Tag: Politics

No “definitive answer” from US delegation over government’s failure to act on CoNI recommendations: MDP

The US delegation who visited the Maldives last week gave no “definitive answer” to political issues raised by former President Mohamed Nasheed, the party has said.

The delegation, consisting of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State James Moore, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Vikram Singh and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Jane Zimmerman, met with the former president on Thursday (January 31).

According to local media, Nasheed informed the delegates that the present government had failed to act upon the recommendations made in the Commission of National Inquiry (CoNI) report, claiming there had been a “lack of effort” to reform the judiciary.

However, MDP Spokesman Hamid Abdul Ghafoor said the US delegation were unable to answer the issues raised by Nasheed, and that their interest was focused on the implementation of free and fair elections later this year.

“The issue was a difficult question for them and we could not get a straight answer. Their purpose was to highlight the importance of implementing free and fair elections over here, but we wanted to find out how aligned they were with other issues,” Ghafoor added.

According to local media, the US delegation was set to meet various political parties and senior government officials to discuss the current political situation in the Maldives.

Issues including labour laws and the protection of worker’s rights were also a topic of discussion between Nasheed and the delegates, local media reported.

James R Moore is a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs since September 2010, and previously the Deputy Chief of Mission of the US Embassy in Colombo from 2006 to 2009.

Jane B Zimmerman is a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, responsible for South and Central Asia, the Western Hemisphere, and International Religious Freedom.

Vikram J Singh is Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence for South and Southeast Asia within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defence for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs.

Singh also serves as the principal adviser to senior leadership within the Department of Defence for all policy matters pertaining to development and implementation of defence strategies and plans for the region.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Former President calls for “caretaker administration” as protesters take to the streets

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has called on parliament to create an interim, caretaker administration “which can lead the country towards a genuinely free and fair presidential election in which all candidates are able to freely compete.”

Almost a thousand Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) demonstrators marched around Male’ this afternoon, the first such protest in Male’ for several months. Minivan News observed only a light police presence and no confrontations with authorities, aside from one protester who threw money in the face of a police officer.

The demonstration follows a week in which senior members of the defence and military gave evidence to a parliamentary inquiry alleging the transfer of power on February 7 “had all the hallmarks of a coup d’etat.”

Those members included Brigadier General Ibrahim Didi, Commander of Male’ area on February 7, Police Head of Intelligence Chief Superintendent Mohamed Hameed, Chief of Defense Force Major General Moosa Jaleel, Head of Military Intelligence Brigadier General Ahmed Nilaam, Chief Superintendent of Police Mohamed Jinah and Commissioner of Police Ahmed Faseeh. All six have since resigned or been suspended from duty.

Notably, many of those summoned told the committee they had given the same information to the Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CNI), but claimed their input was not reflected in its findings: no coup, no mutiny, and no resignation of the President under duress.

President Mohamed Waheed in a letter to Parliament Speaker Abdulla Shahid has previously said cabinet members, government officials, and members of the security forces would “shun” the committee, alleging it was operating outside its mandate.

“Legal experts and the Parliament’s Counsel General have also said the Committee is reviewing the CoNI report outside of its mandate. So the government will not partake in anything unlawful,” government spokesperson Ahmed Thaufeeg told local newspaper Haveeru.

The MDP has meanwhile compiled and distributed an English summary of the extensive Dhivehi minutes of the testimonies released this week.

“As per the CoNI’s terms of reference, after the publication of its report, the document was transmitted to key national institutions for their review and necessary action. This included the People’s Majlis (the Parliament) which received the report and transmitted it to the parliament’s oversight committees for scrutiny on the same day. It was sent to the executive oversight committee on September 18 2012,” the MDP noted.

“The testimonies of all the main witnesses summoned to the committee demonstrate a remarkable degree of consensus about what happened in early 2012, and a common understanding of the legality of the change in government,” the party said in an accompanying statement.

“All witnesses stated, unequivocally, that the change in government bore all the hallmarks of a coup d’etat. All named the same individuals as being central to the coup – with foremost among these the current commissioner of police and the current minister of defence.

“All made clear that following a meeting between opposition leaders and the-then Vice President, Mohamed Waheed, in the weeks preceded 7th February, those planning the coup swore their loyalty to him and thereafter he was fully implicated in the plot.

