Tag: parliament

President Waheed commences tour of Gaafu Alifu Atoll

President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan has commenced a series of visits to islands in Gaafu Alifu Atoll as part of a tour designed to try outline the key concerns and issues faced by local residents, according to the President’s Office website.

Addressing islanders in Dhevvadhoo, Nilandhoo, Gemanafushi and Kan’duhulhudhoo, President Waheed noted that many islanders in the atoll were still waiting on the provision of basic facilities.

Clean drinking water, efficient sewerage systems and developed harbours were among many of the requests made, the President’s Office website stated.

Whilst noting that these facilities are basic rights, Waheed told the inhabitants of Dhevvadhoo that the government was committed to accommodate these needs.

However, speaking in Kan’duhulhudhoo, Waheed admitted that a lot of the time was given to less important things.

Waheed also noted the importance at present for Maldivians to minimise internal conflicts, lessen political colours and instead raise the national flag above all voices.

Waheed’s visit to Gaafu Alifu Atoll comes after the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) – including former President Mohamed Nasheed – recently completed their ‘Journey of Pledges’ to the northern Atolls of the country.

The MDP visited over 40 islands to hear the needs of people, and to find out how many of their pledges had been fulfilled both during Nasheed’s presidency and after his controversial transfer of power on February 7.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP requests parliament look into alleged police cover-up of bystander’s death

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) filed a motion Wednesday (December 12) asking parliament to look into the death of Abdulla Gasim Ibrahim, accusing the Maldives Police Service of a cover-up.

Leaked CCTV footage released in early December threw into dispute the official police account of 43-year-old Gasim’s death. Police had initially stated that he had died due to injuries caused in a motorcycle accident, while the footage appears to reveal that a police officer had some involvement in the incident.

In the footage, a police officer is seen attempting to stop a speeding motorcycle suspected of being used by thieves to flee a crime scene.  Using his baton, the officer in the footage appears to hit out at the vehicle’s driver, causing him to lose control of the bike that then collides with Gasim’s motorcycle.

The MDP has submitted a motion to the parliament asking the Committee on Oversight of the Executive to look into the matter, and hold those responsible accountable.

“The police have not shared details of the actual events with either the family or the public. The video footage that was leaked shows that things happened in a way absolutely contrary to the initial reports. That is why we have submitted the motion and asked the parliament to look into this and make the authorities answerable to this,” MDP MP Mohamed Aslam said.

The motion was submitted by Mohamed Aslam and supported by MPs Ilyas Labeeb and Mohamed Rasheed – all from the same party.

Police Integrity Commission (PIC) President Abdulla Waheed stated today that he was out of Male’ on an official trip and was unaware of case proceedings at the moment.

Meanwhile PIC Director General Fathimath Sarira, speaking to Minivan News on December 3, has stated that the commission had previously received the footage and an investigation was nearing the point of conclusion.

Gasim’s family has said they have received no updates to date on how the case was proceeding either from the PIC or the police.

“I don’t know what else we can do. [police] are elusive and very slow, which is why we keep calling back. All I want is justice,” Naseema Khaleel, Gasim’s wife previously stated.

Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) Vice President Ahmed Tholal was not responding to calls at the time of press.

The MDP and former President Mohamed Nasheed had previously also released statements condemning the alleged cover-up of the incident, calling on Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz to take responsibility for the matter.

“I am shocked and appalled by the leaked video, which appears to show a policeman hitting a motorcyclist in the head with a baton, which led to the death of an innocent bystander,” Nasheed stated at the time.

“Under [President Mohamed] Waheed’s administration, we are seeing a return to the thuggish brutality of Maldives’ authoritarian past. I implore the international community to pressure the Waheed government to immediately and impartially investigate this case, to bring human rights abusers in the security forces to book, to cease its harassment of opposition members, and hold early elections so democracy can be restored.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Gayoom labels MDP revolution motion illegal

Former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom has labelled the motion passed by the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) to overthrow the government through a revolution as a “criminal offence”.

Speaking to reporters at a ceremony held at the Progressive Party of Maldives’s (PPM) office, Gayoom – who is the interim President of PPM – insisted that the MDP would not be successful in overthrowing the present government.

“The constitution in any country won’t permit a government to be overthrown from the street. Even in the US, UK, France or India such a thing won’t be allowed, so it is a dangerous notion. In truth they have committed a criminal offence,” Gayoom was quoted as saying by the Haveeru news service.

