Tag: parliament

Comment: MP Privileges Bill about building status, not state

On December 28, 2010, the Peoples’ Majlis passed Bill No 29/2010, the ‘Imthiyaz Bill’ or parliamentary privileges bill, among a host of others as members prepared to take their two month annual holiday from the Majlis floor.

The bill, which was submitted by Vilufushi MP Riyaz Rasheed, was passed with 44 ‘yes’ votes, 21 ‘no’ votes and 10 abstentions.

This is a substantial level of agreement in a parliament fiercely divided by party lines and plagued by frequent public displays of discord and disagreement on the floor which ends in cancellation of proceedings.

On December 15, 2010, prior to the passage of the privileges bill, the parliamentary Financial Committee submitted a report to the floor proposing to award themselves a “committee allowance” of Rf 20,000 (US$1550), increasing the already inflated MP salary of Rf 62,500 (US$4860) to Rf 82,500 (US$6420) per month.

Understandably, this caused public outrage which strangely appears to have taken some MPs by surprise.

The two different instances of personal privileges and remunerations are being sought by MPs at a time when the government is struggling to cope with an all-time high budget deficit, and being heavily criticised for making controversial cut-backs in civil service wages. These developments have lead to a considerable build up of public frustration, dissatisfaction and loss of confidence in the parliament.

On December 30, 2010, protesters gathered outside the parliament building demanding the resignation of MPs and the whole parliament, and ridiculed MPs for asking payment to “get out of bed”!

A few young people went so far as to call for a “Majlis Fund” and joined the protest with a cardboard donation box, raising funds for the allegedly destitute MPs.

Two days later on January 2, 2011, another public demonstration took place at Raalhugandu where protesters demanded MPs show accountability to the people and called for the reinstatement of civil servants’ wages and the scrapping of the proposed MP salary increment.

Citizen opinion

An open Facebook group entitled “Majlis membarunge musaara bodukurumaa dhekolhah” (“against MP salary increment”, sprang up virtually overnight and has attracted nearly 2000 members in just over a week.

As the momentum of the public protest gathered speed, a group of concerned citizens met at the social centre (MCSE) in Malé on the evening of January 8, 2011 to discuss and analyse the privileges bill.

Several lawyers and an economic analyst gave presentations on the issues arising from the bill. Two MPs, Mr Ahmed Nihan and Mr Ahmed Mahloof attended the meeting. They explained to the audience some of the difficulties conducting their work, including their obligation to follow the party line as well as the issue of getting insufficient time to read bills before voting.

Both MPs – who incidentally had voted in favour of the bill – said that they now supported those speaking out against the bill.

Nihan informed a member of the audience that he would not support the bill any more. This brings little comfort for citizens who find the contents of the privileges bill a parliamentary disgrace. The fact that an MP tried to justify voting for a bill he did not have time to read, further undermined any efforts for redemption.

On the evening of January 9, 2011, MNBC One aired a live panel discussion organised by three NGOs: Strength of Society, Madulu and the Maldivian Democracy Network.

The four panellists were practising lawyers Ali Hussain, Ahmed Abdulla Afeef and Shafaz Wajeeh, as well as economic expert Mr Ahmed Adheeb. The panel was moderated by prominent social advocate Salma Fikry.

Opening the discussion, Shafaz explained that the main purpose of the 400 year old principle of parliamentary privileges was to facilitate the unobstructed and independent freedom for MPs to perform their duties and functions as MPs.

However, nearly 75 percent of the “privileges” in the Maldivian MPs privileges bill, the panel argued, went beyond the remit of the principle of parliamentary privilege. In fact, it appears that the elected MPs of the new Maldivian democracy have attempted to redefine the whole concept of parliamentary privilege, as practiced in established democracies around the world. Privilege in the context of parliamentary practice had become distorted to personal status building.

Issues and concerns

Critics of the bill raised several concerns. They argued that it contravened citizens’ basic rights as provided in the constitution, contravened the constitution and existing laws and completely disregarded the serious economic situation of the country.

If ratified, they argued that this bill could not be implemented because it falls foul of many existing laws of the country.

The MP privileges bill gives powers to the Speaker of the Majlis to impose jurisdiction over independent statutory bodies, the judiciary as well as individual citizens.

According to Article 5 of the privileges bill, outlining “actions which impede privileges”, the penalties for non-compliance by any individual or institution range from fines between Rf1,000 to Rf100,000 as well as removal from employment or a jail term of 1-2 years. Several other articles of the bill set out similar punishments for non-compliance or “criminal misconduct” as perceived within the bill.

Of the 39 articles in the bill, 30 percent include non-compliance penalties directed outside the realm of the Majlis.

Legal experts say that the harshest punishment for non-compliance with parliamentary privilege in a developed democracy is up to six months in jail. In the fledgling democracy of the Maldives, this has reached a new height.

Moreover, they point out that the current bill gives the Speaker of the Majlis powers to remove from office senior officials of the Police, members of the Judiciary, the Prosecutor General and other such heads of statutory institutions. This undermines the concept of “separation of powers”.

