Tag: Politics

“So horrific that it’s hard to believe”: Amnesty International launches petition to overturn “disgraceful” flogging sentence

Amnesty International has launched a petition calling on the Maldivian government to overturn a court ruling sentencing a 15 year-old rape victim to 100 lashes for an unrelated fornication offence.

The story of the girl from Feydhoo in Shaviyani Atoll, who was convicted of premarital sex in the Juvenile Court February 26 and sentenced to 100 lashes and eight months of house arrest, has been reported by media around the world and been widely condemned by international NGOs and embassies.

“It’s so horrific that it’s hard to believe it’s true: a 15 year old rape survivor has been sentenced to 100 lashes for ‘fornication’ in the Maldives,” stated Amnesty International, which has followed the case since January.

“The traumatised girl was allegedly sexually abused by her step-father for many years. He has since been charged with sexually assaulting a minor. During the investigation however, authorities came across evidence to support separate charges of fornication against the girl for pre-marital sex,” Amnesty stated, demanding the government overturn the “disgraceful” sentence.

The Maldivian government – which is currently vying for re-election to the UN Human Rights Council, launched its campaign in Geneva on February 28 on a platform of “women and children’s rights and the rights of persons with disability” – expressed “deep concern” at the decision to prosecute the girl.

“Though the flogging will be deferred until the girl turns 18, the government believes she is the victim of sexual abuse and should be treated as such by the state and the society and therefore, her rights should be fully protected,” said the President’s Office in a statement.

“The government is of the view that the case merits appeal. The girl is under state care and the government will facilitate and supervise her appeal of the case, via the girl’s lawyer, to ensure that justice is done and her rights are protected,” the statement added.

Amnesty International welcomed the government’s stated commitment, but noted that “at this stage she is still facing flogging. We need to keep the pressure up to remove flogging as a form of punishment in her case and all cases in the Maldives.”

Foreign Minister Dr Abdul Samad Abdulla meanwhile announced on state broadcaster Television Maldives (TVM) that the girl had post traumatic stress disorder and certain medical issues, according to local media.

“The girl was abused since she was 12 until she turned 15, so multiple times for three years. She was abused by her stepfather. She has said that her baby was murdered. You can imagine the mental status of a child in this situation. She suffers from this condition,” local media reported Dr Samad as saying.

According to Sun Online, Dr Samad said the international community was not fully informed about the reason for the girl’s sentence, which was not due to her abuse by her stepfather, but her confessed fornication with another man.

He also warned that a failure to unite as a country during times of such international criticism would provide opportunities for “groups that want to harm the country,” Sun reported.

The government’s denouncement of the sentence is meanwhile at odds with its endorsement by the Adaathath Party, members of which make up the majority of the Ministry of Islamic Affairs.

“The purpose of penalties like these in Islamic Sharia is to maintain order in society and to save it from sinful acts. It is not at all an act of violence. We must turn a deaf ear to the international organisations which are calling to abolish these penalties, labeling them degrading and inhumane acts or torture,” the party said in a statement.

“Furthermore, Allah has decreed that expressing disapproval of issues such as this contradicts with faith in Islam,” the statement continued, quoting verses from the Quran.

“Allah has also commanded that we show no kindness when implementing these penalties,” the party added.

Flogging and politics

UN Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay in an address to the Maldivian parliament in November 2011 urged the government to issue a moratorium on sentencing women to flogging for extra-marital sex.

“This practice constitutes one of the most inhumane and degrading forms of violence against women, and should have no place in the legal framework of a democratic country,” Pillay stated.

Her comments were condemned by religious groups in the Maldives, with protesters urging authorities to arrest the UN High Commissioner and gathering outside the United Nations carrying signboards with slogans such as “Islam is not a toy,” “Ban UN” and “Flog Pillay”.

A presidential state apology for allowing Pillay to speak to parliament was one of the five demands of the December 23 coalition [of 2011], a mass gathering in the capital Male’ that saw the fractured opposition unite against President Nasheed on the pretext of protecting Islam.

Following the fall of Nasheed’s government on February 7 2012, government-aligned Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) MP Abdul Azeez Jamal Abu Bakr withdrew the Pillay apology petition in parliament.

Amnesty International’s petition:

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment:Without justice, talk of democracy is meaningless

The ambitious journey towards a modern liberal democracy that we, the people of the Maldives, embarked upon has now come to a crossroads. With the ratification of a landmark constitution in August 2008, that enshrined broad civil and political rights to its people, hopes of moving on from decades of oppression towards a free and fair society remained on course.

However, the chronicles of Maldivian efforts to sustain democracy have yet again proven to the world that democracy does not happen overnight; exactly as former President Mohamed Nasheed said – that dictatorships don’t die with the routing of a dictator.

The first few steps we as a nation took towards democracy were led by Nasheed, a determined human rights and political activist, who had been repeatedly put behind bars for his dissent towards oppressors.

Nasheed backed by the country’s first established political party, the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), won the country’s first free and fair multiparty presidential elections in 2008, putting an end to the tyranny of a 30 year long autocracy.

