Tag: ppm

Prosecutor General will imprison Nasheed before elections, promises PPM

Deputy leader of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Umar Naseer has expressed his confidence that the Prosecutor General’s (PG) investigation into charges against former President Mohamed Nasheed will see his imprisonment before the scheduled elections in July 2013.

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

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

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

When Minivan News asked the Deputy PG Hussein Shameem if he felt politician’s comments about an ongoing investigation were appropriate, said: “I wouldn’t like to comment on that. If we start commenting on what politicians say, it will become too much.”

Naseer and his party’s spokesman Ahmed Mahlouf were not responding to calls at the time of press.

Shameem said that the cases against Nasheed, which include the detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed and the police’s alleged discovery of alcohol at the former President’s residence, were “waiting for extra information.”

“We are not sitting on it,” Shameem hastened to add.

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) spokesman Hamid Abdul Ghafoor dismissed Naseer’s comments.

“This is a man who has openly said he was a participant in this coup,” he said.

Naseer told Australian journalist Mark Davis in February that he had helped command the anti-government protesters as well as offering inducements to the police to mutiny.

Ghafoor was confident that the PG would not be swayed by Naseer’s comments.

“I do not believe the PG can be swayed –  he has been independent and I do not think that he will notice such comments. Also, I do not believe that the office is only one person, it is an institution,” he said.

He did, however, express concerns about the capacity of the office.

“Because of the lack of decisions, we have reason to believe the PG has a limited capacity. It is extremely slow in coming to grips with the situation,” Ghafoor said.

In March, the PG General Ahmed Muizz told Minivan News that the completion of the Nasheed cases was being delayed whilst police reviewed certain aspects of the investigation.

After meeting with the PG, PPM MP Mohamed Waheed today told Haveeru that the majority of the delays in prosecuting cases were resulted from incomplete investigations.

During an interview with Minivan News in April, Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz spoke of the need for enhanced training within the service to avoid such problems.

“We are doing a lot of training on professional development; investigations to make sure that, rather than on the number of cases we investigate, we concentrate more on making sure that we have more successful prosecutions,” said Riyaz.

“We have seen in the past a lot of cases that have not been proven at the court of law. That is a big concern for me, so I am working very closely with the PG as well to make sure that our officers are trained professionally to investigate, to interview, trained to collect evidence, analyse it, submit reports and present it at the court of law, and make sure we have successful prosecutions,” he added.

The call for institution building has been heard most frequently from the current government, although calls for the reform of institutions such as the judiciary and the Majlis were a leitmotif of the Nasheed administration.

State Minister for Foreign Affairs Dunya Maumoon told the BBC in April that early elections would not be possible before the state’s institutions were strengthened.

A few days prior to Dunya’s interview with the BBC, the United States pledged US$500,000 in technical assistance to Maldivian institutions in order to ensure free and fair elections.

Naseer’s comments on the role of the PG’s Office came on the same day that the MDP report on the events of February 7 was sent to both the reformed Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) and the PG’s office.

Shameem said they had not yet studied the report but he was aware that it had been sent.

When asked if the PG’s Office would investigate the report’s findings now or wait for the CNI to deliberate, he replied: “I suppose we will have to wait for the CNI.”

Shameem added that the report would be of limited value to the office before that time.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

DRP positioned as “moderate” alternative to PPM and MDP: Dr Mausoom

The Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) has said it will provide a “moderate” alternative to the more “extreme” political policies of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), ahead of presidential elections set for 2013.

Speaking to Minivan News today, DRP Parliamentary Group Leader and MP Dr Abdulla Mausoom said that the party was pushing ahead with a new national strategy over the next 12 months to employ more “moderate policies” in areas like economic development and privatisation.

The comments were made following a DRP rally held on Thursday at the artificial beach area of Male’. During the gathering, speakers including party Leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali claimed the party had both the following and the polices to defeat the MDP and former President Nasheed at the next elections.

While being ultimately committed to playing a role in coalition government of President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan until an election race begins, Dr Mausoom also stressed that with “no clear agreement” on the exact policies of the present government during its formation, “differences of opinion” were to be expected among different parties.

According to Parliamentary Group Leader Mausoom, the impact of these differences was potentially already being seen in the rivalry between different parties.