“All saw widespread evidence of collusion between elements of the police and army loyal to former President Gayoom and the main leaders of the coup. All had seen evidence that the plot to remove President Nasheed included the possibility that he would be assassinated if he did not leave willingly. And all claimed that the evidence and testimony they presented to the CoNI was either ignored or misrepresented.”

Deteriorating relations with India

In a separate statement, former President Nasheed expressed concern at the “deplorable manner” in which the government acted towards the Indian government, and its “treatment of the Indian people with contempt and disrespect.”

“Maldivians and Indians watched on in horror, as Waheed systematically destroyed the close relationship between our nations. It is imperative that friendly relations between Male’ and New Delhi are restored,” Nasheed said.

“Time and again, we have seen their petty, juvenile and counter-productive diplomacy strain relations with important and trusted friends. This has had a direct and detrimental impact on the Maldivian people.

“The restoration of good relations with India will only be possible with a legitimate government in Male’,” Nasheed added.

Nasheed’s comments follow reports this week that the Indian government had declined a request for an official visit by Foreign Minister Dr Abdul Samad Abdulla, who was seeking to set up a official visit for President Waheed.

“With elections expected in the next three to six months, [the Indian Prime Minister’s Office] was wary about Waheed or his foreign minister wrongly projecting a meeting for domestic political gains in the name of rapprochement with India,” the Indian Express reported.

Samad dismissed the reports and insisted that relations between the two countries remained cordial and “quite strong”, even as the Indian High Commission in Male’ released an 11 point list of consular grievances concerning the mistreatment of its nationals.

These included government departments withholding the passports and restricting the travel of Indian nationals, failing to renew visas in a timely fashion, charging disproportionately high fines for failure to renew visas, exploiting Indian workers, and failing to investigate threat calls to Indian diplomats.

Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that money was thrown at an MNDF officer. Money was thrown at a police officer, who did not react.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

President should have ratified political parties, privileges bills: DRP MP Mausoom

Government-aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) Deputy Leader Dr Abdulla Mausoom has expressed disappointment at President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik’s failure to ratify two controversial bills outlining parliamentary and political party regulations.

Dr Mausoom today told Minivan News that he believed the president should have ratified both bills before then seeking to make changes to specific clauses once they had been passed into law.

He claimed such an act would have allowed President Waheed to remove potential doubts that he may be acting to protect his own political interests by not approving the bills.

The President’s Office confirmed Thursday (January 10) that the People’s Majlis privileges and powers bill and the political party bill had been returned to parliament for reconsideration Thursday (January 10) after originally being passed late last year.

Among the key features outlined in the two bills were potential punishments for anyone attempting to stymie or disrespect the Majlis and its work, as well as a requirement for all political parties to have 10,000 registered members or face being dissolved by the country’s Elections Commission (EC).

Both bills have been criticised in part by NGOs and smaller political parties in the country over fears about the perceived impacts they may have on the democratic development of the Maldives.

However, speaking to Minivan News today, DRP Deputy Leader Mausoom said that he believed the president should have opted to ratify the bill, which he contended has certain regulations and requirements that had long been overdue in the Majlis, before then attempting to enact amendments at a later date.

Dr Mausoom claimed that with Dr Waheed’s own Gaumee Ithihaad Party (GIP) facing being dissolved as a result of being short of the 10,000 registered members required by the political parties bill, his failure to ratify it could lead to doubts over the partiality of the president’s decision.

“Maybe they are concerned they would not be able to get sufficient member numbers if it is passed,” he suggested.

As of January 13, 2013, Ethe lection’s Commission figures indicate that GIP has 3,218 registered members. Ratification of the political parties bill would have given President Waheed’s party three months to have obtained 10,000 members or face being dissolved by the EC.

Listening to minorities

Despite the comments, Dr Mausoom said the DRP was undecided on how to proceed over whether to seek a compromise in amending the two bills,  or support the existing provisions.

“The bill defining privileges for the Majlis is long overdue. While there may be some room for fine tuning, the bill itself is a must,” the DRP Deputy Leader added.

Dr Mausoom said that with the political parties bill, he understood that major concerns existed regarding the requirements for 10,000 registered members.  He claimed the DRP would take into account the views of minority parties in the Maldives before making any decision on the matter.