Five years later, it is daunting to note that the nation’s first democratically elected president is being tried in a court with hand-picked judges by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) – whose composition includes his key political rivals – for his desperate attempts to see through the much anticipated democratic transition.

What came forth after the usurpation of Nasheed’s democratically elected government was a practical narrative of what Gene Sharp had described in his book, From Dictatorship to Democracy: A conceptual framework for liberation.

“The collapse of an oppressive regime will be seen by some persons and groups as merely the opportunity for them to step in as the new masters,” he wrote. “Their motives may vary, but the results are often approximately the same. The new dictatorship may even be more cruel and total in its control than the old one,”

When Nasheed ascended to power, it became clear that the task of consolidating a democracy was more critical and difficult than toppling a dictator. President Gayoom was defeated in an election, but the roots of his dictatorship had taken hold within key state institutions, including the country’s judicial system.

The sustenance of certain corrupt judges within the judiciary, in the end, paved the way for the perfect opportunity to successfully oust Nasheed through a ‘judicially-endorsed’ coup, and in the long run, could deliver a verdict that would bring an end to Nasheed’s political career.

The globally renowned ‘Island President’ is being tried for the military detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed.

Judge Abdulla is well known within Maldivian society for his nefarious conduct within the court room, including ordering a victim of child abuse to reenact the perversions of her abuser in front of both the perpetrator and numerous onlookers in the court room.

In another instance, the judge released a criminal who went on to murder a witness to his alleged crimes, despite repeated pleading from the police to not do so. The judge declared it was way to hold Nasheed’s Health Minister accountable.

Other astounding decisions made by this judge during his career include acquittal of several drug lords, a ruling in which he made himself the sole authority in issuing arrest warrants, and numerous favors granted to political rivals of Nasheed’s administration.

Nasheed and his government were finally forced to do something about the judge, in a desperate extra-constitutional maneuver by a Head of State to retrieve his country’s failing criminal justice system from a position of limbo.

The arrest sparked much controversy, as Nasheed’s political opponents quickly declared that he had undermined the law. Interestingly, they never saw the need to raise concern over the rights of the abused 13 year old in the judge’s courtroom, or the murdered Afshan Basheer.

Having had lost the parliamentary elections in 2009 to sympathisers of the old dictatorship, who were willing to go to any length in order to defend the old guard, recourse through the country’s legislature proved fruitless.

Nasheed’s subsequent decision to take out the judge can be deemed as a practical application of the doctrine of necessity.

Such decisions, when extra-legal actions are invoked by state actors to restore order during a constitutional deadlock, have been found to be constitutional elsewhere – first adopted in the case of Federation of Pakistan and Others v Maulvi Tamizuddin Khan [1955] PLD FC 240, and later applied in the cases of Madzimbamuto v Lardner–Burke [1978] 3 WLR 1229 and Qarase v Bainimarama [2009] Fiji Court of Appeal.

However, Nasheed’s decision had dire repercussions, and he was ousted on February 7, 2012 by a mutinying police and military.

His Vice President Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik – a perfect example of the tortoise who believed that he had won the marathon against the hare in a fair contest – took over power with Gayoom’s blessing.

Today, the former President is facing charges for taking on the notorious judge – charges which appear to have been fashioned to exclude him from contesting the scheduled presidential elections on September 7.

Nasheed recently sought refuge in the Indian High Commission in the Maldives to ensure his safety. During his time in India’s mission, there were rumours his trial was to proceed in absentia, grossly disregarding the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair hearing.

Meanwhile, Judge Abdulla continues to sit on the Criminal Court bench having his way with the country’s criminal justice system. The state’s judicial watchdog, the JSC – which is constitutionally mandated to hold the judiciary accountable – remains ignorant and grossly negligent in probing the contemptuous misconduct of this despicable judge.

The million dollar question was, and is – why has this judge not been held accountable for his misconduct? Perhaps the most obvious, and depressing, answer is that the delivery of justice in the Maldives is failing bitterly.

The so called independent judiciary has failed to maintain its impartiality and the confidence of the public. The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), the United Nations, the Commonwealth, several judicial experts – including Professor Paul H. Robinson – and now the UN Special Rapporteur on the judicial independence have attested to this fact. Yet, no efforts are being made to reform the judiciary.

Without justice, talk of democracy is meaningless.

As put by Lord Denning – “Justice must be rooted in confidence and confidence is destroyed when right-minded people go away thinking that ‘the judge was biased’.”

In the Maldivian context, justice is rooted in one’s capacity to funnel ‘monetary-favors’ to the appropriate source, and to embrace Gayoom and his lingering culture of oppression.

Right-minded Maldivian people have lost all of their confidence towards the current judiciary. They have long since walked away from the courts, not only rendering moot their confidence (or lack thereof) in the judiciary, but also the confidence they had in the country’s entire justice system.