Local media coverage of the rally alleged that around 60 people in the audience at Thursday’s gathering were expatriate workers who were instructed by several Maldivians to stand and applaud during talks from key DRP figures. However, Dr Mausoom responded that any expatriate workers present had likely been supplied by political rivals to tarnish the party’s reputation.

“This sort of thing is done to tarnish the reputation and respect held by the public for the DRP. The public often judge popularity by the number of people at the rally and we noticed some of the media had taken photos of the rally before people had begun arriving,” he said. “It is very irresponsible , but we expect this to happen as rivalry increases between different parties.”

“New drive”

Mausoom said that Thursday’s rally represented the beginning of a “new drive” by the party to hold events across the capital and in the outer atolls to mobilise and involve its members in promoting its policies and attracting new followers.

“We are getting lots of support from members in the islands and things look very promising for the party right now. We are anticipating huge numbers to join us [up to 2013],” he added. “We are attracting many MDP members who have been let down by the party’s failure to uphold democracy and shifting towards us.”

Mausoom contended that the DRP also expected to attract members of other political parties in the country that he said had been “more extreme” in their policies and actions.

“We are a clear alternative to major parties like the PPM and MDP. The MDP for example mismanaged democracy [during the administration of former President Nasheed]. They disrespected the rule of law and independent institutions. The DRP will give due respect to the law.”

Mausoom claimed that this respect for law was reflected in the more “moderate stance” the party hoped to take on issues ahead of the next general election.

“We don’t want privatisation of essential public services. In areas like education and healthcare we are completely against total privatisation,” he said. “At the moment we are committed to more generic policies. But we will be announcing more clear objectives later.”

In trying to play up the party’s more “moderate” political aims, Mausoom raised two key issues were it had already shown a difference of opinion to other government-aligned parties, such as the PPM.

“One issue has been the motion to renounce the Maldives’ commonwealth membership. The DRP has said it would not support this. This is the same for debates on national health funds. We believe that basic healthcare should be provided by the state.”

According to Mausoom, the DRP also holds a vital and unique role in the Majlis for enabling policy that was being passed in parliament, either by voting in line with the government-aligned PPM or the opposition MDP.   The MDP and the PPM are presently are two largest parties in terms of parliamentary representatives.

“Any amendments to laws or policy in the country need to be passed through the Majlis. In order to get the numbers to do this, there should be either a PPM and DRP agreement, or a DRP and MDP agreement,” he said, “However, there may be issues that we do not agree and we would not therefore back these changes. There may be issues that the MDP and PPM agree on passing, but I do not see that happening.”

The party claimed it represented a “middle ground” within Maldivian politics between the MDP and the PPM, established by former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

The claim was rubbished by MDP spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor however, who claimed that the DRP as a political party had been stifled both internally and externally.

The DRP was originally founded by Gayoom before a war of words with his annointed successor and present party leader Thasmeen saw a breakaway faction of party members establish the PPM.

Ghafoor alleged that following the formation of the PPM, which now holds the second largest number of MPs in the Majlis behind the MDP, the DRP was effectively being replaced as a political entity by Gayoom’s new party.

“I believe that the DRP have failed to identify themselves and what they stand for,” he said.  “Over the weekend, Mr Thasmeen spoke of having outlined policies that can defeat the MDP at elections. But he has failed to articulate any of those policies. I would welcome commitments to establish a grass roots political network on islands like the MDP has done, but the DRP have not managed this. The party is disappearing and the PPM is replacing it.”

Ghafoor claimed that whilst the MDP had identified itself as “a democratic champion” under former President Nasheed, the rest of the country’s political parties had been “left behind” and failed to provide actual alternative polices to the public.

PPM power

Despite the MDP’s claims, PPM Vice President Umar Naseer told Minivan News last month that he believed the MDP realised it faced electoral defeat in the current political environment.

Naseer, who had previously served as deputy leader of the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) before being dismissed, claimed that recent by-election victories for the party over the last two months,  showed clear public support for the wider coalition government.

“If [general] elections were held right now, the MDP would be defeated badly,” he said. “The MDP understands this.”

Ahead of any future presidential elections, Naseer claimed the PPM was focused on bolstering its presence in the Majlis after assuming the minority parliamentary leadership role in April.