According to Gayoom, the MDP’s announcement to commit the offence must carry the due penalty, stressing that the idea to bring about a revolution cannot be entertained.

“It is in offence to even speak of such a thing,” he added.

The MDP has insisted that the government of former President Mohamed Nasheed had been removed through a “coup d’etat” on February 7. However, Gayoom denounced these claims, adding that the then President, Mohamed Nasheed had resigned of his own free will.

“He wasn’t taken to a place, tied up and forced. He went home after resigning on television, in front of the people. That does not to constitute to overthrowing a government from the street,” he explained.

The ex-President further said that based on the present political environment in the Maldives “there were no means or chance” to bring about a revolution.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament tables no-confidence motion against Defence Minister in defiance of Supreme Court injunction

Parliament announced today that a no-confidence motion filed against Defence Minister Colonel (Retired) Mohamed Nazim has been tabled despite a Supreme Court injunction ordering parliament to halt pending no-confidence votes.

The People’s Majlis secretariat revealed that Defence Minister Nazim has been given the required 14-day notice and his ministry also duly informed by Speaker Abdulla Shahid.

Article 101(a) of the constitution states, “At least fourteen days notice of the debate in the People’s Majlis concerning a motion under article (a) shall be given to the concerned member of the cabinet, and he shall have the right to defend himself in the sittings of the People’s Majlis, both orally and in writing.”

The move comes in apparent defiance of an injunction or stay order issued by the Supreme Court to halt conducting no-confidence votes through secret ballot, pending a ruling by the apex court on the constitutionality of the secret vote.

Speaker Abdulla Shahid and Parliament’s Counsellor General Fathimath Filza were not responding to calls from Minivan News at time of press.

The injunction (Dhivehi) was issued in a case filed by Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) council member and lawyer of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, Mohamed Waheed Ibrahim ‘Wadde’.

Waheed contended that secret votes were unlawful as article 85 of the constitution states that the People’s Majlis or any of its committees “may decide to exclude the public and the press from all or any part of the proceedings if there is a compelling need to do so in the interests of public order or national security.”

Waheed requested the Supreme Court specify the constitutional measure to determine a two-third majority of parliament – required to impeach the president – and to declare that the Majlis decision to approve a secret ballot was unconstitutional.

On December 3, 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.

MPs of the government-aligned Jumhooree Party (JP) and Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) joined the formerly ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) to vote the amendment through.

The no-confidence motion against Defence Minister Nazim was submitted by the MDP earlier this month on the grounds that he misused his authority as acting Transport Minister by using the military to influence termination of commercial contracts.

The MDP has also submitted a no-confidence motion to impeach President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik.

The no-confidence motion against Nazim was filed with the signatures of 17 MPs, according to the Majlis secretariat.

Under article 101(a), “A motion expressing want of confidence in a member of the Cabinet may be moved in the People’s Majlis, under the hand of at least ten members, specifying the reasons.”

“Challenging separation of powers”

In a separate ruling, the Supreme Court also issued an injunction ordering parliament not to appoint a new member to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) pending a ruling on the legality of parliament’s dismissal of the CSC’s former chair, Mohamed Fahmy Hassan.

Fahmy had filed a case contesting the legality of his removal from the independent institution on November 20 on the grounds that he had allegedly sexual harassed a female employee.

“What is at stake is the supremacy of the parliament as the representative of the people. By its actions, the Supreme Court is challenging the separation of powers that underpins the constitutional basis of governance,” MDP MP Eva Abdulla told Minivan News yesterday.

In its stay orders, the Supreme Court referred to article 144(b) of the constitution, which states: “When deciding a constitutional matter within its jurisdiction, a court may in connection with a declaration pursuant to the article make any order that is just and equitable, including an […] suspending the declaration of invalidity (of a statute, regulation or action due to inconsistency with the Constitution) for any period and on any conditions, to allow the competent authority to correct the defect.”

Kutti NasheedMeanwhile, Independent MP for Kulhudhufushi South, Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed, contended in his blog yesterday (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.

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.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court issues injunction to withhold no confidence vote on president

The Supreme Court has issued an injunction ordering parliament to withhold the impending no-confidence motions against both Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim and President Mohamed Waheed Hassan.

The ruling was made after a case concerning the legality of the no confidence motions had been filed by Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) council member and lawyer Mohamed ‘Wadde’ Waheed Ibrahim.