Supported by Article 102 of the Constitution, Article 7(a) of the MP privileges bill stipulates that all financial remuneration including MPs own salaries will be decided by the parliament, meaning by themselves.

A vocal critic of the privileges bill,lawyer Ali Hussain, argued that MP salaries should be decided through a public referendum, even if this requires a constitutional amendment. This is perhaps a valid argument given the situation where the constitution is facilitating the highest degree of conflict of interest by requiring MPs to set their own wages. One could argue that the constitution is setting a precedent for MPs to abuse their powers. And they appear to have done just that in the privileges bill.

Some “privileges”:

  • Article 7 (b) of the privileges bill requires the provision of medical insurance for MPs, their spouses, any children under 18 and parents to receive an insurance package which includes services available in the Maldives as well as any SAARC or ASEAN country.
  • Article 7 (c) states that every MP and spouse must be issued a diplomatic passport.
  • Article 7 (f) states that each MP should be entitled to import one duty free car during each term in office although should such a car be sold or passed on to another person, duty should be paid.
  • Article 7 (g) explains that if a “natural incident or any other incident” prevents the use of such a vehicle, the importation of a replacement would be permitted.
  • Article 8 (a-c) provides pension entitlements of 30 percent of the salary for serving one term in office, 45 percent for 2 terms and 60 percent for 3 terms.
  • Article 8 (e) states that any person who has served as an MP should receive medical insurance (presumably for life)
  • Article 8 (f) requires an official passport to be issued to any person who has served as an MP and article 8 (g) states that such person(s) must receive “honourable status” and should be addressed as the “honourable member for” whatever constituency seat held at the time of departure from the parliament.
  • Article 9 requires MNDF to provide bodyguards if any MP requests for protection at any time.
  • Under article 16 (c-d), MPs cannot be searched (by law enforcement authorities) in a public place unless “absolutely certain without suspicion” of an offence.

Critics argue that this is a non-sequitur highly illogical and outside of legal reasoning which would be impossible to implement.

What next?

As more and more citizens come to understand the distorted, pervasive and impossible remit of Bill No 29/2010, the MP Privileges Bill, they are also beginning to understand just how unfit for public office their MPs really are.

While most citizens neither have the time nor the inclination to speak out against what they see as meaningless political shenanigans, MP accountability can only come with active citizen participation and protest. As the country struggles to get to grips with its new democratic constitution, its MPs are busily seeking to ensure their collective and personal interests at the expense of the ordinary citizen and the financial health of the nation.

While the job of MPs is state building, their preoccupation is personal status building. The MP privileges bill has the capacity to undermine democracy, respect for citizens’ rights and the rule of law in the Maldives, unless its citizens act to make the parliament accountable.

On January 3, 2011, the parliament sent the MP privileges bill to the President for ratification. As they await the President’s decision, concerned citizens are putting their faith in their elected leader’s capacity and willingness to listen to the people and return this bill to parliament, as wholly unfit for ratification given its current ludicrous content.

Read the Imthiyaz bill (Dhivehi)

How the MPs voted (English)

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(1)Dislikes(0)

“If I keep silent, I have become a traitor”: Velezinee vows to continue campaign against “silent coup”

The President’s Member on the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) and outspoken whistleblower Aishath Velezinee has vowed to continue pushing for a public inquiry into the activities of the JSC, despite what she has described as an “assassination attempt” on Monday January 3.

Velezinee was hospitalised after she was stabbed three times in the back, in broad daylight on the main tourist street of Male’, “right outside the Home Minister’s door.”

Many international organisations, including Transparency International and the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), have expressed “grave concern that the attack may be politically motivated.”

Velezinee turned whistle-blower on the JSC in August 2010, after parliament failed to issue an injunction she had requested on the reappointment of judges before the conclusion of the constitutional interim period. Velezinee contends the reappointment of unsuitable judges – many largely uneducated and some with criminal convictions – was rushed through in collaboration with senior members of parliament.

Since then she has campaigned against what she alleges is a “silent coup”, an “alliance between parliament and the judiciary to subvert the rule of law, derail constitutional democracy and use the courts to bring down the executive.”

“I didn’t stop complaining. I realised this was a bigger thing, a conspiracy, and mentioned names. They were not interested in change – they are using all their powers, their status and the respect people have for them to subvert the rule of law.”

The public, she claims, is poorly informed on the matter as “there is a huge information gap because the JSC meetings are closed. If the JSC sittings were open to the media, the public would be able to put together what has happened.”

“I sit in the JSC and I see the Speaker of Parliament (Abdulla Shahid) and DRP MP (Dr Afrasheem Ali), also members of the Commission, do whatever they will. What is done in the JSC is done by parliament.”

For example, she explained on the last day of the final parliament session for 2010, the opposition-majority Majlis amended the Judges’ Act (13/2010) to award a Rf 53,250 (US$4140) monthly retirement package to former JSC Vice Chair and Interim-Supreme Court Justice Mujthaz Fahmy, despite a conviction for embezzling state funds in 1996.