“There is thought that any political party should be able to obtain 10,000 members if it is to represent the views of the people, but there is also an argument to leave regulations as is it,” Dr Mausoom said.

“It is best to decide after listening to minority parties on the issue. We have always advocated as a party to listen to minorities whoever they are.”

Political parties were first authorised in the Maldives in May 2005 following an executive decree by then-President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom. Political parties have remained governed by a regulation requiring 3,000 members for registration.

This regulation did not stipulate that parties whose membership falls below the figure would be dissolved.

In March last year, EC Chair Fuad Thaufeeq told Minivan News that these regulations were “vague” as parties were not required to maintain 3,000 members once formed.

Despite a failure to ratify the two bills, Dr Mausoom rejected the notion that a divide had been formed between the president and the country’s legislature, adding that there were always likely to be differences of opinion within the present coalition government after it came to power in February 2012 under disputed circumstances.

“There is no friction between parties and the president. When we came to power, we had no unified policy, however any issues with have with the president we will raise with him,” he said.

Bill criticisms

The proposed amendments to regulations on political parties and parliamentary privileges were among a number of bills recently passed within the People’s Majlis that were attacked by local NGOs Transparency Maldives (TM) and Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN) earlier this month.

In a joint statement, the NGOs expressed concerns that clauses within the bills threatened to “weaken the democratic, good governance system” and “restrict some fundamental rights,” in the Maldives.

The political parties bill in particular has come under fierce criticism from smaller political parties in the country. Earlier this year, Special Advisor to President Waheed and Leader of government-aligned Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) Dr Hassan Saeed warned he would seek to invalidate the bill should it be ratified by the president.

He told local media at the time that the bill infringed rights enshrined in the constitution and that he would file a case at the Supreme Court requesting the law be struck down.

Dr Saeed was not responding to calls from Minivan News at time of press.

Late last year, the religious conservative Adhaalath Party accused the Majlis of directly attempting to “eradicate” Islamic ideology from Maldivian politics and limit its efforts against what it alleged were attempts to secularise the country.

Adhaalath Party Leader Sheikh Imran Abdulla said he suspected that “black money” from Indian infrastructure company GMR was behind the decision to insert the clause requiring 10,000 members. The government late last year voided a sovereign agreement with GMR to develop Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) – a decision strongly backed by the Adhaalath Party as part of a self-claimed “national movement”.

Imran claimed at the time that “a person with a brain would not deny” that the decision by parliament’s Independent Institutions Committee to raise the prerequisite to 10,000 members from 5,000 at a late stage was made “because the Adhaalath Party would be disqualified at that number.”

Parliamentary Speaker Adbulla Shahid, Deputy Speaker Ahmed Nazim and the Majlis’ Minority Leader Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Abdulla Yameen were not responding to calls from Minivan News at the time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MP Ali Waheed seeks temporary injunction after Criminal Court rejects appeal

Deputy Parliamentary Group Leader of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ali Waheed has today appealed a Criminal Court decision to reject procedural points raised during previous hearings of a case against him.

Lawyers representing the Thoddoo constituency MP argued during a High Court appeal hearing today that charges against him for obstructing police officers in their duty had previously been dismissed and, as a procedural point, could not therefore be legally resubmitted.

Ali Waheed is charged with obstruction of police duty during an anti-government protest he participated in while of member of the then opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP).  Waheed, who defected to then-ruling MDP in May 2011, was charged for breaching article 75 of Maldives Police Services Act.

Appeal

During today’s High Court appeal hearing, Waheed’s lawyer, former Attorney General Husnu al Suood, repeated his argument that the state could not resubmit the same criminal charges for a second time without any changes.

He contended that the decision of the prosecutor general (PG) to pursue the case contradicted article 223 of the constitution, which prescribes the powers of his office.

Responding to the argument, Assistant Public Prosecutor Hussain Nashid claimed that the charges had only been dropped “temporarily” in a bid to respect the “fairness” of criminal trials.

Nashid also argued that the prosecutor general had the discretionary power to decide on the procedures as to how criminal charges can be filed.

Meanwhile, Ali Waheed’s lawyer requested the High Court bench issue a temporary injunction to withhold the ongoing case at Criminal Court until the High Court decides on the matter.

