Tag: parliament

MPs reject dissolving media council

MPs voted 53-1 against a recommendation by the Finance Committee to dissolve the Maldives Media Council and transfer its mandate to the Maldives Broadcasting Commission (MBC).

While the vote was taken on July 4, the result was announced at today’s sitting of parliament.  It had not been officially declared due to disorder in the chamber that forced the sitting on July 4 to be called off.

The Finance Committee, chaired by Deputy Speaker Ahmed Nazim, recommended dissolving the media council after studying its audit report, which suggested that the independent regulatory body was not functioning as envisaged in the law.

Also at today’s sitting, MPs voted 33-18 to send a bill on freedom of assembly proposed by Independent MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed to a seven-member ad hoc committee for further review.

The list of MPs approved for the committee were MP ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik from the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), MP Moosa Zameer from the People’s Alliance (PA), MP Visam Ali and MP Abdulla Abdul Raheem from the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), Independent MP Ahmed Amir, MP Riyaz Rasheed from the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) and Abdulla Jabir from the Jumhooree Party (JP).

MPs meanwhile voted unanimously in favour of the Maldives becoming a member of the SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) Convention on Cooperation on Environment following a report submitted by the National Development Committee of parliament.

Speaker Abdulla Shahid adjourned today’s sitting at 2.30pm after quorum was lost during a debate on a report submitted by the Economic Committee after studying amendments proposed to the Tourism Act.

Today’s sitting was interrupted seven times due to loss of quorum before Speaker Abdulla Shahid brought the sitting to a close after quorum was lost for an eighth time.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament committees reconstituted

A compromise agreement between parliamentary group leaders to rework the composition of standing committees was approved with 60 votes at today’s sitting of the People’s Majlis.

Two consecutive sittings were cancelled last week to allow parliamentary group leaders to agree on the reconstitution, which was triggered by opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Hassan Adil joining the government-aligned Jumhooree Party (JP).

Section 101(b) of the parliamentary rules of procedure stipulates proportional representation in the committees, stating that the number of MPs each party has should be taken as the basis for determining the composition of the 11-member standing committees.

The beginning of today’s sitting was meanwhile delayed to 1:00pm as talks continued between parliamentary group leaders to finalise the agreement. The sitting concluded immediately after the vote was taken, which saw 60 votes in favour and one against.

Following days of negotiations and disagreement over control of powerful oversight committees, a deal was struck on Thursday between the government-aligned People’s Alliance (PA) and the formerly ruling MDP.

The PA – led by Deputy Speaker Ahmed Nazim – gave up its seat on the Government Oversight Committee to the former ruling party in exchange for one of the MDP’s four seats in the Finance Committee.  The PA however gave their Finance Committee seat to the JP.

The agreement sees MDP gain control of the Government Oversight Committee with six seats out of eleven.

Meanwhile, the former main opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) has two seats in each of the 13 committees, while the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) has three seats in seven committees and two seats in six committees.

Following the approval of the reworked composition by the full Majlis today, Speaker Abdulla Shahid expressed gratitude to Deputy Speaker Nazim and parliamentary group leaders for their cooperation in reaching the agreement despite “serious disagreement”.  He went on to urge MPs to continue in the “spirit of compromise.”

The agreement reached today, said Shahid, was the result of lengthy discussions last night among the speaker, deputy speaker, Majority Leader Ibrahim Mohamed Solih and DRP Leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Second consecutive parliament sitting cancelled

Parliament was cancelled for a second consecutive day after the number of MPs required for quorum failed to attend the beginning of today’s sitting.

Speaker Abdulla Shahid announced the cancellation shortly after 9.10am this morning as not enough MPs were found to be present, despite ringing the quorum bell for five minutes.

Yesterday’s sitting was meanwhile called off to allow leaders of parliamentary group leaders and independent MPs to reach an agreement on reworking the composition of standing committees.

Shahid revealed today that discussions were ongoing but a compromise has not been reached so far.

Section 101(b) of the parliamentary rules of procedure stipulates proportional representation in the committees, stating that the number of MPs each party has should be taken as the basis for determining the composition of the 11-member standing committees.

Prior to the defection of three MPs in recent months and disqualification of MP Mohamed Musthafa, the formerly ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), with its 34 MPs, were entitled to five seats (45 percent) in each committee.

