasheed Government on Judge Abdulla’s arrest in January 2012. President Waheed’s Office, and other relevant departments of the government, too has now indicated that the dispute is between Nasheed and the judiciary so they have no role to play, nor do they have any way of stalling the proceedings if the courts decided otherwise. It is a fair assessment of the legal and judicial situation, as in any democracy.

For India, the sit-in may have provided an unintended and possibly unprepared-for occasion to re-establish contacts with the Maldivian government and political leadership after the ‘GMR issue’, however tense and unpredictable the current circumstances. It possibly would have given both sides the occasion and opportunity to understand and appreciate that there is much more to bilateral relations than might have been particularly understood, particularly by the media.

Otherwise, with the Indian media noticing the Maldives more over the past year than any time in the past, the pressures on the Government in New Delhi are real. In the context of recent domestic developments like the ‘2-G scam expose’, ‘Lokpal Bill’, ‘Team Anna movement’ and the ‘Delhi rape-case’, the Indian media has come to play an increasing role in influencing the Government, along with partisan sections of the nation’s polity in the ‘coalition era’, after decades of lull. This is reality New Delhi is learning to work with. This is a reality that India’s friends, starting with immediate neighbors, must also to learn to live with.

The coming days are going to be crucial. The Hulhumale’ court’s decision on summoning Nasheed will be watched with interest by some and with concern by some others. Parliament is scheduled to commence its first session for the current year on March 4, when President Waheed will deliver the customary address to the nation. At the height of the controversy regarding the power-transfer February 7, 2012 last year, MDP members protested so heavily that President Waheed had to return despite Speaker Abdulla Shahid’s repeated attempts to convene the House. The House heard President Waheed on March 19, instead of on the originally fixed date of March 1. A combination of these two factors could set the tone for the political engagement within the country and thus the mood and methods of political stakeholders on the one hand and the election campaigns on the other.

The writer is a Senior Fellow at Observer Research Foundation

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Gayoom opts out of PPM presidential primary

Former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom has announced he will not be competing in the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) presidential primary scheduled for next month.

Local media reported that the former president made his decision via a one-page statement declaring: “I have decided not to take part in the PPM presidential primary scheduled to be held on the 30th of next month”.

Gayoom, appointed president of the party earlier this year, stated that “there are people within PPM leadership who are capable of fulfilling the Maldives presidency”.

Gayoom’s statement comes after he told Sun Online on February 19 that he would announce his decision regarding the party’s presidential primaries in nine days.

“I have made a decision, God willing, on how I will proceed. But I do not want to announce it here.  When these nine days pass, it will be known whether I will compete or not,” Gayoom told Sun Online earlier this month.

So far, Gayoom’s half-brother PPM MP Abdulla Yameen and PPM Interim Deputy Leader Umar Naseer are the only two candidates competing in the upcoming presidential primary.

Retiring from politics

In February 2010, Gayoom announced that he was retiring from politics after endorsing Ahmed Thasmeen Ali as leader of his former party, the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP).

However, in September 2011, the former president opted to form the PPM after resigning from his position as ‘Honorary Leader’ (Zaeem) of the DRP.

Speaking to press back in 2011, Gayoom said he made the decision based on the assurance that the DRP would function “according to certain principles.”

“At the time and even up till yesterday, I was at the most senior post of one of the largest political parties in the country,” he said.

“So how can it be said that the person in the highest post of a political party is not involved in politics? Up till yesterday I was in politics. Today I am forced to create a new party because of the state of the nation and because it has become necessary to find another way for the country.”

As “a lot of citizens” had pleaded with him to form a new party, Gayoom said he made the decision to return to Maldivian politics as “a national obligation.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)