Naseer claimed the party would continue pursuing a coalition that might eventually allow it to replace the MDP as majority leader in the majlis.

“Our main focus now will be the elections in 2013,” he said.

Naseer added that when elections were held, the PPM would be working to strengthen the position of its own possible presidential candidate.

“My feeling right now is that [President Waheed] will not stand during the presidential elections,” he claimed.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MP Rasheed committed to MDP despite support for Majlis speaker

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ahmed Rasheed said he remains committed to the party even if he is “punished” by its Parliamentary Group for not supporting a no-confidence motion forwarded against Majlis Speaker Abdulla Shahid.

Rasheed told Minivan News today that he expected to remain an elected member of the party, which he continued to support, despite standing by his position to back the parliamentary speaker against a reported three-line whip enforced by the MDP.

During a vote of no confidence taken against Shahid yesterday, 45 out of the 74 parliament members present in the sitting voted in favour of the speaker and 25 voted against him. Two members abstained. MDP MPs Hassan Adil and Ahmed Rasheed were said to have voted against their party line. MDP MPs Mohamed ‘Colonel’ Nasheed and MP Ali Riza abstained.

MDP Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor said that the MPs who voted against the no confidence motion would now be required to explain themselves to the party’s Parliamentary Group Leader, MP Ibrahim Mohamed Solih.

Hamid added that the MDP had not yet decided on what course of action may be taken to deal with the MPs who voted against the whip at a time when the party trails in parliamentary support to a coalition of government-aligned parties.  The MDP currently stands alone as an opposition party against the coalition government of President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan, which it alleges was brought to power in a “coup d’etat”.

“I wouldn’t go as far as to say that we will do anything rash. Under these stressful circumstances we have to be disciplined as a party,” Ghafoor explained in regards to the possible measures that could be taken against MPs who had not supported the vote.

While the exact nature of action to be taken by the party against members who voted against the bill is presently unknown, MP Rasheed said he would not be looking to switch his political allegiance even when potentially facing being reprimanded or expelled.

“I believe in the MDP manifesto. There is no question to me that it is the only party that actually has a manifesto,” he claimed. “In my mind, there is also no one trying to force me out of the party.”

Last month, the MDP’s former President Dr Ibrahim Didi and former Vice President Alhan Fahmy switched allegiances to the Jumhoree Party (JP). The decision was taken after the MDP’s National Congress passed a majority vote to remove both men from their respective leadership posts after they stood accused of making statements contradictory to the party’s official line.

Despite pledging his allegiance to the party today, Rasheed maintained his support for Shahid in the no confidence motion, claiming that the present speaker, out of 77 parliamentary members, was the “only person right now” who should have the Majlis chair.

Despite Shahid representing the government-aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), Rasheed contend that the speaker – due to a perceived lack of power in the position of his party – would not directly support former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and his Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM).  The PPM was formed last year after an increasingly bitter war of words between current DRP Leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali and Gayoom, who had originally founded the party. The war of words saw the party split between supporters loyal to Gayoom and those in favour of Thasmeen’s tenure.

“Discipline”

Questioned as to whether the MDP, through its Parliamentary Group, would be looking to discipline the MPs who failed to back the party line, Ghafoor would not be drawn into the possible repercussions until an internal review was complete.

“The issue is that these MPs went against the whipline. This has been noted by the Parliamentary group Leader.  He now wants to find out why,” he said. “If they go against the party line they must have a good explanation for doing so.”

Ghafoor claimed that as a party, the MDP had generally been “disciplined” in ensuring solidarity among its members during parliamentary voting – a decision he said had afforded it the best record among fellow parties.

“There have of course been mishaps from time to time where people have gone against the party line,” he said.

Ghafoor took the example of former Party President Dr Ibrahim Didi and Vice President Alhan Fahmy as a notable example of where its members had been reprimanded.

“At this delicate time, [voting against the party line] does serve to reduce confidence in the party,” he said.

“Major principles” were at stake in yesterday’s high-profile no-confidence motion, Ghafoor said, adding that there was particular pressure from grassroots supporters to ensure the no-confidence vote succeeded.

“This is nothing personal, but the party supporters are in no mood to tolerate such actions from their MPs,” he said.

Ghafoor claimed that whatever action the party may decide to take against MPs voting against the official MDP line, it would not act in a “rash” manner.