The Supreme Court in its injunction today ordered parliament to withhold the no-confidence motion until it could decide on the legality of the matter after looking into the “necessary constitutional principles that had to be followed”.

Earlier this month, Ibrahim filed the case in the Supreme Court contending that the parliament’s decision to make impeachment votes a secret ballot was unlawful.

Speaking to local media after filling the case, Ibrahim said that Article 85 of the constitution clearly articulates that a session of parliament can only be held in ‘closed doors’ only if the issue debated in parliament concerns the national security of the state and if not the sessions should be held open to public.

He said therefore parliament does not have the authority to come to a decision outside its jurisdiction laid down in the constitution and sought the Supreme Court to invalidate the decision.

No-confidence motion

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) had proposed a no-confidence motion against President Mohamed Waheed Hassan in October claiming that the police and the military had “brutalised” its supporters on February 8 under direct orders from the president himself.

The MDP also alleged that President Waheed had destroyed the sensitive economy of the nation and adversely impacting investor confidence in the Maldives.

Other reasons, the MDP alleged, included the failure of President Waheed’s administration to curb gang violence in the country, as well as his government taking a loan worth MVR 300 million (US$19.5 million) from the Bank of Maldives (BML) without prior approval from parliament – a violation of Public Finance Act and Public Finance Regulation.

The MDP subsequently proposed the amendment to parliamentary regulation which would pave the way for a secret ballot in the vote to impeach President Waheed. However, the first attempt, despite approval from parliament’s General Affairs Committee was defeated in parliament by 39 to 34 votes.

Parliament this month passed the amendment when it was again re-submitted and approved with a 41 to 34 majority. The approval was backed by two government aligned parties, the Jumhoree Party (JP) and Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP).

Legality of two DRP seats

Meanwhile, Ibrahim has also raised doubts over the legality of the secret ballot decision, claiming it was passed by the votes cast by two DRP MPs Ahmed Nashiz and Ali Azim, whose seats he claimed were in question.

JP’s Policy and Legal Committee member Mohamed Haleem Ali had previously filed a case in the Supreme Court asking it to rule the concerned parliamentarians “unfit to stay in their elected seats” over the Bank of Maldives (BML)’s foreclosure on their loans.

“The Civil Court’s ruling number 935 of 2009 asks them to pay back the debts to BML. They didn’t. So I have submitted this case in accordance with subclause one of Article 73(c) and 74 of the constitution,” Haleem said at the time.

Subclause 1 of Article 73 of the Constitution of the Maldives states that a candidate for membership or a sitting member of the parliament would be disqualified if he has a decreed debt which is not being paid as per court rulings.

Article 74 states that any question concerning the qualifications or removal of a member of the People’s Majlis shall be determined by the Supreme Court.

Both MPs Nashiz and Azim were elected to parliament in 2009 general elections, the same year in which the civil court ordered them to pay the BML debts. The case was accepted by Supreme Court on December 10.

Supreme Court decision ‘void ab initio’: Ibra

Following the decision, former MP and Chair of Drafting Committee of Constitutional Assembly (Special Majlis) Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail stated that the decision was “void ab initio” (void from the beginning).

“They cannot suspend the decisions of the parliament. Parliament should not adhere to the decisions of Supreme Court,” he said.

“Parliament is free to conduct its business anyway they want to. Only the public can reprimand the parliament,” he added.

Counsel General of Parliament Fathimath Filza and Parliamentary Speaker Abdulla Shahid were not responding to calls at time of press.

No one should meddle with the courts: Supreme Court

In a previous bid, the Supreme Court issued an order quashing the decision of Parliament’s Independent Institutions Oversight Committee to not recognize the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Supreme Court in the order stated that while the Maldivian constitutional system broadly entertained the principle of separation of powers, no one power of the state can go beyond the limits set out in the constitution.

“According to articles 5, 6 and 7 of the constitution that came to force on 7 August 2008, the Maldivian constitutional system has explicitly set out that the executive power, legislative power and the judicial power is independent from one another and the boundaries of each power being clearly set out, it is unconstitutional for one power of the state to go beyond its constitutional boundaries as stated in article 8 of the constitution,” read the order.

The Supreme Court also in its order maintained that as per the constitution, the judicial power of the state was the sole constitutional authority in settling legal disputes between the institutions of the state or private parties.