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personality-driven

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviving the dialogue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Courts and the case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The writer is a Senior Fellow at Observer Research Foundation

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed leaves Indian High Commission, states “desire for stability”

Additional reporting by Mohamed Naahii, Leah Malone

Former President Mohamed Nasheed left the Indian High Commission on Saturday afternoon after seeking “refuge” from police seeking to present him to the Hulhumale Magistrate Court.

Nasheed has maintained that the charges against him – of detaining the Chief Criminal Court Judge during his final days in office – are a politically-motivated effort to prevent him contesting the 2013 elections.

After 11 consecutive days inside the High Commission, Nasheed emerged and was greeted by approximately 600 Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) supporters at a press conference in the Dharubaaruge exhibition hall, across the street from the party’s former protest site at Usfasgandu.

Nasheed emphasised his desire for stability to be restored, following eight days of continuous protests by the MDP, dozens of police arrests, and a violent attack on a Maldivian journalist.

“I have been in the Indian High Commission for the last 11 days and now I have come out with the understanding that I will be able to conduct my peaceful political activities and my normal social life.

“I hope and I believe that this will bring much stability to the very volatile nature of Maldivian politics and our society today. I hope that all the stakeholders all actors will bear in mind that we will have to have a peaceful election and to do that we will all have to forego whatever we have to.

“It is always my wish that democracy is consolidated in the Maldives. It is always my wish that we have a more prosperous life,” Nasheed stated.

MDP supporters were heard cheering during the press conference following Nasheed’s statements.

Nasheed was greeted with joyful applause, chants of “Anni”, and was surrounded by a throng of supporters as he exited the building to give a speech near Usfasgandu.

Nasheed claimed his decision to seek refuge in the Indian High Commission was not pre-planned during his recent visit to the country.

“We are living in a very vibrant period of time. We are never certain when we will get arrested or when we will be released from custody. This is not something faced by myself alone. But the biggest attacks are targeted against me,” he said.

“I believe the danger posed towards me is far graver than others. I have faced more attacks than any other person possible could have faced. But we all should understand that our safety lies at the hands of almighty Allah. We maintain that protection by seeking courage from each other,” he added.

The former President also contended that leaders of all political parties should get the opportunity to compete in the upcoming presidential elections peacefully.

“I came out of the Indian High Commission because I believe I can now carry out political activities and that I too could take part in social activities in the country. My wish has always been that Maldives remains a democracy,” he said.

“I thank the Indian people and its High Commission. I do also thank the people of the Maldives and supporters of MDP. What is now important is that we win the next presidential elections,” he said.

Nasheed repeated his statement that the MDP would contest in the upcoming presidential elections and re-establish its government in the country.

“I believe that the presidential elections will not proceed without all political party leaders being able to fairly compete in it,” he said.

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has said it will boycott the elections should its presidential candidate Nasheed – who was been elected through a direct vote from its members – be barred from contesting in the elections.

Nasheed also expressed sadness over the brutal attack against Raajje TV News Head Ibrahim ‘Aswad’ Waheed last night, who is currently fighting for his life in a Sri Lankan hospital.

“I take part in the grieving of the brutal attack on Aswaad. Attacks on journalists hinder our development [as a society]. That is an attack on us, the people. I really do hope that we let go of such vindictive acts and focus on our development and that all of us can compete in the elections,” he said..

Highlighting on the flaws within the judiciary, Nasheed said that he believed that judicial reforms could be “achieved through dialogue and negotiations”.

He also said that delaying his ongoing trial “would not compromise anyone’s rights” and that it was important the next presidential election was “inclusive”.

His short speech was followed by an MDP march around Male’ in support of Nasheed, calling on citizens to support “independent news” following the attack violent on a Raajje TV journalist in the early hours of Saturday (February 23).

Speaking to the Press Trust of India, President’s Office Spokesperson Masood Imad said  the government “welcomes” the development, and that there was no arrest warrant against Nasheed at present.

“I am happy that the longest meeting in the world has ended. We were formally told by the High Commission on the first day that Nasheed had come into the Mission for a meeting and will be out once it is over,” Masood told PTI.

Indian diplomatic efforts

The Indian High Commission expressed hope that Nasheed “will again resume his social and political life.”

“India would be happy to support all efforts to create favourable conditions for free, fair, credible and inclusive Presidential elections in September 2013 that can contribute to durable peace, stability and prosperity in Maldives and the region,” the High Commission said in a statement.

Nasheed’s departure from the protected diplomatic territory – which prevented police from acting on two court warrants for his arrest – follows a series of meetings by Joint Secretary of India’s Ministry of External Affairs Shri Harsh Vardhan Shringla.

“These interactions have provided some forward movement and the team continues to work further on the available inputs so that the matter could be resolved to satisfaction,” the High Commission stated on Friday, despite various reports in Indian media that President Mohamed Waheed had been unable to meet with the delegation due to his “very busy schedule”.

No information has yet emerged as to whether Nasheed’s exit from the High Commission is related to a specific commitment from the government or Nasheed’s political opponents not to pursue charges against him, ahead of the September 7 presidential elections.