“It was not an honourable discharge, he was not fit to be a judge. But they made an amendment to the judges bill solely for one man – only Mujthaz it applies to, and only Mujthaz it will apply to,” Velezinee explained.

MP Afrasheem observed at the time that judges are awarded high salaries and benefits to ensure their ethical and disciplinary standards, and that it is essential for them to continue to be able to uphold their dignity and impeccable ethical standards even after they leave office.

“If a retired Justice were forced to wheel a cart on the street after leaving the bench, it will not give them the respect and the love that they received in office, and still deserve,” Afrasheem said.

The entire amendment, Velezinee alleges, was “to pay Mujthaz his dues for his role as an instrument in the silent coup.”

Meanwhile the public, she stated, “ is misinformed as to the reality of the judiciary they have. We have high state officials using their status and their authority to confuse the public, and legitimise that which is unconstitutional.

“The public are helpless when it is the state that has dissented. We Maldivians have been taught to obey. Obedience is the priority – our religion is about obedience. It is a completely different culture for us to stand up for ourselves and demand things of our leaders.”

JSC member and whistle-blower Aishath Velezinee

Lead-up

Days prior to being stabbed in the street, Velezinee had been trying to get the Majlis to distribute a 34-page letter to members of the JSC’s parliamentary oversight committee, without apparent success. On January 2, she delivered 250 posters to citizens around Male’, calling for a public inquiry into the JSC.

“The Constitution grants everyone a free and fair trial, but JSC’s treason has deprived the people of not only a right to a free and fair trial but thereby compromised all other fundamental rights,” she wrote on her website, the day before her stabbing. “The State can neither protect fundamental rights of the people, nor further human rights and practice democratic government without the institutionalisation of an Independent judiciary.”

The attack

At 10am on the morning of January 3, Velezinee was walking along the main tourist street of Chandhanee Magu near Islanker school, “when I felt this knock on my back.”

“I thought I had been bumped, I didn’t realise I had been stabbed,” she said. “When I looked back I made eye contact with a guy as he was turning around. So I kept walking and then he turned back and stabbed me a second and third time.”

Her assailant, whom she described as “a young kid, a teenager”, jumped on the back of a waiting motorbike driven by another and rode off.

“At that point I put my hand up and it was completely soaked in blood, and I realised I had been stabbed. If I had fallen I would have been dead, the second two stabs would have finished me off, as would the first if their aim had been correct. But I’m light and my bag got in the way. I think it was meant to be assassination attempt or else hit my spine and make me a vegetable for the rest of my life.”

While still upright she was, however, “bleeding everywhere. I was soaked through.”

“My fear was that I would easily I bleed to death. But I took a deep breath and realised I was alive. As soon as I realised this, the only thing I wanted to do was go and get the blood stopped and get to the Commission because this was the day of the High Court appointments, and I know they wanted me out of the way. I didn’t realise how serious the wounds were, I didn’t see them until two days later when I went for a dressing change.”

“I tried calling 119, it took four attempts to get through, I told them I was stabbed. Nobody stopped to help me, so I saw a neighbour from my childhood and didn’t give him a chance to say no and jumped on the back of his motorbike and said ‘take me to IGMH (Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital), I’ve been stabbed.”

“He took me round the corner to his home, where he could get a vehicle. At that point another man stopped and said “no, you can’t wait if you’re bleeding like that, get on my bike.”

“I got on the bike without thinking and then wondered, ‘who are you?’ He was really good, screaming at traffic to get out of the way, but I was bleeding very heavily. I had to hold on and he was afraid I would faint – it was dangerous on a motorbike.

“He came to Majeedhee Magu. He tried to get a taxi to respond, but I saw a police car and they took me to hospital.”

On the agenda at 2:30pm that day at the JSC was the decision over which applicants would qualify for appointment as High Court judges.

“It was very suspicious the way the Commission acted [after the stabbing],” Velezinee said.

“Not a single Commission member called or came to the hospital or made any effort to see how I was. Instead they hurried to organise an extraordinary meeting to discuss the assault, and then decided to hold a press conference – all of this without checking on me – and as I understand it, it was suggested by the Speaker of Parliament that the Chair of the Commission, who’ve I’ve previously alleged is suffering from a psychiatric disorder, be nominated to give a press conference.

“At the press conference they made very strange statements. They said that ‘Nobody should be attacked for having different opinions, or the way they express their different opinions’.

“The commission did not show me any respect, because after that press conference they organised a meeting on Tuesday to decide on the High Court judges. The Commission had previously agreed not to meet on Tuesdays because Tuesday is cabinet day.

“So I requested Commission members talk with the chair and make him postpone the meeting. The Speaker was leaving the country that night – I asked the Secretary General to speak with the Chair and delay the meeting until Wednesday, but the response I got was that they could not delay the meeting because it was ‘the right of the people to have the High Court’.

“I put out a rude statement accusing the Commission of trying to expedite things while I was incapacitated, and that persuaded them to cancel the meeting. But they did not say they were doing so out of concern for my wellbeing – instead they told the media that the meeting was postponed “because some members are busy.”

Still busy

Velezinee says she does not believe last week’s attempt on her life will be the last.