The present reconstitution of committees was triggered by Maradhoo MP Hassan Adhil leaving MDP to join the government-aligned Jumhooree Party (JP). Adhil was officially registered as a JP MP this week.

Meanwhile, on the recurring issue of loss of quorum halting parliament sittings, Speaker Shahid said today that he would consult parliamentary group leaders concerning amendments to regulations that would allow sittings to proceed with a lower quorum.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed challenges former President Gayoom to also appear before parliamentary inquiry

Ousted President Mohamed Nasheed has last night responded to allegations levied against him by pro-government political figures, during a rally held at the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) protest camp ‘Usfasgandu’.

Speaking during the rally, Nasheed said that he was willing to give evidence to a parliament inquiry regarding every detail about his three year tenure as president.

While speaking in support of Parliament Speaker Abdulla Shahid’s decision to allow the summoning of former presidents and leaders of political parties to parliament, Nasheed dared his predecessor Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, as whether he had “the guts” to appear and reveal details of his own 30 year rule.

“I just want to clarify with the leaders of these political parties: are they ready to reveal the details of their bank accounts to the parliament?” Nasheed challenged.

“I want to clarify with Maumoon Abdul Gayoom whether he was willing to share with parliament about how much knew of the incidents that took place in the country’s prisons during his 30 year regime. Did he order the shooting of inmates in Gaamaadhoo Jail?” he asked.

Nasheed said he wants to know whether Gayoom was willing to clear doubts about whether prisoner Evan Naseem was “shot dead or not” to the people of the country.

He further said that he would ask the parliament whether they would clarify to the people about how the leaders of the political parties gained funding and how they were spending it.

Nasheed said that he was ready to provide every detail of how he ran the country for three years despite the numerous challenges and obstructions from then opposition parties.

He contended that during his tenure as president, he had never ordered anyone tortured and that he had never embezzled public funds.

“I am prepared to provide every detail of my bank account from the day I opened it up until today, to the People’s Majlis [parliament]. I am even willing to cooperate with the Majlis for them to check whether I had a foreign bank account or whether there is any information regarding such, anywhere in the world,” he said.

He added people did not want to hand over the nation’s top office to political leaders who had misappropriated public funds and tortured them in the process, and that it was a duty of the parliament to investigate such allegations of corruption and human rights violations.

“I also do hope that they would share all the details of their oil businesses, their resort businesses, all those ‘Bonaqua’ bottles, details of all those leaked videos of theirs, and as well as all the information with the police to the parliament,” he said.

‘Bonaqua’ was a reference to current Islamic Minister Sheikh Mohamed Shaheem Ali Saeed, who appeared in a video broadcast by MDP-aligned Raajje TV, holding a water bottle and talking to a woman. The station alleged the footage amounted to a “sex scandal”, and claimed it could not release further footage in the interest of public decency.

Nasheed called his supporters on the islands to come to the capital the day he is summoned to parliament for questioning, claiming that people had the right to know what had been going on.

On June 28, Jumhoree Party (JP) Deputy Leader MP Abdullah Jabir  proposed and passed a resolution assembling a temporary committee to investigate the alleged illegal actions of Nasheed.

The motion to form a seven man committee was passed before the session was halted after vehement protests from the MDP parliamentary caucus.

However, yesterday the seven member parliamentary committee was assembled including just one member from the MDP parliamentary group.

The seven member committee includes MP Ali Waheed from MDP, MP Ibrahim Mutthalib from Adaalath Party (AP), Independent MP Ibrahim Riza, MP Ahmed Nihan Hussain Manik from Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), MP Riyaz Rasheed from Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP), and MP Moosa Zameer from People’s Alliance (PA) as well as Jabir himself, who intends to contest the chairmanship of the committee.

“It is important to understand these activities. If we find he has acted against the constitution, parliament will decide on the process that should be taken after that,” he explained at the time.

Arresting of  judge

Speaking at the rally, Nasheed highlighted the decision he made to arrest the Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, Judge Abdulla Mohamed, stating that he had “every reason” to arrest him.

Nasheed said he had ordered the MNDF to make the arrest after Home Minister Ahmed Afeef and then Commissioner of Police Ahmed Faseeh had said that the judge posed a threat to the national security.