The saga has however led to widespread international backing, including from the UN, US, UK, Commonwealth and EU, that the presidential elections be “inclusive” and that all parties are able to put forward the candidates of their choice in the upcoming elections.

Nasheed’s press conference after leaving the Indian High Commission:

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Tourist paradise rocked by political uncertainty: Vancouver Sun

The United States and India have been watching with concern as radical Islam, fuelled by Saudi Arabian Wahhabi and Salafi charities, takes root in the Maldives, stoking fears the archipelago could become a terrorist haven, writes Jonathan Manthorpe for the Vancouver Sun.

At the same time Washington and New Delhi are mistrustful of China’s growing influence with the Male government.

There is apprehension the Maldives could become yet another supply base for China’s navy. India, Beijing’s regional rival, is already concerned that China’s naval link’s with Pakistan and the Bay of Bengal ports of Burma are part of a containment strategy.

The march of radical Islam in the Maldives began in the 1980s during the dictatorship of Gayoom, who allowed Saudi Arabian Wahhabist charities to establish themselves in the Maldives and who oversaw a radicalization of the education system.

Many Maldivian students now go to radical madrassas – religious schools – in Pakistan for higher education. Several are known to have become affiliated with al-Qaida as a result.

The increasing popularity of puritanical Islam in the Maldives sits uneasily with the country’s main industry as an upmarket tourist destination, which accounts for 30 per cent of the annual gross national product.

Aspects of Shariah religious law, such as the banning of alcohol, prohibition of men and women dancing together, and public flogging for adultery, are applied in the capital Male. But these restrictions are not imposed in the tourist resorts on the 250 inhabited islands of the archipelago.

Read more

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

US, UK, UN call for restraint, “inclusive” presidential elections

Foreign governments and international bodies have taken India’s lead, expressing concern over the political instability in the Maldives and emphasising the importance of all parties being able to put forward the candidates of their choice in the upcoming elections.

“Now that the President of the Election Commission of Maldives has announced that Presidential elections would be held on 7 September 2013, it is necessary that the Presidential nominees of recognised political parties be free to participate in the elections without any hindrance,” stated India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) on Wednesday, after former President Mohamed Nasheed sought refuge in its High Commission.

“Prevention of participation by political leaders in the contest would call into question the integrity of the electoral process, thereby perpetuating the current political instability in Maldives,” the MEA stated.

The United States Embassy in Colombo urged “all sides to remain calm, reject the use of violence, and avoid rhetoric that could increase tensions.”

“Former President Nasheed must be accorded due process under the law regarding his pending court cases,” the US Embassy said in a statement.

“We urge that the Presidential elections scheduled for September 7, 2013 be free, fair, credible, transparent and inclusive. The integrity of and public confidence in the Maldivian electoral process must be maintained.

“Accordingly, we note that all parties participating in these elections should be able to put forward the candidate of their choice. We continue to urge all parties to chart a way forward that respects Maldivian democratic institutions, the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms,” the US added.

The UK issued a statement similarly calling for calm and restraint.

“During FCO Minister Alistair Burt’s recent visit to Maldives, he said it was vital that the country move decisively towards free, fair and inclusive Presidential elections. He also stressed the importance of all parties being able to participate in elections with the candidate of their choice. It is important for all parties to avoid taking action which could lead to doubt over the integrity of the electoral process and contribute to continuing instability,” the UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office stated.

The UN Secretary General’s office stated that it was “monitoring the developments with concern”, and urged “all political actors to exercise restraint, renew their commitment to the constitution and work toward creating conducive conditions for fair, peaceful and inclusive elections.”

“All parties contesting the September 7 presidential elections should be able to field the candidates of their choice in accordance with the rule of law and the constitution,” the UN stated.

Transparency Maldives (TM), which will locally be conducting an extensive program of election monitoring, meanwhile expressed “deep concern over the continuing political polarisations and tensions that have strained the democratic gains from the past elections,” and called for all sides to “guarantee and sustain an environment conducive for free and fair and fully inclusive elections.”

“As such, there is an immediate need for the political and State leadership to resort to a process of negotiations towards addressing the challenges for free and fair and fully inclusive elections. At the heart of such a process should be showing leadership and a spirit of compromise that we saw during the pre-election and post-election period of the 2008 Presidential Elections,” Transparency stated.

Government speaks to India

Following India’s initial warning that a failure to allow all political leaders to contest the elections would call into question the integrity of the electoral process and perpetuate instability, the Maldives Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ministry declared it was “unfortunate that the Government of India has decided to comment on the types of candidates that could contest the upcoming Presidential Elections in the Maldives scheduled for September 2013.”

“The independent Elections Commission has not, as of date, announced the candidates for the elections. Furthermore the Government firmly believes that the Elections Commission of Maldives is fully capable of evaluating and deciding eligibility of nominees in the elections and carrying forward a credible electoral process. To presume otherwise would be undermining the democratic institutions of the country and the progress achieved by the Maldives in consolidating its democracy,” the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

Nasheed’s on-going trial “is a matter handled by two independent State institutions, namely the Prosecutor General and the judiciary. Like any other democratic country, the executive branch of the Government of Maldives cannot, under the Constitution of the Maldives, interfere with the independence of the judiciary, and will indeed ensure that the independence of the judiciary is always upheld.”