“The judiciary established under the constitution is an independent and impartial institution and that all public institutions shall protect and uphold this independence and impartiality and therefore no institution shall interfere or influence the functioning of the courts,” it added.

Speaking to Minivan News yesterday, Former Foreign Minister and UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Iran Dr Ahmed Shaheed identified the “pathetic state of the judiciary” as one of the key human rights concerns he believed needed to be addressed in the Maldives.

“[The judiciary] is not only corrupt, but also coming under the influence of radical Islam, even to the extent of violating codified laws of the Maldives and clear international obligations,” Dr Shaheed claimed yesterday.

“Disregard for rule of law has also meant that a culture of impunity is deeply entrenched, rendering many of the human rights of the people meaningless.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Government agreed to waive taxes for Nexbis, reveals Parliament’s Finance Committee

The Maldivian government agreed to waive taxes for Nexbis as part of the controversial border control agreement signed with the Malaysia-based mobile security provider, parliament’s Finance Committee has revealed.

The People’s Majlis secretariat explained in a statement yesterday (December 11) that the committee has sent a letter to President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik noting the findings of an inquiry to determine the possible financial burden on the state due to the Nexbis deal.

“The Finance Committee told the President that the ties and cooperation between state institutions necessary for the border control system was non-existent,” the Majlis press release read.

The Finance Ministry meanwhile informed the public accounts oversight committee on November 13 that it has yet to receive a copy of the border control agreement.

The committee observed that the government had “not considered” that tax exemption was within the legislative powers of parliament.

Moreover, the committee noted that “no government department has to date” initiated any effort to approve waiving taxes for the Malaysian company.

The Finance Committee also informed the President that the relevant government authorities lacked “authentic and valid information” of the border control project.

The committee further noted that the relevant authorities did not offer “adequate cooperation” in providing information for the inquiry.

In a letter to the Finance Committee on November 1, the Immigration Department explained that the border control system agreement was signed before the Business Profit Tax (BPT) came into effect.

However, the government agreed to exempt Nexbis from the tax with a final decision to be made by the Finance Ministry, the Immigration Department said.

Nexbis deal

Speaking at a rally last month, parliament’s Minority Leader MP Abdulla Yameen called on the government to “immediately” terminate the agreement with Nexbis and contended that the project was detrimental to the state.

The parliamentary group leader of the government-aligned Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) also criticised the government’s “hesitancy” to cancel the agreement despite the Anti-Corruption Commission’s (ACC’s) findings of alleged corruption in the deal.

Local media meanwhile reported that the Finance Committee had decided during a closed-door session last month to instruct the executive to halt the project.

The decision would however have to be approved through a vote on the Majlis floor following consideration of a report by the committee.

In September, the ACC informed the committee that the deal would cost the Maldives MVR 2.5 billion (US$162 million) in potential lost revenue over the lifetime of the contract.

Following its investigation into alleged corruption in awarding of the contract to Nexbis, the ACC requested the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) press criminal charges against former Controller of Immigration Ilyas Hussain, brother-in-law of President Waheed.

Almost a year after the case was forwarded to the PGO however, no charges have been pressed against the former immigration chief to date.

The ACC alleged that Ilyas Hussain had abused his authority for undue financial gain.

Ilyas – a senior member of Dr Waheed’s Gaumee Ihtihad Party (GIP) – was transferred from the post under former President Mohamed Nasheed when the corruption allegations first surfaced.

His successor Abdulla Shahid expressed concern with both the cost and necessity of the project, calculating that with continued growth in tourist numbers, Nexbis would be earning US$200 million in revenue over the 20-year lifespan of the agreement.

Following Dr Waheed’s swearing-in as president on February 7, Ilyas was reappointed controller of immigration. He was however replaced in May with Dr Mohamed Ali and appointed State Minister for Defence.

Former President Nasheed meanwhile alleged in a rally last month that Dr Waheed’s GIP’s Deputy Leader Mohamed ‘Nazaki’ Zaki was complicit in any alleged corrupt dealings in his role as Ambassador to Malaysia.

“Before the [border control] system was established, before there was even a contract in effect, I later heard that equipment was kept in some warehouses in Male’,” he said, claiming that the warehouses were owned by Nazaki Zaki.

Nasheed added that he “agreed completely with Yameen” that the allegations should be investigated.