“I don’t believe the State can actually protect me. Because it is the state that wants me silenced – the parliament and the judiciary. If you look at what happened in the days before the attack, there was a flurry of attacks in the media – including by the parliamentary oversight committee – criticising me, my character and my performance in the JSC. This has been a very organised effort to discredit me, and some people speak in different voices.

“There are honourable men in this country who are owned by others, and they may be put in a position where they believe they have to take my life. I knew there was a chance that I was risking murder, and I wasn’t wrong. It was only because of God’s grace that I survived.”

The police, she said, had been “very effective” in their investigation so far. However police spokesperson Sub-Inspector Ahmed Shiyam said that it was “very difficult” for police to release an update on the case, as it was “complicated”.

Police were, he said, collecting evidence and would release an update to the media “as soon as it is available.”

As to whether the attacks would dissuade her from continuing to campaign against the “derailment of democracy” by parliament and the judiciary, “if I close my eyes, I will have betrayed my country and people,” Velezinee said.

“I will have betrayed them by failing to inform people and give them a chance to change this. When the State fails it is up to the citizens to hold the State accountable. The state has failed here, and as a state official it is my responsibility to inform the public and give them the chance to make an informed decision.

“I know for a fact that rule of law has been subverted. I know for a fact that there is corruption at the highest level in parliament. And I know that if I join the majority in keeping silent, I have become a traitor.”

Likes(1)Dislikes(0)

Anti-Majlis protests hit the capital’s streets

Hundreds of protesters have today gathered near parliament to call on the abolition of the Majlis, citing anger over the passing of a bill to extend MP privileges within the state budget.

Activists, which sources have claimed support a number of political parties, joined civil servants, NGOs and other workers near the parliament building to protest against the actions of the Majlis, leading police to restrict access to some streets around the area.

The outrage was said to have been sparked yesterday when parliament passed allowances for parliamentarians that the protesters believe is ‘’way too much’’.

According to the new bill, parliamentarians will receive an additional Rf20,000 to their salary for attending committees, while also being allowed to import vehicles without paying any duty on them. The parliament also approved measures to reinstate the salaries of independent commissions, while failing to address the reduced salaries of civil servants.

This decision has led protesters to claim that MPs were working for their self-interest in the name of working for the nation and citizens in their work.

By this afternoon, a group of protesters brought a box written “Majlis Fund” that was passed beyond the police barrier, before they joined others in heavily criticizing the country’s MPs.

As a result, local media reported that tempers also flared within parliament, as rival MPs clashed with each other forcing speaker Abdulla Shahid to cancel today’s sitting. Haveeru said that some MPs had argued to withdraw the bill for amendment, with Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Ahmed Maloof one of the names said to support a repeal of the privileges bill on claims that it was against the “pulse of the people”.

Today’s street protests follow on from similar action undertaken last night by the ‘Tortured Victims Association’, which was disrupted after some people present clashed with the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) parliamentarian group leader Moosa ‘Reeco’ Manik, verbally assaulting him over the issue of budget.

The protest, which involved around 20 to 30 people over practices of torture allegedly committed under the rule of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, ended up as a protest against all the parliamentarians. A few protesters then marched towards the house of Speaker of the Parliament Abdulla Shahid later in the evening.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament’s General Committee condemns MJA

Parliament’s General Committee has condemned the Maldives Journalist Association (MJA) for issuing a statement claiming it had attempted to threaten journalists.

The General Committee of the parliament said that it had summoned journalists from private broadcasting channels VTV and DhiTV recently, but rejected claims it had threatened reporters.

In a statement issued on Monday December 27, the General Committee’s chair, MP Nazim Rashad, said that the journalists in question were summoned regarding a complaint made by an MP over allegations they had edited video footage and broadcast it in a manner that would smear the member in question.

”Obstructing independent media in the country in any way, along with allegations that this committee attempted to make the media back-down is not acceptable by this committee or by the honourable MPs of the parliament,” the statement said. ”But it is the responsibility of the committee members to fulfill their responsibility at their level best under the Parliament rules of regulation.”

The statement added that issuing a claim to obstruct the work of the committee was against the constitution as well as being very irresponsible.

”We call on everyone not to obstruct the work of the parliament and its committees when investigating such cases,” the statement said. ”Parliament is one pillar of the state which enact laws, elects appointees for independent commissions and listens to the complaints of the media and independent [organisations] to protect the rights of its citizens. Therefore, we remind no one to conduct any action that will disregard the sanctity and honour of parliament.”

The MJA said in a statement that it believed the parliamentary General Committee had attempted to narrow press freedom by threatening and pressuring journalists.

The association added that using edited video footage is not against the ethics of journalism and that the full responsibility of what was said in the footage should be taken by the person who said it.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Outside perspective on a young democracy

As two legislators from the US state of Oregon, we are usually focused on the politics of our coastal state of 3.5 million people. But thanks to an initiative sponsored by the Maldivian Democracy Network and the US Embassy, we found ourselves this month half a world from home, meeting with close to 20 members of the Maldivian Parliament, the President and Vice President, NGOs, and members of independent commissions.