The MDP Parliamentary Group has maintained that it has held “serious reservations” for some time about the Parliamentary Speaker’s ability to pass policies into legislation – despite his capabilities and understanding of national politics.

Speaker support

Speaking during yesterday’s debate, DRP Leader Thasmeen stated that the no-confidence motion had been forwarded amid baseless accusations.  He defended his fellow party member, saying that he had been executing the responsibilities of the speaker in accordance with the parliament rules and procedures.

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

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

PPM spokesperson MP Ahmed Mahloof stated that despite his being an outspoken critic of Shahid who made several statements in the media and the parliament floor, he would stand by the speaker’s side today.

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

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

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Youth Minister Mundhu Shareef defends ministry from DRP’s allegations of incompetence

Youth Minister and spokesperson for former President Gayoom, Mohamed ‘Mundhu’ Hussain Shareef, has hit back against the Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP)’s allegations that the government had not made “adequate efforts” to address the country’s recent economic and political upheavals.

Mundhu’s response followed allegations last week from DRP Deputy Leader Ibrahim ‘Mavota’ Shareef that some top officials in the present coalition government – of which the DRP is one of several parties represented – had not shown themselves to be “capable” or “proficient”.

Speaking to online publication Channel News Maldives, Mundhu said the DRP’s criticism targeted ministries headed by the Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) because ministries headed by the DRP had themselves not done sufficient work after the government came into power.

Mundhu also claimed that the criticism leveled against the PPM was with the intention of helping the government sort out its challenges, but was instead a personal attack. He also stated that when Shareef criticised the youth ministry, he did not realise that it was one of the most efficient ministries in the current government.

“If one had looked into Male’ alone, there has been significant progress made since I assumed the position,” Mundhu claimed.

He said that renovations had been brought to the youth centres in Villimale and Galolhu wards, and also the youth center in Hulhumale. He added that maintenance works were being carried out in Maafannu Stadium leveling its ground and fixing the lighting system, and that his ministry had planned further enhancements to the National Stadium as well.

“These are just a few works to date. The Youth Ministry is one of the most efficient ministries since Dr Waheed came to power,” he added.

Mundhu alleged that the DRP  had been making up stories “because the ministries that they control are failing.”

“They want to say the government is not functioning properly so they can walk away from the government. President Waheed will know of this,” Mundhu said.

Mundhu was not responding at time of press.

During a press conference held last week, DRP Deputy Leader Ibrahim Shareef expressed particular concern over the conduct of the Foreign Ministry, which he alleged had not sufficiently explained to the international community the current situation in the Maldives since the new government came to power. Both the Foreign Minister and State Minister are from the PPM. State Minister Dunya Maumoon is also Gayoom’s daughter.

Shareef also raised criticised accusations by the Foreign Ministry that the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) had sided with the now opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) – a claim he did not agree with.

Shareef told local media that despite the “major achievement” of the coalition remaining in power for its first 100 days, it had been difficult for the DRP to “execute its policies and beliefs” in line with other parties.

He said he was confident that several ministries overseen by DRP representatives, including areas such as finance and tourism, were functioning “efficiently”.

Tempers have been flaring between the two parties, who make up the majority of the now ruling coalition of political parties backing President Mohamed Waheed Hassan. Waheed was sworn in on February 7 after former president Mohamed Nasheed’s controversial resignation.

Vice President of the PPM Umar Naseer has alleged to local media that DRP’s recent criticism of the government was due to their intention to leave the ruling coalition, an argument the DRP has denied to this date.

Speaking to newspaper Haveeru at the time, Naseer accused DRP leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali of trying to “get things done in his favor” through the present government.

“The DRP is seeking to get a sovereign guarantee to pay off Thasmeen’s debts. As soon as they know it can’t happen, they will break away from the coalition”, Naseer claimed.

However, Shareef denied Naseer’s allegations and accused Naseer of continuously attempting to defame Thasmeen.

“Umar accused Thasmeen and Abdulla Shahid of being involved in the [awarding of the airport] to GMR. If that is so, why aren’t they investigating the matter now that they are in the government? There is never any truth to what [Umar Naseer] says,” Shareef said at the time.

Naseer claimed that PPM deserved more positions in the current government than the DRP, as PPM had played the “most important role” in the transfer of power in February.