In response to the request, chair of the sitting judges bench Judge Yoosuf Hussain said that the court would decide on whether to issue the requested injunction by the end of the day.

Discretion

Speaking to Minivan News today, prominent criminal lawyer Abdulla Haseen said he believed that the prosecutor general legally had the power to resubmit criminal cases after withdrawing them.  However, Haseen contended that any such decision should be “fair and just, without any political influences”.

“I do not believe that the constitution limits the power of PG to resubmit criminal cases again. But it should be done in a fair and just way without any political influences,” he said

Even though Haseen declined to comment on the ongoing court case, he stressed that the PG should ensure cases being sent to trial were done so in a way that was fair and just, especially when focusing on political figures.  Haseen stressed such a decision was vital in order to maintain the credibility and impartiality of prosecutions.

“We don’t usually see the PG resubmitting cases like this but it does not mean he cannot. However exercise of his discretion should always be impartial. When Ali Waheed’s case was withdrawn, it reflected political motives as much as it did when he decided to resubmit the case. PG is an independent constitutional body and should not be subject to political influence,” he explained.

The Prosecutor General’s Office was not responding to calls at time of press.

Case history

The case was first sent to the PG’s Office after an investigation by the police in March 2010.

By November that year, state prosecutors had dropped the charges against Ali Waheed on the grounds of a “lack of fairness”, stating that police had failed to submit a case relating to MDP activists entering the Civil Services Commission (CSC) office and harassing its staff.

The case against Ali Waheed was once filed again by the PG last year following the controversial transfer of power that brought President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik’s government into office.

Following the decision, Ali Waheed’s defence lawyer Suood argued during a Criminal Court hearing that the state cannot file the same criminal charges once they had been dropped on an earlier occasion.

Ali Waheed’s procedural points were dismissed by the sitting criminal court judge Abdulla Didi, stating that the PG could re-file a case.

During previous Criminal Court hearings, Waheed stated that he was unclear about the charges pressed against him. He added that he was not someone who would ever confront police with arms and questioned whether it was only him and Mahloof that were there during the protests.

State prosecutors responded that they had decided to prosecute Ali Waheed and fellow MP Ahmed Mahloof because they had been able to obtain sufficient evidence to support charges against the two politicians.

Along with MP Ali Waheed, former DRP MP Ahmed Mahloof is also facing the same charges.

Both Waheed and Mahloof were elected to parliament under the ticket of DRP. However, following the split of the DRP into two factions, both Waheed and Mahloof chose to leave their former party and head in two different directions.

Mahloof joined the newly formed Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), the party formed by the DRP members who supported former President Gayoom as opposed to the party’s current leader, MP Ahmed Thasmeen Ali. Ali Waheed meanwhile joined the MDP.

During the first hearing of the trail against him, Mahloof requested that the judge carry out the trial separately stating that although he and Waheed were once in the same party, times had changed and the pair now followed different political beliefs and parties.

The request was dismissed at the time by the presiding Judge Abdulla Didi, who stated that the state had levied one charge against both him and his parliamentary colleague. Judge Didi said differing political beliefs was immaterial to the case that was being heard.

Concerns

Following the filing of the case against Waheed for the second time, the MDP at the time raised concerns stating that the case had lost its meaning because of the delay in prosecution.

In a statement, the MDP claimed that “without considering the legal principle ‘justice delayed is justice denied’,  we would like to bring to notice that the state is prosecuting meaningless cases while more important cases remain unprosecuted, while others have already been dismissed,” read the statement.

It further described the prosecution of its members at the time as a “series of attempts to hurt” the party after the fall of the previous MDP-led government.  The MDP contends that former President Mohamed Nasheed was removed from office under “duress” following a mutiny by sections of the police and military on February 7, 2012.

Waheed, previously speaking to local media after the hearing, stated that he would not be threatened by such cases that the current government was pressing against him, and said he would “face the charges with courage”. He also asked the PG to prosecute him for even “slightest” wrong he had committed.

“This prosecution is not just a prosecution levied against me, this is a prosecution that is levied against the 50,000 members of MDP and the majority of the citizens of Thoddu constituency,” he said.