The visit was an opportunity for us to learn about the political process in the Maldives and to share some of our own experiences with democracy in the US.

Throughout our visit, we were impressed and heartened by the level of commitment we heard Maldivians express to making their young democracy work. We heard plenty about conflict, sometimes bitter, between the MDP and DRP, between the President and the Parliament, but over and over again we heard politicians and commissioners express a profound commitment to keeping the Maldives on a democratic path.

Three additional points stood out:

First, we were struck by inconsistencies between the system of government the Maldives has adopted and the language used to describe it. The new Maldivian constitution established a Presidential system of government where, like the US, power is divided between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. In this context, it strikes us as odd that the President and his cabinet is known as “the Government,” that his party is said to “rule,” and that the majority coalition in Parliament is commonly referred to as the “opposition.” In a system where government’s power is separated and balanced between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, each branch governs. Thus, Presidents (including our own) must recognise their responsibility to work with parliamentary majorities, even when that majority is held by a party different than his own. Likewise, parliamentary majorities must step up to their responsibility to work with the President to lead the country, not merely oppose him in an effort to win the next campaign.

Second, we were struck by the universality of many aspects of democratic politics. In multi-party democracies on both sides of the world, politics can be petty. Parties clash. Legislators don’t always act like adults. The process of change is messy and slow. Practically every complaint we heard about Maldivian politics was one that we commonly hear about our own as well. One advantage for us is that 230 years of experience has shown Americans that for all its faults, democracy generally works pretty well – when given enough time. Today’s defeats may be tomorrow’s victories. Politicians come and go. Thanks to an independent judiciary, our Constitution has been preserved. We hope that the Maldivian people will temper their short-term frustrations, however justified, with patience for the long-term peace and prosperity that democracy helps promote.

Finally, we were impressed by the rapid expansion of civil society in the Maldives and we hope that this sector will continue to grow. For democracy to flourish, it is vital that society maintain a robust and independent media, aggressive non-governmental organizations, and an education system that includes instruction in civics. We were particularly impressed by organizations like the Maldivian Democracy Network and Democracy House, whose Youth Parliament program is helping train the next generation of leaders. As civil society develops, we are especially keen for it to help strengthen the independence of the judiciary, demand additional government transparency, and to hold legislators accountable for what they accomplish – and what they don’t.

As a young democracy, there is a great deal at stake in the Maldives. Like so many others around the world, we are anxious to see you succeed. We hope that our visit serves as a springboard for deeper ties between our state and your nation.

Jackie Dingfelder is a State Senator; Ben Cannon is a State Representative. Both are from the state of Oregon in the United States.

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)

Speaker seeks legal advice after Acting Finance Minister presents 2011 budget

Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid has told local media that he is seeking legal advice after Acting Finance Minister Mahmoud Razee presented the 2011 State Budget to parliament.

Finance Minister Ali Hashim resigned on Friday following the Supreme Court’s ruling that ministers rejected by parliament could no longer hold their positions. President Mohamed Nasheed appointed Economic Development Minister Mahmoud Razee as acting minister in Hashim’s stead.

Haveeru reported Shahid as saying the budget would not be debated on Monday as he was seeking legal advice on the matter. Shahid was not responding to calls at time of press.

“We need to find ways to carry out this task without disrupting the state,” Haveeru reported Shahid as saying, despite observing that Deputy Speaker of Parliament Ahmed Nazim had told the paper that Razee would be able to present the budget as he had been endorsed by parliament.

Independent MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed told Minivan News that he believed there had been a move towards tabling the budget during tomorrow’s session of parliament.

The text of the Constitution requires the “Minister of Finance” to submit the budget for approval “prior to the commencement of each financial year” – in the Maldives, the calendar year.

Nasheed said that this was a specific responsibility of the Finance Minister, and that the Constitution did not appear to allow for an acting or state minister to present the budget, however he noted that “there is cross-party support to get the budget moving. It is likely they would approve whomever the President nominates as Finance Minister.”

The Speaker had consulted him on the issue, Nasheed said, adding that he had suggested that irrespective of whether there was a finance minister, the budget had already been released into the public domain and there was nothing preventing parliament from starting an informal deliberation.

It was, he said, entirely normal for committee hearings to conduct informal discussions prior to obtaining quorum, such as when a member was late or absent, and then conduct the formal debate and speech once quorum was achieved.

“In view of the Supreme Court’s decision [on Thursday], an appointed minister is a de facto employee until approval by parliament, whereupon he ripens into a fully-fledged cabinet minister. The easiest way may be for the President to just appoint a Finance Minister.”

Nasheed added that he did not think the issue was critical, as if the budget was delayed parliament had the potential to pass an emergency budget to ensure the functioning of basic services in the interim, as it did when the new government took office.

Theoretically, Nasheed noted, there was nothing preventing the President from simply reappointing dismissed ministers in perpetuity, although he suggested that this would be “unproductive” and run against the “spirit of the constitution”.

The President today reappointed Dr Ahmed Ali Sawad as Attorney General (AG), following Sawad’s resignation on Friday.