He also added that he had several other “legitimate reasons” to arrest the judge, and that he had realised the “depth of information I received from the police and the military and from several citizens”, and that he was willing to “provide this information [about the judge] to the parliament.”

He further said that the reason for an illegitimate ‘coup’ government to take over the country and the incitement of hatred amongst the people as well as failing of the country’s legal and constitutional system, was

The former opposition had incited hatred – including religious accusations – among the population, benefited from the failure of the country’s legal and constitutional system, and ultimately taken over the government in a bid to protect a judge who posed a threat to the national security and the criminal justice system of the country, he said. Police and MNDF had failed to find a solution to the judge, he added.

Earlier, regarding the charges against Nasheed, Deputy Leader of PPM, Umar Naseer expressed his confidence that the Prosecutor General’s (PG) investigation into charges against former President Mohamed Nasheed would  see his imprisonment before the scheduled elections in July 2013.

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

Naseer went on to say that after the investigations of the police and the Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM), the pressure was now on the PG to prosecute Nasheed.

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

Current Home Minister Mohamed Jameel – also the Justice Minister under Gayoom’s government – spoken in similar fashion, telling local media that he was confident “Nasheed will be imprisoned for a very long period.”

Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed was arrested by the MNDF on the evening of Monday, January 16, in compliance with a police request. The judge’s whereabouts were not revealed until January 18.

However, later the Maldivian National Defence Force (MNDF) revealed that the judge was under their supervision at Girifushi in Kaafu Atoll (an MNDF training facility).

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

According to Muizz, police are required to go through the PG’s Office to obtain an arrest warrant from the High Court.

“They haven’t followed the procedures, and the authorities are in breach of law. They could be charged with contempt of the courts,” he said at the time.

After the arrest, violent protests erupted as then opposition parties led by the PPM of former President Gayoom took to the streets in the name of “upholding the constitution”.

The 22 day long protest ended after the toppling Nasheed’s government and the releasing Judge Abdulla, after several police and the MNDF officers stood up against his administration and joined forces with the protesters on February 7.

The MDP maintained that Nasheed was forced out of office in what they described as a coup d’état.

PPM’s Spokesperson MP Ahmed Nihan had not responded at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Majlis discusses cuts to MPs salaries and allowances

Proposals have been made in the Majlis’s Finance Committee to reduce the salary of MPs as well as to remove allowances received for committee work.

The proposal comes the day after the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) announced its intention to investigate the decision to pay the committee an allowance of Rf20,000 (US$1,298) for the month of March – a month in which no committees convened, other than the Finance Committee itself.

Mohamed ‘Colonel’ Nasheed is reported by local media to have been both among the committee members who supported the decision to pay March’s allowance, as well as the progenitor of today’s proposal to reduce salaries and allowances.

Parliamentary activity was curtailed for the month of March after anti-government protesters and MPs blocked the official opening of the Majlis on March 1. The Majlis was officially opened amidst further protests on March 19 before reconvening on April 2.

Kulhudufushi MP Abdul Ghafoor Moosa voted against this decision.

“The administration sent a letter to the committee to make a decision on the payments. The public are not happy about this,” said Moosa.

“Some members of the committee argued that they were prepared to come into the meetings,” he continued.

Moosa said the ultimate decision on MPs pay and allowances would have to be made on the full floor of the house.

The ACC President Hassan Luthfee said that he had received a complaint about the committee allowances decision and was now investigating the matter, adding: “MPs should be more careful. They know about the financial problems in the country. They should be role models.”

Last month, Minister of Finance and Treasury Abdulla Jihad announced his intention to convene a pay review board in order to “harmonise” the pay of government employees in an attempt to reduce the state’s budget deficit.

He also announced his intention to reduce non-wage spending by 15 percent. Haveeru has today announced that the Majlis is cutting it’s budget by Rf25million (US$1.6million) , 11.2 percent of its total spending.

The Finance Committee predicted in May that the year’s deficit was likely to reach Rf9.1 billion (US$590 million), amounting to 27 percent of the country’s GDP.

Today’s proposals suggested reducing the pay of MPs to that of the highest paid civil servants.