“Ninety-nine percent of the anti-government protesters were from PPM. 99 percent of the injured were from PPM. Our members sacrificed the most to change the government. And DRP does not deserve to get an equal number of government positions as PPM,” Naseer said.

Naseer’s comments follow last week’s press conference by the DRP criticising certain government officials and describing them as incompetent.

The Progressive Party of the Maldives formed from a splinter group in the DRP, under the leadership of former president Maumoon Abdul Gayyoom. Gayyoom and Thasmeen came to blows after Gayyoom’s faction alleged that Thasmeen had been running the party through “authoritarian” means.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Maldives heading towards two-party MDP/PPM system

In many cases social scientists have observed that multiparty systems, especially in a presidential political system, have inevitably transformed into two-party contests. While many parties are usually present at birth of a nascent democracy, as it matures the contest for power between these parties slowly become a fight for survival ensuring that only the strongest parties survive.

The video below demonstrates how multiparty systems filter out smaller parties as the democracy matures:

We are not of the view that a two-party system is better than a multiparty system. In fact a multiparty political system allows for more voter choice. We however do think that a multiparty system is much less likely to occur in a presidential system compared to a parliamentary political system (which is perhaps why MDP was right in endorsing a parliamentary political system when it was put to referenda). Maldivian politics too, seems like it is moving towards a two party political system. While it might be too soon to jump to conclusions, here is how we think it might happen;

The reason why we think MDP and PPM are the most likely two parties to survive is because we believe that they are the two parties with strong and exclusive principles. MDP was the founding party of Maldivian Democracy. It has stood boldly for individual freedoms, social welfare and has continuously opposed the use of force in maintaining social order (at least in principle). PPM on the other hand has endorsed a system Maldivians saw for 30 years where the emphasis is on social order, even at the expense of individual freedoms.

DRP though part of Ithihad (coalition), we predict that them moving away from it. First of all they took the bold move of forcing Gayoom to leave the party, and since then tension between DRP and PPM have been unresolvable.

Most PPM supporters feel bitter about DRP and are less likely to work with them. We think that feeling is mutual from DRP supporters towards PPM as well. The only thing now keeping MDP and DRP separated seems to be their disagreement with Mohamed Nasheed. Even then, we think if the earliest elections move to a second round DRP is much more likely to endorse the MDP candidate over Gayoom.

Given that we feel that both MDP and DRP will maintain similar ideologies the question must be answered as to why we believe MDP will survive over DRP. This is because MDP by far has a larger support base than DRP; whose members seem to be still stuck on crossroads after Gayoom left the party to form PPM.

Secondly, MDP is the party that founded democracy, and has continued to mature with these same principles while DRP was a party used to support an autocrat who they seem to disagree with now. In terms of number and consistency, it’s easy to see why MDP will win over DRP. We also predict PPM to win over DRP in the first round of the next election.

Apart from the fact that PPM continues to win former DRP members, PPM also enjoys the potential support from AP and JP as part of the Ithihad. Furthermore, we think that the lack of an exclusive principle in DRP means that swing voters who decide to vote for democracy will vote for MDP, leaving DRP expecting to win votes only from their own members.

The Adhaalath Party (AP) seems to be losing a lot of support it used to enjoy from the highly religious community in Maldives. The recent scandals, as well as the contradictory statements regarding political activism by their leaders have casted doubt on their sincerity, credibility, and commitment to Islamic principles.

Though AP leadership is expected to campaign with PPM in the second round of the upcoming elections, overtime the votes of AP members are most likely to transfer to a party which they feel, can accommodate a favorable Islamic environment.

If the Jumhooree Party (JP) was to support a principle; it would be in favor of liberalised markets and maximum commercial freedom. They seem to support least possible taxation and most possible freedoms in terms on investment and commerce. We argue that the party is likely to make coalition with a party that agrees to maintain the trade liberalisation ideology. We also would like to point out that such a coalition makes perfect sense for PPM since there seems to be no conflict of interest in adhering to the principles of JP.

Overall, our conclusion is that Maldives is likely to move towards a two-party political system as the political history matures. Perhaps parties like AP or JP might not completely die out, but it can be said with relative certainty that the main battles for presidency is to most likely happen between MDP and PPM.