The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that cabinet members rejected by parliament could not remain in their posts. Sawad was among the members of cabinet not endorsed by the opposition majority parliament.

“There’s nothing in the rules, but this has to come to an end some time,” MP Nasheed said. “If disaappoved again, the Attorney General could be appointed a third time – the Constitution doesn’t go into such detail.”

Similarly, Nasheed added, the potential for repeated rejection of appointed ministers by a vindictive opposition “goes with the Presidential system of government that we have. It’s unlikely that a president [in the Maldives] will command a majority, and it’s the same situation faced by US President Barack Obama [with a Democrat executive and Republican Congress].”

During the original appointment of ministers, “the President did it very beautifully,” MP Nasheed said. “He proposed the names and sent them to parliament, and then they were appointed, which was the responsible way to proceed.”

The loss of seven ministers, Nasheed suggested, was an “extreme situation” and unlikely to reoccur.

“The results might have differed if the MDP had taken part in the vote,” Nasheed said. “They may have been able to salvage more [without the boycott]. To let go of seven cabinet ministers must have been a huge decision.”

Meanwhile, President Nasheed has ratified the First Amendment Bill to the Public Finance Act, following a ruling from the Supreme Court for early ratification of the bill.

In a statement on the President’s Office website, the President said the bill was ratified in compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling “despite legal issues [that] would negatively affect government’s social protection system.”

The newly reappointed Attorney General has filed a case in the Supreme Court seeking a ruling of of several articles in the Act as contradicting the Constitution.

Likes(1)Dislikes(0)

Parliament rejects Auditor General nominee

Parliament today rejected the nomination of former Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) President Ali Rasheed Umar for Auditor General, a post which remains vacant more than eight months after former Auditor General Ibrahim Naeem was contentiously removed through a vote of no-confidence.

Of the 69 MPs who participated in today’s vote, 34 voted against while 35 voted in favour, four short of the 39 votes needed for approval.

Press Secretary Mohamed Zuhair told Minivan News today that while the President’s Office will respect the parliament’s decision, the vote was marred by “political partisanship.”

Opposition MPs used their “brute majority” to reject a qualified candidate for political reasons, said Zuhair, adding that 35 votes in favour showed that Umar was “a popular nominee.”

In August, the parliamentary Public Accounts Committee (PAC) that evaluated the nominee awarded him an average of 62 marks based on a criteria of educational qualification, experience, initiative and vision, and integrity, below the 75 percent mark needed for committee recommendation.

At today’s sitting, opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Ali Waheed said that parliament could not approve a nominee with 62 marks, urging President Mohamed Nasheed to consult with all political parties before putting forward nominations and “not just after internal discussions with those of a certain colour”.

Ali Waheed called on the government to nominate consensus candidates that all political parties could support.

In August, DRP MP Ahmed Nihan told Minivan News that Ali Rasheed Umar was dogged by “integrity issues” during his time at the ACC.

Former ACC member and the commission’s current President Hassan Luthfee is pursuing a defamation case against Umar in the civil court, after the ACC requested police to investigate Luthfee for allegedly leaking confidential information.

In July 2009, Luthfee sent a letter to the PAC containing information of an ongoing investigation into then-Auditor General Ibrahim Naeem, claiming that the ACC was hushing up the investigation.

Umar alleged that Luthfee was attempting to curry favour with opposition MPs to secure his nomination to the new ACC.

While President Mohamed Nasheed nominated Luthfee for the commission in June, he withdrew the nominee after the Attorney General filed a case against Luthfee for allegedly not completing a government bond in his time at the Auditor General’s Office.

However, parliament rejected President Nasheed’s substitute nominee and approved Luthfee to the commission.

Meanwhile in March this year, parliament dismissed Auditor General Ibrahim Naeem from his post after the ACC forwarded two cases for prosecution alleging that Naeem used an official credit card to purchase personal items and fund a private visit to the island of Thulhadhoo in Baa Atoll.

Naeem denied the accusations, claiming that the cases were an attempt to discredit his office, which had issued over 30 audit reports of government ministries and state institution alleging rampant corruption under the former government.

He further claimed that opposition MPs were trying to prevent his office from recovering stolen assets in overseas bank accounts.

“A lot of the government’s money was taken through corrupt [means] and saved in the banks of England, Switzerland, Singapore and Malaysia,” Naeem claimed.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Half of Rf12.37 billion state budget to be spent on employees

The Finance Ministry has unveiled a state budget of Rf12.37 billion (US$962.6 million) for 2011 with a target of reducing the deficit to 15.3 percent of GDP in the coming year, down from 26.25 percent in 2009.

The Fiscal and Economic Outlook 2009 to 2013 published alongside the budget on the Ministry’s website this week states that the main objective of the government’s fiscal policy is to bring expenditure in line with revenue and maintain the deficit within a sustainable range.

The Finance Ministry reveals that while capital investment amounts to 21 percent of the budget, 49 percent of expenditure in 2011 will be on salaries and allowances for government employees.