The border control system is now up and running at Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA), after a Supreme Court ruling in September in favour of Nexbis ended almost two years of efforts by the ACC to block the project.

Under the ‘build operate and transfer’ (BOT) agreement with Nexbis, the government is obliged to pay the security firm US$2 for every foreign passenger processed and US$15 for every work permit for the 20 year lifespan of the contract. Nexbis remains responsible for the upgrading, servicing and administration of the system.

Nexbis has continued to dismiss accusations of corruption within its deal with the Maldives government. The mobile security solutions vendor last year threatened to take legal action against any party in the Maldives alleging that the company was involved in corruption. Nexbis claimed at the time that the speculation over corruption in the deal was “politically motivated” and had “wrought irreparable damage to its reputation and brand name.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP announce resolution for “revolution” to overthrow government

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has today called for a “revolution” to overthrow the administration of President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan, claiming it is the only way to have a government that is “by the people”.

The Maldivian Democratic Party’s (MDP) National council passed the motion at Kulhudhuhfushi in Haa Dhaal Atoll, announcing that a five-member “revolution committee” is to now be appointed.

Speaking at the MDP’s National council meeting, Nasheed said: “By taking the initiative to get a people’s government as in the constitution, to have a government that is by the people, the only way is to now bring a revolution. The MDP think like that and I also believe that.”

A statement released by the MDP reveals that the party decided to end the government by “bringing a revolution” after hearing the concerns of the people during the party’s pledge trip.

According to the statement, concerns were raised by Maldivians that Nasheed could be prosecuted for “political reasons” in order to terminate his candidacy, and that the current government may try to sustain their government by using “force” without going to an election.

“This country belongs to its people, and when in Article 4 of the constitution, it says that the power starts from the people. The power rests on the people. And when the coup government does not accept the current government, we MDP agree to end the government by bringing a revolution and forming a government by the people,” the statement reads.

When asked whether he was wary of risking arrested in calling for a “revolution”, Nasheed told Minivan News: “It is very difficult to visualise in the context of a constitution when the transfer of power has been so illegitimate and the consolidation of the coup is also unconstitutional.

“So it has not been very easy to comprehend the actions and omissions in terms of the existing text.”

In response to the MDP’s announcement, President’s Office Spokesperson Masood Imad – speaking in his own personal capacity – labelled the party as “wacko”.

Masood claimed yesterday that Nasheed’s previous comments concerning the MDP’s aim to try and topple the Waheed administration from the streets had been merely an attempt to garner media attention rather than credibly challenge the government.

“Seriously, I don’t think it’s a matter of concern, I would rather not comment on the matter,” he told Minivan News at the time. “This guy is going around saying these things trying to get media attention.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

DRP will not back “personal and emotional” no-confidence vote against defence chief: MP Mausoom

The Deputy Parliamentary Group Leader of the government-aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Abdulla Mausoom has stated that there is no ‘spirit’ within his party to support the no-confidence motion against Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim.

Mausoom said although the DRP would support no-confidence motions against cabinet ministers where it thought such actions were justified, he believed the party would not back the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) in trying to remove Nazim as defence chief as part of a “personal vendetta”.

In opposing the motion filed by the MDP, the MP said that while not speaking officially on behalf of the DRP whip line, he was nonetheless expressing the views of party members and MPs.

MDP Spokesperson MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor stated that the MDP did not wish to make a comment on Mausoom’s remarks but said that it was rather “surprising” for a person in such a high position to “speculate on a party’s whip line”.

“We would really like to see DRP follow a strict recipe rather than a random salad in their whip line. They ought to be clear of what their stand is,” Hamid added.

However, Mausoom dismissed Hamid’s statement, claiming that the MDP’s no -confidence motion against Defence Minister Nazim had been forwarded for “personal and emotional” reasons. The Kelaa constituency MP added that the DRP would not assist anyone in settling personal scores.

“The DRP believe that we have had enough of President Gayoom and President Nasheed. We are not in the mood to support anything that is not in the interest of this nation,” he told Minivan News.

Mausoom contended that MDP would not be able to pass such “personal-vendetta based motions” and repeated his claim that the motion lacked sufficient grounds to support its cause.

“DRP would not be reluctant to support a no-confidence motion of a cabinet minister if there are sufficient grounds to pass a no-confidence motion. We would vote anyone out if we had to, but not on personal grounds,” he said.