This article first appeared on the Freethinker Maldives blog. Republished with permission.

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)

PPM strikes back against DRP’s criticism of government

Vice President of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Umar Naseer has alleged to local media that Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP)’s recent criticism of the government was due to their intention to leave the ruling coalition.

Speaking to newspaper Haveeru, Naseer accused DRP leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali of trying to “get things done in his favor” through the present government.

“The DRP is seeking to get a sovereign guarantee to pay off Thasmeen’s debts. As soon as they know it can’t happen, they will break away from the coalition”, Naseer claimed.

DRP Deputy Leader Ibrahim ‘Mavota’ Shareef denied Naseer’s allegations and said Thasmeen had no debts under his name.

He further accused Naseer of continuously attempting to defame Thasmeen.

“Umar accused Thasmeen and Abdulla Shahid of being involved in the [awarding of the airport] to GMR . If that is so, why aren’t they investigating the matter now that they are in the government? There is never any truth to what [Umar Naseer] says,” Shareef said.

Naseer claimed that PPM deserved more positions in the current government than the DRP, as PPM had played the “most important role” in the transfer of power in February.

“Ninety-nine percent of the anti-government protesters were from PPM. 99 percent of the injured were from PPM. Our members sacrificed the most to change the government. And DRP does not deserve to get an equal number of government positions as PPM,” Naseer said.

Naseer’s comments follow Monday’s press conference by the DRP criticising certain government officials and describing them as incompetent.

During the press conference, Shareef claimed the Foreign Ministry had inaccurately portrayed the real situation in the Maldives, and had falsely claimed that the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) had sided with the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

Misconceptions in the international community surrounding the transfer of power represented a failure on behalf of the Ministry, Haveeru reported Shareef as saying.

In response, Naseer accused the DRP of trying to win a parliamentary majority by forming a coalition with the MDP.

However, speaking to Minivan News, DRP MP Dr Abdulla Mausoom said that despite some concerns the party had regarding the current government’s policies, it had no intention of leaving the coalition until the next presidential elections.

Asked about any possible consequences clashes between the DRP and PPM – the two largest parties in the ruling coalition – would have on the functioning of the unity government and political stability in the country, Dr Mausoom said the cross-party strife had “nothing to do with the functioning of the government”.

Furthermore, “imagining” that the DRP would leave the coalition and join the MDP was “irresponsible journalism”, he said, adding that the DRP would continue to support President Waheed’s administration until the next election.

The PPM was formed last year following an acrimonious split with the DRP, after the party’s disciplinary committee evicted Naseer from the party. Naseer claimed he had been thrown out of the party for protesting against the MDP, while the DRP leadership contended that he had been holding protests without the party’s consent.

In December 2010, following Naseer’s departure from the party, a DRP event ended in a factional brawl.

A meeting came to blows after Naseer, the party’s Deputy Leader prior to his dismissal by the party’s disciplinary committee, and his supporters gatecrashed the venue.

The meeting was held in celebration of a Supreme Court ruling, which saw seven cabinet ministers departing their posts after their reappointments were disapproved by the opposition-majority parliament.

In February 2011, police evacuated Shareef from DRP headquarters after the spokesperson was attacked by a crowd of Naseer’s supporters.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

All party talks agree on order of agenda

The India-sponsored all party talks will continue later this month at a weekend retreat on Bandos Island Resort and Spa, after delegates on Monday agreed to the order of a six point agenda that will conclude with a date being set for early elections.

Convenor of the all-party talks, Ahmed Mujuthaba, told Minivan News he was “quite hopeful” that the talks could be concluded during the next session, which he expected to last at least two days.

Mujuthaba said that the talks, which were timed to avoid clashing as much as possible with individual delegates’ work time, could be extended for a third day if required.

“We have have to schedule these talks for the following week as various parties were not available this weekend. We did not expect an agreement on this today,” he said.

The talks reconvened yesterday amidst claims of optimism from both government and opposition representatives over the importance of the discussions in resolving political upheavals resulting from February’s controversial transfer of power. The last round of talks ended prematurely on May 6.

Despite delegates having previously agreed on an agenda for the discussions, the talks have ended in stalemate on numerous occasions since first proposed. Recent rounds of discussions stalled over concerns about issues such as the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s parliamentary boycotts and the legality of a recent vote to remove its president and vice president.