The basic rate of pay for MPs is Rf42,500 (US$2,759) per month whilst the highest ranking civil servant receives Rf20500, according to local media reports. This is around the same amount MPs involved in committee work can expect to receive each month on top of their basic salary.

Transparency Maldives’ Aiman Rasheed explained that his organisation had been looking into the issue of MPs expenses since 2010.

Rasheed said that MPs already received a Rf20,000 (US$1,298) per month allowance in phone, travel, and living expenses, even for those MPs who live in the capital Male’.

“However, all MPs are paid the additional 20,000 regardless of actual expenses,” added Rasheed, “We strongly recommend that allowances to MPs must be released based on actual expenditure.”

“The 20k committee allowance is in addition to the basic salary and the living/phone/travel allowance. The justification by the Majlis for 20k is to incentivise MPs to attend committee meetings and to help their constituents,” said Rasheed.

“Some MPs made public statements that they would distribute the money among their constituents and that the money will go towards constituents’ medical bills etc. We at TM think that is plain corruption, abuse of authority and amounts to using state funds for campaigning.”

Regarding the decision to award the allowances for March, Rasheed noted that the Majlis’s regulations stipulate that MPs must attend 75 percent of their committee’s meeting to be eligible for the allowance.

Luthfee echoed these concerns, arguing that changes ought to be made to the way all allowances are distributed.

“In other countries such as the United Kingdom, the MPs travel and then submit expenses after spending,” said Luthfee.

Following a 2011 decision to reject a resolution to cut the controversial committee allowance bill, MP Ahmed Easa told Minivan News that, despite not supporting the allowance, he empathised with the needs many MPs had for additional finance.

”It’s true what they say – MPs have so much to do with their salary each month. People can’t even imagine how many calls a MP receives each day asking for help,” Easa explained.

“Anyone in trouble from any area will run to their MP first. MPs have to lend money to people in need of medication, even for reasons such as people coming to get money to pay the school fees of their children,” he continued.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Bill to amend Judges Act ‘custom fitted’ for former Chief Justice, claim MPs

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and some government-aligned MPs have claimed that the first amendment proposed to the Judges Act (act no. 13/2010) by the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Dr Afrashim Ali, is has been “custom fitted” for former Chief Justice Mohamed Rasheed Ibrahim.

Rasheed was the Chief Justice and the President of the Council of Islamic Affairs during former President Gayoom’s administration.

The bill proposes to amend the article 26 of the act, which describes the reasons for declaring the seat of a judge vacant. However, MP Afrashim Ali proposed to change the context of the clause to replace it with privileges of a retiring judge. Afrashim was formerly a member of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), the judiciary’s heavily criticised watchdog body.

If passed, the amendment would mean that the stated privileges would apply to all judges who failed to qualify as a judge or were retired from their seats under 285(a) of the constitution.

According to the amendment, the privileges entitled to the retiring judges include formal titles and a pension ranging from 33-100 percent of the wages received by a serving judge, depending on years of service.

Judges would further be entitled to a lump sum on their date of retirement, again based on years served on the bench, as well as security services, transport benefits, and medical insurance for the entire SAARC and ASEAN region, also applicable to the judge’s spouse.

During the debate, several MPs raised concerns over the bill and questioned the ‘real’ intention behind its submission by PPM MP Afrashim, at a time the country was facing a huge economic crisis.

Speaking during the debate, Independent MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed – who has been supportive of President Waheed’s government – spoke against the bill, claiming that it was a bill fashioned for a specific person: former Chief Justice Mohamed Rasheed Ibrahim.

“Now all those Judges who were disqualified after the new constitution was ratified claiming that they too are entitled to receive the same privileges  as those who are currently as serving judges. After two years, they are trying to again link to the past,” he said.

MP Nasheed also said that it was difficult to name Mohamed Rasheed Ibrahim on the parliament floor, but that if he continued to pursue benefits and privileges then he has no choice but keep on saying his name.

MDP MP Ahmed Hamza said that he believed there were some “unfair benefits” included in the bill, and that he did not believe retired judges should receive the same benefits as those currently serving on the bench.

“The bill says that a person who has served as a Judge for 30 years should get the same amount of money and privileges as a serving judge. That is unacceptable,” he said.