Asked if his comments were influenced by some DRP MPs and councillors quitting the party over its recent stand in supporting a decision to take an impeachment vote against President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan via secret ballot, Mausoom denied the suggestion.

DRP MPs Mohamed Hussain and Ali Saleem announced in the media that they have quit DRP over the party’s stand on the vote to make impeachment vote a secret ballot. The parliament passed the motion by a 41 to 34 majority after several DRP MPs chose to vote with the opposition in favour of the motion.

“Recent events that took place did not affect DRP. We have not got any reports that DRP councillors are quitting the party. It is just PPM councillors who had been working in the name of DRP that are leaving the party following the recent Supreme Court ruling,” he explained.

The Supreme Court recently struck down a clause in Decentralisation Act that barred councillors who had been elected under a party ticket from defecting to another party while in office.

“We believe that the current constitutional system greatly distinguishes the threshold of power between the executive and the parliament. We will not support motions to remove cabinet ministers for personal vendettas, because we believe that it is a duty of all political parties to safeguard the democratic values in the constitution,” he added.

Speaking yesterday to local media, Mausoom stressed that his party would aim to leave behind the country’s political past.

“The parliament has done a lot of things with regard to the emotional sentiments of 30 years [of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayyoom] and three years [of former President Mohamed Nasheed]. Several bills, resolutions and cases have been filed. Lots of time has been wasted. DRP will not support any such thing submitted to parliament, be it PPM or MDP,” he said

Mausoom also warned the MDP of an impending “humiliation” should the main opposition party continue its pursuit of the defence minister’s dismissal.

“If the MDP parliamentarians do not want be humiliated in the parliament floor, if they do not wish to upset their grass root members, I call upon the party to withdraw the no-confidence motion filed against Defence Minister Nazim,” he said.

Mausoom, who previously served in the position of Tourism Minister during the Gayoom era, added that the no-confidence motion lacked a rationale in proposing to impeach the cabinet minister, alleging that the MDP sought to intimidate the government.

“The real motive of the MDP in filing the no confidence motion is to intimidate the government and to waste the time of parliament,” he said.

Mausoom stated that despite his remarks, the party had not yet decided on the matter. However, he claimed that the “general conscience” of the members of his party was “not in favour of impeaching Nazim”.

“Desperate attempt to weaken the government” – Defence Minister Nazim

The opposition MDP filed a no-confidence motion against the Defence Minister last Thursday, alleging he had misused his authority as the Acting Transport Minister by using the military to influence termination of civil contracts involving the government outside of due legal procedure.

The motion followed the government’s decision to void the agreement between itself and Indian infrastructure giant GMR over developing Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA).

Defence Minister Nazim, who temporarily took over the transport ministry following the sacking of former Transport Minister Dr Ahmed Shamheed, played a pivotal role in the eviction of GMR agreement.

In a brief interview given to local media following the MDP’s decision to push a no-confidence motion against him, Nazim stated that move was a “desperate” attempt to weaken the government of President Mohamed Waheed Hassan.

“I believe such votes are taken to weaken this government. I do not believe such votes or motions could weaken this government. I believe the current government is very firm and united. There is a very strong between the partners of the government coalition; therefore I must say they won’t be able to succeed in such votes. This government is functioning far better than that,” he told local media outlet Sun Online.

Nazim also contended he had not done anything for which the opposition should impeach him, adding that his appointment to cabinet was unanimously decided by parties in the coalition government.

The defence minister also expressed confidence that the parliament members from government-aligned parties would defend him in a vote.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

President Waheed requests parliamentary approval for loans of over US$96 million

Parliament has begun debate on the MVR 16.9 billion (US$1 billion) state budget for 2013 submitted by Finance Minister Abdulla Jihad last week.

At the beginning of Tuesday’s sitting, Speaker Abdulla Shahid read out a letter from President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik requesting parliamentary approval for loans and government guarantees in the coming year.

Parliamentary approval for loans is required under amendments brought to the Public Finance Act in 2010.

Speaker Shahid announced that the President’s request was sent to parliament’s Finance Committee for consideration and review.

Minivan News understands President Waheed requested parliamentary approval for loans amounting to over US$96 million.

Presenting the budget to parliament last week, Finance Minister Jihad explained that next year’s budget deficit was to be financed with MVR 971 million (US$62 million) as budget support and MVR 1.3 billion (US$84 million) from Treasury bill (T-bill) sales.