The latest round of talks proceeded with consensus of all parties involved, said Mujuthaba.

Mujuthaba said parties had agreed to attend a weekend-long set of talks to try and resolve differences, and had agreed to the agenda for the six areas of discussion. All rounds of the talks have so far been held in two hour blocks.

According to Mujuthaba the order will proceed as follows:

  1. Public order and stability
  2. State budget concerns
  3. Independence of national institutions
  4. Identity and revise any laws
  5. Constitutional amendments
  6. Setting a date for early elections

Both the Commonwealth and European Union support fresh elections being held during 2012. President Mohamed Waheed Hassan has said that under the constitution, the earliest date that presidential polls can be held would be July 2013.

“I hope that we may see a conclusion to the talks,” Mujuthaba said.

Breakthrough claims

One of the two MDP representatives for the talks, Hamid Abdul Ghafoor, said he believed the most recent session was a “breakthrough” for all participants involved.

“One of the items we wished to see on the agenda was early elections, however other parties like the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) have proposed discussions first on other issues such as political instability, the economy and constitutional amendments,” he claimed. “Our position has always been that they can have any order they want for the agreed agenda.”

Fellow MDP representative Dr Mariyam Zulfa had previously expressed concern that a failure to set a date for elections earlier  into the talks would see significant delays to any decision being made.

Zulfa contended that the MDP  had a “natural interest” in moving the setting of a date for early elections towards the top of the talks’ agenda.

However, Ghafoor said that he remained optimistic over the direction of the talks.

Conceding that “huge problems” lay ahead, Ghafoor said his party was encouraged that any agreement had been reached.

He said that MDP’s protests were likely to be challenged during the talks in the first point on the agenda, political stability. Ghafoor claimed that delegates held varying perceptions on the protests, which the party maintains have been carried out according to its democratic right.

“It is a matter of interpretation over freedom of expressions,” he said. “However, the government do not see it like this.”

Ghafoor also raised concerns about a Housing Ministry request for police to dismantle an MDP protest site at ‘Usfasgandu’ that he claimed raised wider issues over the powers of decentralised government introduced by the former government.

Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) representative Ilham Ahmed, and Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) representative Ibrahim Shareef were not responding at time of press.

Government commitments

Speaking to Minivan News prior to the latest round of talks, President’s Office Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza claimed the government was committed to the talks, insisting that all parties needed to agree on the direction of any resolution to the present political stalemate.

Abbas added that the MDP would be required to guarantee “peace” and “security” if talks were to continue successfully.

“The government is insistent that all parties should agree on certain things for the talks to continue,” he said. “These things include ensuring stability and calm.”

Abbas criticised protests conducted across the capital of Male’ over the weekend that reportedly saw some demonstrators interrupting a mosque service on Majeedhee Magu.  He said that the demonstrations, which led to clashes between demonstrators and the people inside, were a particular concern.

“Some of these protesters are now attacking mosques. This level of fundamentalism that we have seen over the last two nights is not acceptable,” he claimed.

Clashes between the protesters and some of those inside the mosque led to the arrest of five people, according to police. The unrest is said by an eyewitness to have begun when MDP supporters attempted to disrupt a sermon which Male’ City Council had said was unauthorised.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Dr Didi turns to courts over MDP presidency dispute, after EC drops complaint

Former Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) President Dr Ibrahim Didi has said he will take concerns over the legitimacy of a no confidence motion taken against him last month to the country’s courts, after the Elections Commission (EC) dropped his complaint.

Dr Didi, along with former party Vice President Alhan Fahmy, were both voted out of their respective positions by the MDP’s National Council in a vote held on April 30. Both were dismissed through a no-confidence motion approved by 69 out of 73 votes – though Didi and Fahmy have been critical of the legality of the vote.

The MDP has contended that the dismissal case is “over” following the passing of the no-confidence motion against the president and vice president.

However, Dr Didi told Minivan News today that his lawyers were currently sending a case to the courts regarding his dismissal from the party’s presidency. He contends the no confidence motion was not taken in line with the MDP’s approved regulations registered with the EC at the time.

The comments were made as the EC this week said there was no action it could take relating to concerns raised by the former party president over the legality of the no-confidence motion against him.