Home Minister Mohamed Jameel was more direct, telling local media yesterday that any attempts by another country to prevent a person from facing charges pressed by an independent Prosecutor General, could be described as interfering domestic matters of a sovereign state.

Jameel – formerly Justice Minister under Gayoom’s government – maintained that the charges levied against the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) presidential candidate were serious as they involved the “abduction of a senior judge”.

India’s Minister of External Affairs Salman Khurshid meanwhile spoke to his Maldivian counterpart Dr Samad Abdulla on Thursday (February 14).

Samad told Khurshid there were no court summons pending for Nasheed “but in the instance that such a summons is issued, Nasheed will have to attend the hearing.”

“Samad also said that it is unacceptable for any person to speak against this, as this is in accordance with the constitution of the Maldives,” read a translated statement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

According to the MEA, Khurshid told Samad that India “has broad based contacts with all political parties and democratic institutions in the Maldives, without interfering in the internal affairs of the country”, as part of its “commitment to multi-party democracy.”

“India has stressed in the past that it would like to see free, fair, credible and inclusive elections leading up to a stable, peaceful and prosperous Maldives. India would be happy to work with the Government and all political parties in the facilitation of this objective,” the MEA stated.

Samad had assured Khurshid that the Maldivian government “would do its utmost to prevent any precipitate act that adversely affects the atmosphere for a free and fair democratic process and rule of law,” the MEA added.

Situation on the ground

Some protests took place on Thursday evening and there were reports of three arrests, less than those recorded the previous evening, which saw 16 arrests from a crowd of 1500 people.

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor said the party was planning protests on Friday evening from 9:00pm.

Nasheed has called for an interim caretaker government in the lead up to the elections. He remains inside the Indian High Commission, despite the government’s insistence he is free to move around after a warrant for his arrest issued by the Hulhumale Magistrate Court expired with the cancellation of Wednesday’s trial hearing.

“It is difficult to say [how long Nasheed will remain inside] because the situation is so fluid,” said Ghafoor.

“I don’t think he will stay any longer than he needs to. The focus is on finding an interim solution. The party has advised him not to leave. It is unthinkable for him to step outside, as he will be killed. None of us feel safe right now. We have no other choice,” he said.

Ghafoor said the party did not consider the Hulhumale’ court’s independence from the government or its independence, despite the government’s insistence to the contrary.

The Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was created by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) in violation of the Judicature Act, the MDP contend. The JSC has also appointed the three-member panel of judges hearing Nasheed’s case at the court.

“We do not trust warrants from this court,” Ghafoor said. “During the Supreme Court’s 4:3 decision favouring the legitimacy of the Hulhumale Magistrate Court, Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed went to the Supreme Court as an appellant. He is head of the JSC, he threw the casting vote in the Supreme Court decision, and the judiciary accepts this,” Ghafoor said.

“[Government-aligned] Jumhoree Party leader and resort owner Gasim Ibrahim is also a member of the JSC, which appointed the panel of judges. Gasim is a rival presidential candidate to Nasheed,” Ghafoor noted.

“This country is set to explode unless India helps us.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: What after Nasheed’s ‘refuge’ in Indian mission?

The comparison sounds curious, though not odious. Possibly taking a leaf out of Wikileaks boss Julain Assange’s tactic, former Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed has ‘taken refuge’ in the Indian High Commission in the national capital of Male, expressing concern over his personal ‘security’ and ‘regional stability’.

The comparison should however stop there, as Ecuador has since granted political asylum in its London Embassy, to help Assange avert arrest and deportation to face a criminal trial. No such request seems to have been made by Nasheed to India, nor has a situation seemed to have emerged for New Delhi to consider any such request at the moment.

“Mindful of my own security and stability in the Indian Ocean, I have taken refuge at the Indian High Commission in Maldives,” Nasheed tweeted a day after the suburban Hulhumale’ criminal court issued an arrest warrant for him to be produced before it. The warrant followed Nasheed not appearing before the court on Sunday, February 10, for standing trial on the charge of ordering the illegal arrest of Criminal Court Chief Justice Abdulla Mohammed on January 16 last year, when he was the President.

Nasheed had been to India after obtaining court’s permission and had overstayed the period during the previous visit, with his lawyers seeking further time from the three-Judge bench. Incidentally, this is the second time in five months that Nasheed had not appeared before the trial court when summoned. On October 1, the day he was to appear before the court, he proceeded on a long campaign tour of the southern atolls. The court later ordered his appearance, and had the police arrest him from a southern island, and let him off after recording his forced appearance.

The current development has raised a number of issues, legal, political and diplomatic. With presidential polls due in September this year, Nasheed would be disqualified from contesting the same if the court ordered his imprisonment or banishment for three years. The alternative penalty is MVR 2,000. The fine does not attract disqualification but an imprisonment of over a year does.