Of the MVR 971 million estimated as budget support, MVR 671 million (US$43 million) was expected as foreign loan assistance, Jihad said, with the rest to be made up from “domestic finance.”

Jihad told parliament’s budget committee on Sunday that a large number of T-bills were sold to Champa Brothers – at an interest rate of about eight percent – when the Maldives Monetary Authority commenced sales to private parties in August this year.

Sun Online reported that Champa Brothers purchased T-bills worth US$11 million.

MMA T-bills of maturity dates of 28 days are sold at 7.73 percent interest, 91 days at 7.70 percent interest, 182 days at 7.55 percent interest, and 364 days at 7.70 percent interest.

Budget debate

Speaker Shahid announced that the debate would take place from 9:00am to 5:00pm with intervals until Thursday.

During Tuesday’s debate – which proceeded haltingly due to frequent loss of quorum – most MPs complained of the lack of funds allocated for development projects in their constituencies, such as harbours, water and sanitation systems, additional classrooms and upgrades to health centres.

In his budget speech (Dhivehi) last week, Jihad revealed that the public sector investment programme (PSIP) for 2013 included construction and repairs of harbours in 14 islands, establishing sewerage systems in 11 islands, water systems in three islands, 1,500 housing units in eight islands, 21 new mosques and upgrading the regional hospitals in Kulhudhufushi and Addu City to tertiary level.

Jihad said MVR 3.1 billion (US$201 million) was earmarked for the PSIP, with MVR 1.5 billion (US$97 million) from the state budget, MVR 21 million (US$1.3 million) from domestic loans, MVR 1.2 billion (US$77 million) as foreign loans and MVR347.6 million (US$22.5 million) as free aid.

Speaking first during Tuesday’s debate, MP Ali Waheed of the formerly ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) said there were no funds or projects in the budget for his constituency or the neighbouring island of Mahibadhoo in Alif Dhaal atoll.

The MDP parliamentary group deputy leader insisted that the government should continue implementing the former ruling party’s manifesto.

Government-aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP for Kelaa, Dr Abdulla Mausoom, expressed concern with taking more loans to finance the budget deficit while the public debt was expected to reach MVR 31 billion (US$2 billion) in 2013 – 82 percent of GDP.

Considering the high levels of debt, Dr Mausoom observed that his each of his constituents in Kelaa in the northernmost atoll of the Maldives “are indebted by MVR 85,000 (US$5510)”.

As a consequence of “unequal development of the country,” said Mausoom, there was no sewerage in the islands of Kelaa and Filladhoo.

The DRP MP criticised the administrations of both Presidents Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and Mohamed Nasheed for running up huge deficits and public debts, claiming that public debt “shot up like a rocket” during the three-year rule of the latter.

DRP MP for Kanditheemu, Mohamed Hussain, meanwhile protested over zero funds allocated for the island of Goidhoo in Shaviyani Atoll, part of his constituency.

The MP contended that smaller islands were neglected during formulation of the budget. He added that details of what was needed for the islands were shared with both President Waheed and Finance Minister Jihad prior to the drafting of the budget.

While he did not propose expenditure of more than half a million for the three smallest islands in Shaviyani Atoll, there was “a blank space next to Goidhoo” in the budget.

Local media reported that islanders of Goidhoo launched protests this week over the lack of funds allocated for development of the island.

Independent MP for Vaavu Atoll Velidhoo, Ali Mohamed, said his constituents in Foddhoo have been protesting at the island council for the past five days because the island’s pier was “crumbling” and damaged beyond use.

MDP MP for Ihavandhoo in Haa Alif atoll, Ahmed Abdulla, objected to infrastructure projects for the constituency approved in the budget for 2012 having come to a standstill.

MP Ahmed Abdulla claimed that MVR 10 million from a MVR 70 million loan from the Bank of Maldives had been disbursed but a planned sewerage project for Ihavandhoo did not commence this year.

Meanwhile, at the beginning of today’s sitting, Speaker Shahid said MPs should be “ashamed and embarrassed” that debate was only able to continue yesterday for two and a half hours out of six hours allotted in the agenda.

Yesterday’s debate was frequently interrupted by loss of quorum and was eventually cancelled around 4:00pm. At least 20 MPs are required to be in the chamber for sittings to proceed.

Shahid appealed for cooperation to let all MPs speak before the conclusion of the budget debate on Thursday.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)