Ali Waheed told the press at the time that such unpleasant inducements by the government to pressure him to join them would not work and claimed that he would not leave the MDP to support an illegitimate government.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Umar Naseer may consider one of former President Gayoom’s children as presidential running mate

Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Interim Deputy Leader Umar Naseer has said he may consider choosing one of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s children as his running mate should he win the party’s upcoming presidential primary.

Speaking to local media after an event at Ghiyasuddin School in Male’ held to try and recruit volunteers for his campaign, Umar said that rival candidate Abdullah Yameen also “has the option” to be his running mate.

“There is the possibility that I might give the option to one of Maumoon’s children. The possibility to form a coalition and choose a running mate from that coalition is also an option,” he said.

“Three of Maumoon’s children are of eligible age. So I might also choose to give it to the most competent one amongst them,” Umar told Sun Online.

Out of Gayoom’s children, only Farish Maumoon, Dhunya Maumoon and Yumna Maumoon meet the requirements set out by Article 112 (c) of the Madives constitution, stating that a person has to be at least 35 years of age to be elected as president or vice president, according to the report.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Gayoom labels MDP revolution motion illegal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP announce resolution for “revolution” to overthrow government

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Singapore verdict justifies government to nationalise anything: former President Nasheed

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has claimed that the recent verdict by the Supreme Court of Singapore allowing the government to annul a development contract with infrastructure group GMR “justifies” the Maldivian government to “nationalise anything”.

Nasheed’s comments follow the handing over of Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) from GMR to the state-owned Maldives Airports Company Limited (MACL), after the Maldivian government voided the concession agreement.

Nasheed told Minivan News that the annulment was “very unfortunate” and highlighted that the government had “not only expelled the biggest foreign investment in the Maldives’ history”, but also created a “precedent” whereby nationalisation is acceptable.

“[The government] has created an avenue, or rather the verdict they got from Singapore Court, apparently justifies the government nationalising anything,” Nasheed added.

Prior to the eviction of GMR, arbitration proceedings were underway in Singapore over the contested airport development charge (ADC). GMR received a stay order on its eviction and appeared confident of its legal position even as the government declared that it would disregard the ruling and proceed with the eviction as planned.

On December 6, the Maldivian government successfully appealed the injunction in the Supreme Court of Singapore.  Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon declared that “the Maldives government has the power to do what it wants, including expropriating the airport.”

Minivan News has learned that senior Chinese military officials landed at the airport in the tense week leading up to the handover, even as India warned of “adverse consequences” should the government proceed with forceful eviction.  The government has continued to dismiss such claims.

When asked about claims regarding China’s potential involvement, Nasheed said: “I am not aware of any involvement from the Chinese, but what is being suggested is that the coup government seems to have strength, or seemsto get strength, from somewhere, from someone else.”

“In a sense, it is also sad that India has felt that appeasing bigots and appeasing racists and appeasing ultra nationalism is going to help them or this country,” Nasheed added.

President’s Office Spokesman Masood Imad responded to Nasheed’s comments, stating: “Nasheed is absolutely right, we have had some strength from another source. We have had British and Singaporean lawyers who found the contract to be ‘void ab initio’.”

With GMR having now been evicted from INIA, Masood stated that the Indian infrastructure giant and MACL were working “seamlessly together” over the airport hand over.

The verdict from the Singaporean Supreme Court effectively legalising the sovereign eviction of foreign investors regardless of contractual termination clauses or pending arbitration proceedings, was “completely unexpected”, according to one GMR insider – “the lawyers are still in shock”.

A last ditch request for a review of the decision was rejected, as was a second attempt at an injunction filed by Axis Bank, GMR’s lender to the value of US$350 million.

Following a meeting with its staff before the handover, GMR issued the following statement:

“In deference to the orders of the Court of Appeals, Singapore; GMR Male International Airport Ltd (GMIAL) will facilitate a smooth takeover of the Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) by the Maldives Airport Company Ltd (MACL), effective midnight tonight.

GMIAL has been assured that as a result of this takeover all its employees, suppliers and other interested parties will not be put to any inconvenience. GMIAL remains committed to finding a suitable solution to this situation. We are taking requisite steps to work out the compensation receivable from the Government of Maldives, keeping in mind the judgement of the aforementioned court and the concession agreement dated 28th June 2010.