MP Alhan Fahmy, who recently defected to the Jumhoree Party (JP) from the MDP, said that it was disappointing to see bills being prepared to benefit those who had “hijacked” the judiciary for 30 years, without having provided any betterment or justice to the country.

“We are continuously seeing attempts to protect and find monetary benefits from the national budget by those who were with Maumoon Abdul Gayyoom during his 30 rule,” Fahmy said.

MDP MP Eva Abdulla said that before the parliament began speaking about privileges granted to retiring judges, priority must be given to the quality of judges currently in the courts. She claimed that the MDP government had planned to invest over Rf 300 million (US$19.45 million) improving the judiciary but was stopped after then opposition brought down the government in a coup d’état.

However, PPM MP Ahmed Nihan spoke in favor of the bill, and stated that such privileges should be given to retiring judges and that even if it was targeted for former chief Justice Mohamed Rasheed Ibrahim, he would still support it.

“As a chief justice, as a former Minister of Justice, [Mohamed Rasheed Ibrahim] has done a lot of work for the country. We can’t simply abolish the value of his service,” Nihan said

Speaking to Minivan News, MDP Spokesperson MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor described the bill as “dirty” attempt to give unfair benefits to those that served former President Gayoom.

He further said the party will not stand in support of the bill, and said that he was getting the same impression from some of the opposition MPs.

He also added that this was another attempt to corrupt the judiciary, and that some business tycoons did not want to have justice established in the country.

“This is a nasty thing. The coup happened because we had a crippled justice system. Some of those in the coup government want it to remain the same way. But interestingly some of the opposition MPs have started taking our stand. This can be seen even in voting records for the Public Finance Committee’s report on Aasandha,” he said.

Ghafoor said the bill was likely to be thrown out of the house.

Speaking to Minivan News, former member of the JSC, Aishath Velezinee, alleged that the bill was an attempt to pay back the judges who had colluded in Gayyoom’s conspiracy to bring down democracy.

“Afrashim – who proposed the motion – and Speaker Shahid stand accused in the JSC’s  high treason case pending in Majlis, and have effectively covered this up since 2010,” she said.

“I maintain that the country does not have constitutionally-appointed judges and that parliament has failed to hold an inquiry. Rewarding the corrupt is against national interest,” she added.

In an article written in 2010, Velezinee noted that the parliament had approved the reward “of a hefty lifetime allowance for interim Supreme Court Justice Mujuthaaz Fahmy, removed from the bench at the end of the interim period.”

“Mujuthaaz Fahmy has on record a conviction for fraud committed in 1996 for which he was  ‘convicted’ in 1998. He was the chief engineer in co-opting the Judicial Service Commission as a tool in the silent coup to derail democratic government through rigging state-building [independent institutions],” Velezinee wrote in 2010.

“The amendment to the Judges Act proposed by MP Abdulla Abdul Raheem, a member of the Parliament Independent Commissions Committee, applies only to Mujuthaaz Fahmy, a fact that only becomes obvious when one checks the records locked up in JSC and out of bounds to media and public alike. That the independence of Judges has been compromised -and no independent judiciary exists in the Maldives – is a fact evident to the thinking mind,” she wrote at the time.

Several MPs who are supportive  of President Waheed suggested that the most recent bill be accepted and sent to committee, while others suggested rejecting the bill and throwing it out of the house.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Speaker of parliament survives MDP-initiated no-confidence motion 45:25

Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid has survived the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) initiated no-confidence motion.

In the vote taken on Tuesday, 45 out of the 74 parliament members present in the sitting voted in favour of Speaker Shahid and 25 voted against him. Two members abstained.

Surprisingly, government-aligned Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) MP Riyaz Rasheed voted in favour of removing Shahid despite speaking against the motion, while MDP MPs Hassan Adil and Ahmed Rasheed voted against their party line. MDP MPs Mohamed ‘Colonel’ Nasheed and MP Ali Riza abstained. A fifth MDP MP, Zahir Adam, was absent.

During the debate over the motion, MPs from the coalition of parties supporting the government of President Mohamed Waheed Hassan spoke in favour of Shahid, with a number of MPs describing the speaker as the “most able and competent” MP to be in the role.