Despite all-round apprehensions about an inevitable term of imprisonment for Nasheed and the other three accused, the trial had not reached the substantive stage, for the defence team to hazard a guess about the possible quantum of punishment. The best case scenario for Nasheed would be his exoneration of the charges against him. In context, the prosecution would have to prove to the complete satisfaction of the trial and appeals courts that the orders for Judge Abdulla’s arrest were issued by President Nasheed personally, and they were patently illegal.

Questions also remain about the possibility of the case running its full course before the Election Commission puts the poll process in motion, in July this year.

As in all democracies, there is a three-stage judicial process, involving the High Court and the Supreme Court at the appellate levels. In between, Nasheed’s defence has also been taking up procedural issues at every turn. Interlocutory petitions on his behalf have not found much favour with the appeal courts, but the intervening time involved in the process has meant that the trial and the appeal stage may elude the deadline for the elections.

The legal issue at this stage also involves the wisdom of Nasheed’s defence possibly concluding that the arrest and production of Nasheed before the trial court would entail his imminent imprisonment. If so, it is unclear if the courts would have ordered a jail term for Nasheed, whether to restrict his movement, pending the disposal of the case, or for contempt of court. There may have been a case for the court to declare him as a ‘habitual condemnor’, given that this is the second instance of the kind.

According to media reports, the Hulhumale’ court, however, has since withdrawn the arrest warrant against Nasheed. It is also unclear if the court would want to hand down any prison term, endangering Nasheed’s freedom of movement, pending the conclusion of the trial stage. This has meant that the Hulhumale’ court, in a single stroke, may have removed Nasheed’s apprehensions about personal security, at least until the disposal of the case, either at the trial stage or at the final appeals stage.

It is also unclear if either the prosecution would seek court directions to enforce Nasheed’s continued presence and cooperation from now on, or if the judges would suo motu issue binding orders. With the two-day Maldivian official weekend falling on Friday and Saturday (February 15-16), the next move of the Government, the police and the prosecution would also be watched with interest. The possibilities are many, if one considered the judicial and legal options before the various players, including Nasheed.

Indian position

Through a series of statements on February 13, New Delhi confirmed Nasheed’s presence in the Indian High Commission in Male, and his seeking ‘Indian assistance’. The statement said India was in touch with Maldivian authorities in the matter, and wanted the government in Male to ensure that the elections were free and fair, and that there was no bar on candidates were not barred from contesting the presidential polls.

In an obvious reaction to the Indian statement, the Maldivian Foreign Ministry promised to ensure the immunity of resident missions of foreign countries in Male, implying that the police would not violate what is legally ‘Indian territory’ to detain Nasheed and produce him before the Hulhumale’ court. It made a pointed reference to the independence of Maldivian judiciary, about which there was no mention in the Indian statement.

According to local media reports, Government officials, in tweeted messages, claimed that India had ‘interfered’ with the domestic affairs of the country and also the judicial processes.

The Indian concern in the matter seems to flow from the substantial, if not proven majority support-base that Nasheed and the MDP enjoys within Maldives, and the wisdom of not allowing him to contest the presidency, over a pending court case. Any domestic unrest of the kind that marked Nasheed’s exit from the presidency in February last year could have consequences for political stability in Maldives – and by extension, the immediate Indian Ocean neighbourhood.

Indications are that political Maldives is as polarized for and against Nasheed this time round as it was around incumbent President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom ahead of the first-ever multi-party presidential polls in the country in 2008. How the nation and its 242,000 voters in the country would view the ‘stability question’ and equate it to the support-base of the MDP and vote for Nasheed’s candidacy, remains to be seen. This can also have consequences to political stability nearer home, for the region and bilateral relations with India.

From within the Indian High Commission, Nasheed has reiterated his earlier demand, asking President Waheed to demit office and allow an interim administration to take over, to ensure free and fair elections for the highest constitutional office in the country. As critics point out, this also has consequences. With parliamentary polls due in May next year, will there be a similar demand by different sections of the nation’s divided polity that the new President, elected this year, and his own Vice-President, too should quit office, to ensure free and fair elections, then as is being demanded now.

Incidentally, the constitution provides for Parliament Speaker to be President for two months and conduct fresh polls from the high office, should the incumbent, along with his Vice-President, to quit office, or otherwise fall vacant. This is the possibility that Nasheed has stressed in terms of ensuring a free and fair poll for the presidency, at present. However, the Constitution does not provide for a similar situation ahead of the parliamentary polls. The argument is that what is good for the presidential polls should be good also for the parliamentary elections. Or is it?

The writer is a Senior Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Government claims “remarkable success” in democracy, good governance and rule of law

The President’s Office has claimed the government has achieved “remarkable success” during its first year in power.