All actions as above are without prejudice to our legal rights and statements made before various courts/tribunals where matters are currently being pursued or likely to be taken up.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JP MP Abdulla Jabir “confident” as secret voting for no-confidence motions passed again by Committee

Jumhoree Party (JP) MP Abdulla Jabir has revealed he is “confident” that the vote on secret balloting for no-confidence motions against the President will pass in parliament.

The Kaashidhoo MP’s comments follow Parliament’s General Committee’s decision to pass the proposed amendments to establish secret voting.

The same amendment was voted on just over a week ago in parliament, but was defeated by a narrow margin of 34 to 39 votes.

The proposed amendment to Article 167 of the Standing Orders states that secret ballots should be taken at the parliament and parliament committees for removing the President, Vice President and members of independent institutions from office.

General Committee Chairman Abdullah Abdul Raheem said that the bill was passed today with four votes in favour, out of the nine MPs present at the meeting. The remaining MPs did not participate in the vote.

The amendment was filed by Maldivian Democratic Party’s (MDP) Maanfannu-dhekunu MP Ibrahim Rasheed, who stated there is an importance to establish an independent and secure environment for members of parliament during voting.

JP MP Jabir further iterated the need for protection of MPs when voting, alleging that President Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik is “unlawfully” operating the country and that the secret vote will protect MPs from abuse.

“I am confident [the vote] will pass, especially with all the developments that have taken place since the last vote. This brutal executive of the government that Waheed is operating is a military government now, and he is why this vote is being made,” Jabir told Minivan News.

MDP International Spokesman and MP for Henveiru South Hamed Adbul Ghafoor believes that the proposed amendment will obtain the full 39 votes, alleging that “cracks” are appearing in the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP).

“The Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) also voted to make the ballot secret at committee stage, and the parties who were involved in the coup are now becoming unstuck, we will get out 39 votes this time,” Ghafoor claimed.

“Politically motivated attempt to disrupt parliament  ahead of the vote”: MDP

A number of MPs were arrested prior to the previous vote on secret balloting, in what opposition parties alleged was an attempt to disrupt parliament ahead of the vote.

In a police raid on the island of Hondaidhoo in Haa Dhaal Atoll, both Jabir and Ghafoor were detained along with several opposition figures including former SAARC Secretary General and Special Envoy to the former President, Ibrahim Hussain Zaki, former Press Secretary Mohamed Zuhair and his wife Mariyam Faiz, for the alleged possession of alcohol.

Police claimed to have found large amounts of “suspected” drugs and alcohol upon searching the island.

The arrests were made “based on information received by police intelligence,” police said. Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef told Haveeru that the suspects were arrested with alcohol and “hash oil”.

Following the arrests made around midnight, the suspects were taken to Kulhudhufushi in Haa Dhaal Atoll, and Zaki was hospitalised.

Despite a police attempt to extend the detention periods, both Jabir and Ghafoor were released by the Kulhudhufushi Magistrate Court.

In an investigation into allegations of police brutality towards MPs, a delegation from the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) revealed that they found it “difficult” to believe the arrested MPs were not targeted for political reasons.

Philippine Senator Francis Pangilinan from IPU’s Committee on Human Rights of Parliamentarians, said: “The circumstances of the arrest are very worrying. An impressive team of unidentified police and an army of officers allegedly carried out the arrests, reportedly without a warrant and ill-treated the MPs.

“We are well aware that the consumption of alcohol and drugs is forbidden in the Maldives, but we find it difficult to believe in light of the circumstances and timing of the arrests that the parliamentarians were not targeted for political reasons.”

Days prior to the secret voting motion, DRP MPs Mohamed Nashiz and Ali Azim were ordered to appear in court over Funaddoo Tuna Products’s failure to repay loans worth MVR 117 million (US$7.5 million) to the Bank of Maldives.

Allegations made by DRP MP Ali Azim claim that the president and other senior members of the executive had approached him, offering to cancel the court summons if he agreed to vote for the secret balloting in a way they preferred.

Azim alleged that in addition to Waheed, his Political Advisor Ahmed Thaufeeq and Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza had called him and made similar statements.

The court order was later cancelled, on the grounds that the judge presiding over the case was out of the country.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)