EC Vice President Ahmed Fayaz claimed that the commission had not ruled on whether the MDP National Council had acted according to its regulations in dismissing the party president and vice president.  Nonetheless, Fayaz added there was also no evidence to suggest the dismissal was unconstitutional under basic regulations.

“Dr Didi has sent us a letter stating that his dismissal was against the party’s constitution; as a regulator we looked into the matter,” he said. “We can’t say anything about whether the party acted according to its regulations, but we have not found any grounds that it was unconstitutional under these rules.”

Fayaz said Dr Didi’s dismissal from the presidency did not also appear to be in breach of regulations that were put in place when multi-party democracy was established under the tenure of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom in 2005.

Fayaz added that legislation that would oversee and outline correct procedures for operating political parties – such as no confidence motions against senior figures – did not currently exist.  He added that the lack of such a law limited the action that could be taken in such a case.

Though a law to oversee governance among the country’s parties is demanded under the present constitution, the bill had still yet to be passed by the Majlis, Fayaz said.

Court motion

Dr Ibrahim Didi said that, as the EC do not have legal grounds to rule on the no confidence motion, he would now work to submit a court case raising his concerns about the nature of his dismissal.

Dr Didi said he believed the MDP did not have proof to support claims that he has been dismissed legitimately in line with party regulations, which were amended on May 17, 2012.

“They [the party’s national council] do not have a legal right to take a no confidence motion under the registered regulations,” he added.

Dr Didi also raised concerns about the legitimacy of former President Nasheed’s exact position within the MDP following the controversial transfer of power in February that saw President Mohamed Waheed Hassan succeed him into office.

Didi raised issue that Nasheed retained leadership of the MDP despite no longer holding the position of Maldivian President.

Responding to Dr Didi’s criticisms, MDP Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor said his dismissal case was “over” as far as the party was concerned.

Ghafoor pointed to several factors such as the findings of the EC, as well as the 95 percent council voting majority that approved the no confidence motion.

“When you have a 95 percent vote of no confidence against you by the party’s national council, I would say the case is over,” he said. “However, Dr Didi does not want to accept this.”

Ghafoor claimed additionally that the issue of former President Nasheed’s leadership role in the party was “not controversial” and had been agreed by the MDP council on February 8.

“During a MDP National Council resolution passed on February 8, we have always maintained that this government – [President Waheed’s administration] illegally came to power,” he said. “We believe that Nasheed remains our legitimate president and leader and will continue to do so for the full five year-term he was elected.”

The issue of legitimacy over the no confidence moiton against Dr Didi has been divisive during the last month.  The India-sponsored all-party talks were stalled yet again as government-aligned parties raised the issue of legitimacy of the MDP’s present leadership.

However, Ghafoor alleged that Dr Didi’s main support as president of the MDP comes from government-aligned political figures such as former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM). He went on to question the long-term success in relying on rival political organisations to support one’s candidacy.

“I think Dr Didi should not count on Gayoom’s supporters to back him [for the MDP presidency],” Ghafoor claimed.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

PPM MP Ilham Ahmed stands by Commonwealth withdrawal bill

Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Ilham Ahmed has told local media that there has been no “consideration” to remove a bill from parliament to renounce the Maldives’ membership in the Commonwealth.

Ilham was reported in Haveeru yesterday as claiming that a parliamentary motion to leave the Commonwealth would not be retracted without first holding discussions with President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan, the PPM and the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP).

The bill was forwarded by Ilham and Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) MP Riyaz Rasheed last month over allegations that the intergovernmental association was working to “protect the interests” of one party in the country without understanding the “reality” of February’s controversial transfer of power.

The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (GMAG) has increased pressure over the last few months on the Maldives government to revise the composition and mandate of an independent commission established to ascertain the nature and legitimacy of how President Waheed came to power on February 7.

During a visit to India this week President Waheed said he would not back proposals to withdraw from the Commonwealth, despite expressing disappointment with CMAG’s statements regarding the transfer of power.

Dr Waheed told media that he believed any bill to renounce membership in the intergovernmental organisation would be dismissed as soon as the Majlis returned from recess.

The bill to leave the Commonwealth has also been criticised by the leader of the government-aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), Ahmed Thasmeen Ali .

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)