February 7, 2013, marked the one year anniversary of the government of President Mohamed Waheed Hassan, following his controversial ascension to power.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed suddenly resigned on February 7 last year, following 22 days of continuous anti-government protests sparked after the Chief Judge of Criminal Court was placed under military detention.  The demonstrations were later backed by mutinying sections of the police and military.

Within a few hours following the chaos, Nasheed’s then Vice President Waheed – to whom the opposition had pledged their allegiance weeks before – assumed power and formed a “unity government” with the protesting politicians.

In a publication (Dhivehi) released on the President’s Office website last Thursday, under the title ‘One year for the National Unity Government’, the office highlighted its achievements in 10 different areas. These included: democracy and good governance, upholding of law, building a safe society, economic development, employment opportunities, education, health, fight against drugs, transport system and housing development.

Democracy and good governance

Under democracy and good governance, the President’s office claimed that the Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CNI)’s report on the transfer of power had defeated the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s claims challenging the legitimacy of the government.

Following the transfer of power, the opposition MDP had claimed that former President Nasheed’s government was toppled in a bloodless coup d’état and that his resignation was obtained under duress.

The CNI was formed to look into the circumstances surrounding the transfer of power.  The Commonwealth-led national inquiry panel in its report concluded that the transfer of power that took place on February 7, 2012 was legitimate.

“A national unity government was formed, a roadmap of how the government would be run was established on February 16, 2012, and successfully ran the government for one year,” the pamphlet stated.

However, during Parliament’s Executive Oversight Committee (EOC)’s reviewing of the CNI report, senior police and military officials during Nasheed’s administration – including former Chief of Defense Force retired Major General Moosa Ali Jaleel and former Commissioner of Police Ahmed Faseeh – disputed that their evidence was included in the report, and told the parliamentary committee that Nasheed had no choice but to resign, suggesting that his resignation was obtained under duress.

“I fully believe that President [Nasheed] resigned under duress,” Faseeh told the committee at the time.

Recalling the events, former Commissioner Faseeh told the committee he had done everything he could to control the situation but said there came a point when the officers had openly mutinied and disobeyed his orders.

The former military intelligence head also alleged that Nasheed’s resignation and transfer of power involved unlawful elements and had all the hallmarks of a coup d’état.

“Academically speaking, the events on February 7 fulfilled all the essentials of a coup. It involved all the features of a coup that are widely accepted around the world. Some of the elements take place before the toppling of a president. Others take place spontaneously,” Brigadier General Ahmed Nilam said. He was subsequently suspended.

President Waheed’s former Human Rights Minister Fathimath Dhiyana Saeed, in her personal memoir on the controversial transfer of power, alleged that Waheed had a role in the controversial toppling of Nasheed.  She also claimed that the then vice-president had prior knowledge of what would possibly happen in February.

Battle against CMAG

The President’s Office in the publication also detailed the decision of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) to remove “the Maldives from its formal agenda” after it was put there following the controversial transfer of power.

In September 2012, following the findings of the CNI, the Commonwealth’s human rights and democracy arm removed the Maldives from its formal agenda and placed it under “Matters of Interest to CMAG”.

The government also claimed it had reduced the number of political appointees below that of former President Mohamed Nasheed’s administration, which resulted in savings of MVR 2 million (US$ 129,701.68) per month.

“Efforts were carried out to broaden the role of the civil service and strengthen the functionality of the government,” it stated.

“To close down all doors to corruption, [the government] for the first time in history, established and enacted a code of conduct for political appointees during their course of employment,” it added.

Under democracy and good governance, the publication also highlighted that the Maldives had won the position of vice chairmanship of United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council and the vice chairmanship of the annual assembly of International Renewable Energy Institute (IREI), to be held this year.

Upholding of law

The government highlighted its success on upholding the rule law, claimed that it had established a free state broadcasting service by handing over Television Maldives (TVM) and Voice of Maldives (VOM) radio station to the Maldives Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) – formerly the Maldives National Broadcasting Corporation (MNBC) one and Raajje Radio – thereby running the government without a government-funded media.

Video footage taken during the storming of MNBC on February 7,2012 revealed that a mutinying police officer used a firearm to break down the gates of the station headquarters in capital Male’,  allowing dozens of police and military forces (MNDF) as well as some civilians in plain clothes to forcefully take over the station – approximately two hours before former president Mohamed Nasheed resigned from office.

The publication also stated that the government had abolished the National Administration Offices and had transferred its responsibilities to the local councils.

“The lands that were withheld by the central government were given to local councils in a transparent and responsible manner,” it read.

In July 2012, President Waheed’s government announced that it would be taking over “some responsibilities” assigned to the elected Male’ City Council (MCC).

A press statement released by the President’s Office at the time said the decision had been taken on the advice of cabinet to take back some services that are currently provided by the MCC.

The statement read: “Despite the legal system of the country [dictating] that several services given from the government to the public are delegated to local councils under the Decentralization Act, the decision of the President with the consultation of the cabinet, comes at a time where several of these local councils are failing to provide these services”.

Establishing a peaceful society

The government, under the heading, “establishing of a peaceful society”, claimed it had eradicated violence and established law and order within society.