Speaking during the debate, leader of the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Ahmed Thasmeen Ali stated that the motion had been forwarded amid baseless accusations and defended his fellow party member, saying that he had been executing the responsibilities of the speaker in accordance with the parliament rules and procedures.

Thasmeen further claimed that the motion was an attempt by MDP to “break” the coalition after the party leadership’s recent “political failures.”

“Such a motion will not impact the ‘unity’ between the parties in the coalition supporting the government of President Waheed. So therefore I must say, yet again this is another wrong step taken by the MDP leadership,” Thasmeen added.

Former president Gayoom’s Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) spokesperson MP Ahmed Mahloof stated that despite his being an outspoken critic of Shahid who made several statements in the media and the parliament floor, he would stand by Shahid’s side today.

“Yesterday, the PPM Parliamentary Group (PG) came to a conclusion that this motion is a ‘trap’ set up by the MDP to ‘finish off’ the people and the ruling coalition,” he said.

“Today at a time where Abdulha Shahid is facing a grave matter at hand, I will stand by him. Abdulla Shahid will get all the votes from PPM. What we ask is that he act justly and equally,” he added.

MDP MP Ali Waheed during the debate alleged that the motion would reveal those MPs who spoke “in two mouths”, referring to the PPM MPs allegations of that Shahid and Thasmeen had cut deals with GMR and the government of former President Mohamed Nasheed to support the privatisation of Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA).

“Today is not a day  the Speaker should be upset about. Today is a day the Speaker will be victorious. [Because] the people will hear those who ‘smashed’ the DRP speak today,” he said.

“I am happy because today those who accused the Speaker of taking bribes, selling off the airport to GMR and travelling abroad at GMR’s expense, will applaud him [for his integrity],” added Waheed.

Waheed also alleged that the MDP had been “held hostage” while Shahid proceeded with the oath taking ceremony of President Waheed on February 7.

“He let just two or three MPs into the parliament chamber and forgot about the rest of the MPs,” Waheed claimed.

MP Mohamed ‘Colonel’ Nasheed during the debate stated that every time there was a conflict of opinion, it should not be taken as far as a no confidence motion.

“Shahid is not someone who had my support to become the speaker. [But] up until today during our journey with the constitution, he has contributed to a lot of things that we achieved. We don’t need to go to a confidence assessment of the speaker who focused on what we had to do up until today,” he said.

Speaking in his concluding statement at the end of the debate, Shahid stated that even if the position of the parliament speaker is seen as a ‘big seat’ and a great privilege, he had faced a very difficult environment in the last three years during his time as the speaker.

“At times I felt very comforted and proud to see the results [produced] by the parliament members. I never responded to the allegations and claims made against me in parliament. I even did not respond to such allegations and claims even outside the parliament, because I wanted to be sure I was doing my job,” he said.

He claimed that due such the allegations he had to work under circumstances that caused hurt to himself, his family and the party which he belonged to.

“But one person is elected out of 77 members to make some sacrifices. I made those sacrifices during the last three years. I have learned that as someone who makes vital decisions, I can’t please everyone,” he said.

He further stated that there were a lot of members who had opposing views to him, and that there were also members who later came to him and admitted that what they had previously believed was not right as well.

He said that the decision that the members were to make today was a historic one and that it was the first occasion in the parliamentary history of the country where the parliament was to take a no- confidence motion against a speaker.

He advised the members to not to make the issue a political one but rather a decision that they would make for the sake of the best interest of the people. He asked the MPs to think about the people who elected the members before pressing the voting button.

“Whatever way the decision [of the vote] goes, I wish all you members well. Whatever way the decision comes out, I will continue repaying the debt I owe to the constituents of Keyodhoo Constituency who elected me,” he said.

Shahid concluded his speech stating that he did not hold any hard feelings towards any member, and thanked the members who had said “beautiful things” about him.

Many MPs cheered as the Deputy Speaker announced that the motion had failed to get the required number of votes to oust Shahid.

MDP Response

Speaking to Minivan News after the vote, MDP Spokesperson MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor said the MDP  parliamentary group had made a decision to take the no confidence motion against the speaker even before the transfer of power on February 7, but had waited for the right moment.

Ghafoor said that one reason for the motion was to assess the current political situation following the emergence of the PPM.