“If the cost of health insurance to employees is included, half of the state budget is spent on employees,” reads the budget summary.

Foreign loan assistance along with Rf1.4 million (US$108,949) in income from privatisation and Rf1.3 million (US$101,167) expected from the sale of treasury bills was proposed to plug the budget deficit.

In November, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) delayed its third disbursement under a US$92.5 million program pending the approval by parliament of significant austerity measures in the budget.

In its Country Report for the Maldives published in June, the IMF warned that as a result of the failure to enforce pay cuts and the injection of an additional US$62.2 million in spending by parliament, “the annual deficit targets for 2010 and 2011 will be missed on current policies.”

An internal World Bank report produced for the donor conference in May identified dramatic growth in the public sector wage bill as the source of the ballooning budget deficit.

A 66 percent increase to salaries and allowances for government employees between 2006 and 2008 was “by far the highest increase in compensation over a three year period to government employees of any country in the world,” the report noted.

The deficit in 2010 is now expected to be at 16.4 percent of GDP, above forecasts of 14.8 percent in the 2010 budget.

While the economy grew by 4.8 percent in 2010 after a 2.3 percent contraction in 2009, nominal GDP, which accounts for a 5.5 percent inflation rate, grew by 12.2 percent this year.

Revenue and expenditure

Government income fell by 23 percent in 2009 in the wake of the global financial crisis, which saw tourist arrivals decline by 4 percent and revenue from import duties down by 25 percent over the previous year.

Offering resorts under development that were facing difficulties with financing an additional year to pay rent contributed to the decline in government income, resulting in a 36 percent decrease in revenue from resort rent in 2009.

While Rf6.8 billion (US$529 million) in revenue in 2010 was forecast at the end of last year, current estimates place the figure at Rf6 billion (US$467 million)  – an 11 percent  shortfall the Finance Ministry attributes to parliament’s failure to pass legislation on corporate profit taxation as well as delays in implementing a goods and services tax (GST).

Moreover, as only three out of 13 resorts expected to open in 2010 began operations this year, estimates of Rf1.7 billion (US$132 million) in revenue have been lowered to Rf1.1 billion (US$85 million).

However, income from state-owned enterprises is now expected to be higher than originally forecast at over Rf1 billion (US$77.8 million) by the end of the year.

Revenue in 2011 is projected to be Rf8.7 billion (US$677 million), a 44 percent increase from 2010 expected to be driven by the introduction on business profit taxes, GST and extension of resort leases.

Income from taxation is projected to account for 59 percent of government income in 2011, with Rf612.5 million expected from business profit taxes.

The Finance Ministry notes that delays in passing taxation legislation is “the biggest obstacle” to continued assistance from international agencies.

Main industries

The seven-year trend of decline in fisheries is expected to continue in 2011, with the industry expected to have contracted by 5.8 percent by the end of 2010.

After a 29 percent decrease in the construction industry in 2009, the industry is expected to have registered growth of 2.6 percent in 2010.

With nine new resorts under development next year, the industry is projected to grow by 9.7 percent in 2011.

A strong rebound by the tourism industry – which accounts for 27 percent of GDP – saw revenue in 2010 14 percent higher than projected in 2009.

While tourist arrivals increased by 13 percent in the first nine months of 2010 compared to the same period last year, arrivals are expected to have increased 20 percent by the end of the year.

Moreover, a 70 percent decline in occupancy in 2009 was followed by a 74 percent increase in 2010 – with 131,107 more visitors than 2009 recorded in 2010.

Nominal GDP per capita in 2010 is calculated to be at US$4,628 and is projected to climb to US$5,114 in 2011.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Clearly rejected

Among the wheeling and dealings we’ve seen in the Majlis, the issue of Cabinet Ministers has been one of the most convoluted and silly arguments we’ve seen.

Can the Cabinet Ministers be questioned? Can’t they be accepted or rejected together? Are they just nominated or actually appointed? And therefore once chosen by the President, are they Ministers or Ministers-in-waiting? And in what capacity are they beholden to the Majlis?

Within two days the Supreme Court will decide on these questions. In two days, hopefully the drama will end, rather than begin anew.

Why are they going to court?

The Majlis has rejected seven Cabinet Ministers. MDP does not like this and would like all of their Ministers to keep their portfolios. Was approval necessary? Yes. Can the Majlis reject a Cabinet member without a vote of no confidence? Yes, but only when the President asks for their approval and acceptance of that appointment.

Nowhere is it written in the constitution that there is only one way to remove a Cabinet Minister, as Reeko Moosa suggests.

Article 101 of the Constitution states that a vote of no confidence is possible, but it does not say that a vote of no confidence is the only way to remove a Minister. There are in fact two ways: 1) A vote of no confidence; or 2) A rejection when appointed.

Once appointed, s/he is a Minister

The opposition claims that individuals were nominated rather than appointed. They claim that the President can choose people, and that those people would only become Ministers once they have approval. This is false.

The President does not nominate, he appoints. The moment those individuals take their oath by either the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, or his representative, those individuals become Ministers of the Cabinet of the Republic of the Maldives as per Article 131 of the Constitution.