“License given to cafes, shops and boutiques to operate 24 hours a day were revoked and more police were added to patrol duty which brought down crime rate,” the report claimed.

It also claimed that 60 police stations carried out more than 1000 operations to seek out law breakers, and during the course 215 out of 437 prisoners released by the former government’s rehabilitation and training program “Second Chance” were arrested at crime scenes and sent back to jail.

Despite these claims, the year 2012 recorded a significant rise in murder cases including a veteran lawyer and a member of parliament.

Murders in 2012 included: Member of Parliament Dr Afrasheem Ali murdered at his residence, lawyer Ahmed Najeeb found murdered and mutilated in a house, Lance Corporal Adam Haleem murdered while on his way to duty, Hassan Aboobakuru, 65 years, murdered in Manafaru Island, Abdulla Muheeth  mistakenly killed by a gang, 16 year old  Mohamed Arham found murdered inside the park behind Kulliyathul Dhirasathul Islamiyya, and a Bangladeshi expatriate worker found murdered in a building in Male.

“Prison space was increased,” the government said, adding “No prisoner was pardoned as per the power vested in the president under the Clemency Act.”

Presidents Office Spokespersons Ahmed ‘Topy’ Thaufeeq and Masood Imad were not responding at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Former President Nasheed fails to attend court hearing

Former President Mohamed Nasheed failed to attend his scheduled trial hearing at Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court today (February 10), an official from the Judiciary Media Unit has confirmed.

The former president, who is currently out of the country in India, was due to attend the second court hearing regarding the controversial detention of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

The Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court granted Nasheed permission to leave the country for India on February 5, however the former president is yet to return to the Maldives despite his permitted travel period expiring yesterday (February 9).

According to local media, a letter had been submitted to the Hulhumale’ Court on February 7 by Nasheed, requesting for his travel leave to be extended from 5:00pm today (February 10) until February 28.

However, the travel extension request was today denied by the bench of judges presiding over Nasheed’s case.

An official from the Judiciary Media Unit told Minivan News today that Nasheed’s hearing – scheduled for 4:00pm – had been cancelled after the former president failed to attend.

Asked as to what action the court will take regarding the matter, the official was unable to give a specific response, adding: “The courts will do something, but I do not know what that will be”.

According to the official, a new hearing for the trial is yet to be set by the court.

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor told Minivan News today that while the party had “no comment” regarding Nasheed’s lack of attendance at the hearing, the MDP maintains that Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court is “not a legitimate court”.

“The party maintains that [Mohamed Nasheed] should not go to that court, and we have raised the administration issues already,” he added.

Nasheed’s Spokesperson Mariya Didi was not responding to calls from Minivan News at time of press.

Supreme Court appeal

Earlier today, the legal team of former President Mohamed Nasheed appealed to the Supreme Court regarding the High Court’s ruling in favour of the legitimacy of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Nasheed had previously appealed to the High Court in order to contest the Hulhumale’-based court’s ruling in regard to his trial on three procedural issues raised during an initial hearing of his case in October 2012.

Despite the former president’s appeal, a three-member judges panel at the High Court ruled on February 4 that there were no “legal grounds” to declare Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court and its decisions illegitimate.

Following the High Court’s ruling, an official from the Judiciary Media Unit confirmed to Minivan News that Nasheed’s legal team have now appealed to the Supreme Court.

Local media reported that Nasheed’s legal team had tried to file the appeal at the Supreme Court on Thursday (February 7), but that this was refused due to insufficient documentation.

Former President’s legal team had argued that the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court could not hold hearings on a nearby island, therefore ruling out Male’.

Furthermore, a summoning order issued to Nasheed by the court on September 26, 2012, was inconsistent with existing laws, according to his lawyers.

Finally, Nasheed’s representatives claimed the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was formed in contradiction to the Judicature Act.

In a statement following the High Court’s verdict throwing out these procedural points, Nasheed said the decision “clearly means I will not be allowed a fair trial.”

Former MDP Chairperson MP Mariya Didi noted that the High Court concluded the case after only two successive hearings, adding that it seemed the Hulhumale’ Court “had prepared summons before the High Court judgement was even delivered.”

Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel – formerly Justice Minister during President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s 30 year government – has meanwhile told local media that swift prosecution of Nasheed before the Presidential Election was necessary to protect the “political and social fabric of the Maldives”.

“Every single day that passes without a verdict will raise questions over the justice system of the Maldives in the minds of the people,” Jameel told newspaper Haveeru.

Background

The Prosecutor General (PG) pressed charges against the former President in the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court on the grounds that holding the trial in Male’ at the Criminal Court represented a conflict of interest on behalf of Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed, whom the case concerned.

The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) appointed the three-member panel of judges to oversee the trial of the former president.

The Commission’s members include two of Nasheed’s direct political opponents, including Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid – Deputy of the government-aligned Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP) – and Gasim Ibrahim, a resort tycoon, media owner, MP and leader of the Jumhoree Party (JP), also a member of the governing coalition.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)