“Our argument is that a political party by the name of PPM has been formed. We wanted to assess the strength of the opposition coalition,” he said.

Ghafoor admitted that for the time being, the coalition of the political parties supporting the government seemed to be united as was seen from the vote, but questioned how long  they would work together.

He said it is inevitable that the coalition would break apart in the near future because of leadership tensions, raising doubts as to whether political figures within the coalition could work together for a longer period.

Asked whether the fact that MDP got 25 votes when the party had 30 MPs meant that there were internal conflicts within the party, Ghafoor said that it did not represent an internal conflict but just “a difference of opinion”.

“Our experience is that we lost four votes today. Two of our MPs abstained from the vote while MP Ahmed Rasheed and MP Hassan Adil voted with the opposition. MP Zahir Adam was absent today,” he said.

Ghafoor further stated that the parliament was a place of discussion and votes but on February 7, the transfer of power did not take place like that. He also said that the vote reflected that the majority of the parliament did not object to the coup.

“While the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) has raised doubts over the transfer of power on February 7, today we saw  that despite those doubts, the majority of the parliament voted in favour of a coup,” he said.

Ghafoor said that despite the no-confidence vote not succeeding, the MDP did not view it as a defeat but rather an indication of how the political culture in the country had progressed.

After deciding in April to forward the no-confidence motion, the MDP stated that motion against Shahid concerned allegations that he had been making decisions relating to significant parliamentary issues without discussing them with various political parties.

The party claimed that Shahid had been acting outside of his mandate by deciding to suspend certain parliament regulations, whilst opting to follow others that were to his personal benefit.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MPs debate leaving Commonwealth

Members of parliament backing President Mohamed Waheed Hassan have called on the state to withdraw the country’s membership from the Commonwealth, during a debate on a resolution forwarded today.

The resolution that sparked the debate was forwarded by Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ibrahim ‘Bonda’ Rasheed, “condemning” the current government’s failure to adhere to the calls of Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) concluding statement on the Maldives, notably the call for early presidential elections in 2012.

The CMAG statement also noted that it will consider “further and stronger measures” against the Maldives unless the composition of its Committee of National Inquiry (CNI) was revised in the next four weeks.

Withdrawing Commonwealth membership

Speaking in the debate, Dhivehi Qaumee Party MP Riyaz Rasheed called for the Maldives to withdraw membership from the Commonwealth “for now”.

“We don’t want to, but there is no reason to have international relations with a group like this, who don’t even know to ensure justice,” he said. “I propose to disassociate  ourselves from the Commonwealth for now,” The MP said.

MP Rasheed has been highly critical of the Commonwealth and also Queen Elizabeth, who is the ceremonial head of the Commonwealth.

During a diatribe on DhiTV in March, he argued that the British public had funded the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) in return for the establishment of churches in the Maldives, and also alleged that the UK hated the Maldives for gaining its independence.

Rasheed went onto criticise Queen Elizabeth stating, “After 50 years, the English Queen, she is physically challenged. But she is still the Queen, and if she wants she can remove the Prime Minister. Where is democracy? Where is democracy? That is not a democracy.”

Also speaking in the debate, MP Muththalib from the government-allied and religiously conservative Adhaalath Party, said that international organisations should ensure that their calls fitted with the constitution of the country and Islamic virtue.”

“CMAG should not be a weapon used to destroy the religion [Islam] of this country. The United Nations and all the other international organisations including the United States and India have accepted this government, “ he claimed.

“I do not believe CMAG has any right to demand our country hold early elections. Also, we should consider those [countries] that do things for us,” he added.

Muththalib said he would fully support the Maldives’ withdrawal from the Commonwealth if the government of President Waheed Hassan felt it was in the best interests of the county.

“If the current government feels that disaffiliating with CMAG or the Commonwealth is what is best for this country, I am in full support for this Majlis to pass such a motion,” he reiterated.

Deputy Parliamentary Group leader of former president Maumoon Abdul Gayyoom’s Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM), Ilham Mohamed, stated that there were no stipulations in the Constitution calling for an early election, and that one could only be held after amending the constitution.

He argued that that the Maldives should “immediately” withdraw its membership with the Commonwealth.