Article 131 states: ‘A member of the cabinet shall assume office upon taking and subscribing, before the Chief Justice or his Designate, the oath of office.’

The only thing that might be left up to debate is whether the Chief Justice could choose to simply not provide himself or his representative to swear the appointees in, and refuse to do so until each individual had parliamentary approval.

But in this case, Abdullah Saeed (Chief Justice at the time) did not do so. If you think back, though, you will remember that the cabinet was re-sworn at the same time that the MNDF had locked up the Supreme/High Courts and taken away the key. Not surprisingly, after Abdullah Saeed had sent his representative to swear in the cabinet he was given back the key to his office.

Nonetheless, once these individuals were sworn in, they were fully fledged Ministers, with every power, right, authority, and responsibility afforded them. All talk claiming they were just acting as ministers is just silliness. But if these people are already Ministers, do they still need approval? Isn’t it just a formality?

Approval or rejection necessary

Article 129C and D of the Constitution state:

C. Except for the Vice President, the President must receive the approval of the People’s Majlis for all appointments to the cabinet.

D. The President shall submit to the People’s Majlis, within seven days of making appointments to the Cabinet, the names of the appointees to the Cabinet for approval to the People’s Majlis.

Article 129C clearly states that the President “must receive approval” of the Majlis. Therefore, if any Cabinet Minister is rejected, then they are no longer Ministers of the cabinet. The only way they can continue is if the President swears them in again, where they will then have seven days before the President is required to send their names to the Majlis for a second time.

I do not believe there is any impediment to repeating this as many times as the President wants. Though I’m sure rejection after rejection by the Majlis would appear a complete farce in the eyes of the public.

Together or one by one

As to the issue of whether the cabinet should be approved together or individually, that is completely up to the preference of the Majlis Members. It is a tiny insignificant point that the constitution makes no reference to.

MDP thought there would be a bigger chance to get everyone approved if they are lumped together, because then DRP could be made to look stubborn and completely against all betterment of the nation if all of the cabinet members were wholly rejected.

One usually expects the entire cabinet to come to approval only once in a presidential term. It was assumed that after the approval of the entire cabinet, if a minister was dismissed, it would be done on a case by case basis.

But alas, that was not how things went down in this scenario. In this case, there is another instance which was particularly odd as well in the issue around whether Minister’s couldn’t be questioned.

Questioning Ministers

So, can a Minister be questioned? Of course, but only about the job at hand.

The opposition wanted to evaluate and judge each Minister before giving their approval. They claimed that a summons for this purpose required Ministers to come.

This is false. Ministers are only required to attend the Majlis for questions regarding their duties and responsibilities – not their qualification. In fact, under Article 98 of the Constitution, they can question any head of any government office if they so chose to. To answer falsely, or withhold information would directly violate the constitution.

The Supreme Court agreed with this evaluation in stating at the article in the Majlis rules of procedure that required their presence to judge their qualifications was outside of the constitution.

The bottom line and 2011 budget

The seven Ministers who were rejected by parliament remain rejected. However, until that rejection was decided by a vote of parliament, they were proper Ministers.

They were therefore required to answer summons that related to their job, but not to summons to simply scrutinize them on their qualifications.

The only way for the President to have Ali Hashim, former Finance Minister, present the budget is to reappoint him and swear him in. I believe Ali Hashim is one of our most capable Ministers, and if not for being caught in the crosshairs of political maneuvering, his position would not be in question.

It is a shame and a travesty that this issue is dominating so much of the public’s time and that these Ministers are losing their livelihoods over it. It is a shame that so many other bills that need passing, like those on drugs, evidence, and the penal code are left on the sidelines while we quibble about Ministerial portfolios.

While I have my own claim and object to GIP (Gaumee Itthihaad Party) not receiving its three cabinet portfolios in Economic Development, Education, and Fisheries as was understood in the MDP Itthihaad Coalition agreement, I still do not condone spending time on this issue when so many more desperate issues are waiting to be addressed.

There are procedures for cabinet appointments that should have been followed. There once was a clear understanding of how to go about all of this. But instead of it being a simple and day long matter, it has led our nation to constitutional crisis. Instead of following procedure we all now look at the constitution from a thousand different angles and wrest every type of meaning we can from every line before proceeding in the way most beneficial to us.

I am not a government apologist trying to hide constitutional violations, nor an opposition sympathizer trying to topple the government. I’m just trying to make sense of a now convoluted issue.

I pray that the Supreme Court protects the constitution and laws it was created to uphold and that their life time tenures ensures justice free of political sway and maneuvering.

I pray that we can move forward from this upcoming Supreme Court decision and find a way to create a whole government dedicated to the MDP Itthihaad manifesto confirmed two years ago.

I pray our conscience prevails and sanity finally reigns.

Note: Article 87 states:

A. Unless otherwise provided in this Constitution; all decisions made by the People’s Majlis shall be decided by a majority of the votes of members present and voting (Approval or rejection of Cabinet Ministers is done this way as it is not mentioned anywhere else.

http://jswaheed.com

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)