“I am saying this very clearly. I call on President Mohamed Waheed Hassan, who is in charge of this state, to carry out what ever necessary measures that needs to be taken to disaffiliate from the Commonwealth. We are ready to part with Commonwealth,” MP Mohamed said.

MP Mohamed sent a warning to the current government stating that the the government decides to hold early elections, his party would withdraw its support to the government.

“Elections will be held on 2013. Or else we won’t be supporting the government. [No one] can hold an election before 2013. I am saying it very clearly. Be it Commonwealth or any other country that calls for it, no one can hold an early election,” he said.

MDP response

MDP MPs argued that the government should adhere to the calls of CMAG and that early elections should be held in 2012.

The opposition MPs also expressed concern that an inter-governmental organisation such as the Commonwealth had said that it would consider taking action against the Maldives.

Speaking in the debate, MDP MP Eva Abdulla, who was recently elected to the Inter Parliamentary Union (IPU)’s standing committee on Women Parliamentarians, stated that CMAG did not represent the foreign ministers of just nine countries but rather the entire 54 countries of the Commonwealth.

MP Abdulla also stated that when government officials said that the members of CMAG did not even know the “skin colour” of the Maldivians, such a statement was also directed at individuals such as the Foreign Minister of Bangladesh.

“When we make such statements we are not harassing the Ministers, but our own peaceful relations with neighboring countries,” she said.

She also reiterated that if the Commonwealth suspended the Maldives, it would have a great impact on the ordinary citizens of the country.

MDP MP Abdul Ghafoor Moosa, of the Kulhudhuffushi North constituency, said that the Maldivian people had come to a “fork in the road” over the issue of early elections. He also stressed on the importance of adhering to the calls of Commonwealth.

“We don’t have the capacity to stand up against international bodies such as the Commonwealth, ASEAN and the SAARC. If we stay ignorant [of the calls of Commonwealth] in our greed for power, the ordinary citizens of this country will suffer,” Ghafoor said.

MDP MP Mohamed Riyaz during the debate expressed concern that some parliamentarians were accusing the Commonwealth of trying to destroy the Islamic faith of the Maldives. He also expressed concerns about possible impending Commonwealth action against the Maldives.

Earlier, President Waheed’s spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza told Minivan News that although the government was not currently seeking to reassess its Commonwealth membership, it was concerned over the language in the CMAG statement.

“We condemn the language used and the foreign minister has conveyed this as well,” he said. “If this language continues, we will look to consider our position [in the Commonwealth],” said Riza at the time.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP Parliamentarians submit no-confidence motion against Speaker Shahid

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Parliamentary Group has today passed a no-confidence motion against Abdulla Shahid, Speaker of the People’s Majlis.

The now opposition party said it had moved to pass the current no-confidence motion against Speaker Shahid over allegations that he had been making decisions relating to significant parliamentary issues without discussing them with various political parties.

The party claimed that Shahid had been acting outside of his mandate by deciding to suspend certain parliament regulations, whilst opting to follow others that were to his personal benefit.  The MDP allege the speaker had been doing this without discussing his decisions among any political parties represented inside parliament.

From within the MDP Parliamentary Group, 27 members out of a total of 32 belonging to the group are said to have signed the no-confidence motion.  The party claimed that its members who did not sign the motion had been unavailable to do so at present.

Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) MP Ahmed Mahloof could not be contacted at the time of going to press regarding his party’s response to the motion.

Speaker Shahid told Minivan News today that parliament had received the no-confidence motion, though he did not wish to elaborate further at the present time.

‘’I will issue a written statement tomorrow,’’ he said. ‘’I have decided not to say anything before that.’’

The MDP previously called for a no-confidence motion against the Speaker in March 2010, accusing him of siding with the then-opposition parties.

In January last year, there were widespread rumors that MDP, the People’s Alliance Party (PA) and the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) were planning to forward a no-confidence motion against the speaker.

However, all the parties denied such a collaboration at the time and a no-confidence motion was not forwarded to the parliament.

DRP Parliamentary Group Leader and MP Dr Abdulla Mausoom did not respond to Minivan News at time of press.

Dr Mausoom has today told the local press that he will make sure the no-confidence motion against Speaker fails in parliament.

He also said there might be a chance that MDP has sided with some of the independent MPs in parliament to pass the no-confidence motion.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)