Tag: President Mohamed Waheed Hassan

Attorney general challenges Political Parties Act in Supreme Court

The attorney general has filed a case in the Supreme Court requesting a writ of mandamus against the Elections Commission to prevent dissolution of political parties that has failed to maintain the required 10,000 members as stipulated in the Political Parties Act.

The parliament’s overrule of presidential veto on the Political Parties Bill by a majority of 60 votes on Tuesday (March 5) means the bill will automatically came into force without needing ratification from the president.

Deputy Solicitor General Ahmed Usham was reported in local media as stating that enactment of the Political Parties Act meant political parties that do not have the required number of members would be dissolved without any transitional period.

The attorney general, he said, was of the view that dissolution of smaller political parties without a transitional period would compromise the rights of several parties.

The case

According to Usham, the state has requested the Supreme Court issue a writ that would prevent dissolution of the parties prior to a court decision, or until a transitional mechanism is set up.

“Referring to the legal principles employed in other democratic societies, dissolution of a political party that is formed in accordance with the law is only given on very exceptional occasions,” he told local newspaper Haveeru.

He contended that the consequence of ratifying the bill was that smaller political parties would be dissolved in an irresponsible manner without being given the opportunity to attain the required membership.

The attorney general requested the Supreme Court declare who should be held responsible for the debts incurred by a political party dissolved as per the Political Parties Act.

“We have filed the case in two ways. The first asking the Supreme Court to issue a writ declaring that smaller political parties will not be dissolved and the second to invalidate the clause which dictates dissolution of political parties that do not have a membership of 10,000. The bill failed to highlight who should be responsible to the debts incurred by the party and its employees,” an official from the AG’s office stated.

According to the official, the same arguments were reflected in the letter giving reasons for vetoing the bill, which was sent to parliament by President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik before it was forced into law.

“Our concern is that political parties are legal entities, they have made contracts with several parties. If they are dissolved without a transitional period this compromises a lot of rights,” he added.

Passage of the bill

The Political Parties bill was passed on December 2012 however, President Waheed – whose own Gaumee Iththihaadh Party (GIP) is among those set to be dissolved – refused to ratify the bill and sent it back to parliament for reconsideration in January.

However, with unanimous support from both parliament’s minority leader and majority leader, the bill was forced into law by overruling the presidential veto on Tuesday. Out of the 67 members present during the vote, 60 voted in favour of the passage of the bill while six voted against the bill and one MP abstained.

The law will provide a three month period for any political party with fewer than 10,000 members to reach the required amount or face being dissolved.

Article 11 of the law states that at least 10,000 signatures would be needed to register a party at the Elections Commission (EC), which would be mandated to ensure that membership does not fall below the figure.

Parties unable to sign 10,000 members would be dissolved.

Immediate dissolution of smaller political parties

However following the ratification, President of Elections Commission Fuad Thaufeeg stated that the commission’s interpretation of the act suggests that political parties that do not have a minimum of 10,000 members could be abolished immediately.

He stated that once the act is gazetted, the commission was of the view that smaller political parties would immediately be dissolved. However, he said that EC’s legal team was currently reviewing the act and would make a decision based on its report.

“Our legal team is currently reviewing the law before it actually is enacted. The bill having passed by such a strong majority means that the commission would make all the necessary arrangements to begin enforcing the law,” he said.

He added that the law gives the Elections Commission additional powers to regulate and discipline political parties and that the law also gives powers to the commission to take action against parties that violate the law.

Despite several parties facing being dissolved, Thaufeeg said that he hoped to see several parties registered under the new law.

Condemnation

Several leaders of smaller political parties including President Waheed have criticised the Act.

During a party rally held in GIP headquarters, President Mohamed Waheed criticised parliament claiming that the legislature was very “stubborn” towards amending the bill.

Meanwhile, his party spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza said on Thursday in a press conference that the political parties act directly violated the constitution and compromised several rights guaranteed by the constitution.

“Fundamental rights can only be abolished through a public referendum. We want parliament members to amend the act,” he said. “Our problem is not just 10,000. The Act is flawed and has several lapses.”

He added that GIP wish to intervene in the case filed in the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, Adhaalath Party leaders claimed the legislation was a direct attempt to dissolve the party and in the long run “eradicate” Islamic ideology from Maldivian politics and “defeat” the party’s efforts to oppose alleged attempts to secularise the country.

“This is a big political and legal challenge [they] placed before Adhaalath Party. The way the political sphere in the country is shaped today, it is very important for a political party like Adhaalath Party to exist,” said its leader Sheikh Imran Abdulla at the time.

DQP Leader Hassan Saeed echoed the Adhaalath Party in warning that he would seek to invalidate the bill through the Supreme Court if it was ratified. Latest statistics shows that the DQP’s membership currently stands less than 3,000 members.

“While it is a constitutional right for anybody to form political parties, I do also believe that a right could be limited through legislation. But such a limit should be placed in accordance to principles justified in other free and democratic societies. The current bill demanding a certain membership size in order for a political party to be registered is a big problem,” Saeed was quoted saying in local media.

Of the 16 parties currently in existence, only five parties now have more than 10,000 registered members, including the formerly ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) as well as the government-aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), Business tycoon MP Gasim Ibrahim’s Jumhoree Party (JP) and most recently, the religious conservative Adhaalath Party (AP).

According to EC, tourism magnate Ahmed ‘Sun Travel’ Shiyam’s Maldivian Development Alliance (MDA) have also attained the required number of members.

Political parties were first authorised in the Maldives in May 2005 following an executive decree by then-President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

The regulation required 3,000 members for registration and did not stipulate whether parties with membership numbers falling below the figure would be dissolved.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Eleven parties face dissolution after parliament overrules president on political parties bill

Parliament has overruled President Mohamed Waheed’s veto on the political parties bill by a majority of 60 votes.

The political parties’ bill – which requires political parties to have a minimum 10,000 members before they are recognised as such, was passed by the parliament on December 2012.

However, President Mohamed Waheed – whose party Gaumee Iththihaadh Party (GIP) has a membership of just over 3,000 members – refused to ratify the bill and sent it back to parliament for reconsideration in January.

During Tuesday’s session, both parliament’s minority leader and majority leader unanimously supported to pass the bill without any amendments, forcing it through.

Out of the 67 members present during the vote, 60 voted in favor of the passage of the bill while six voted against the bill and one MP abstained.

During the debate on the matter, the government-aligned Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) and Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MPs both alleged that President Waheed had rejected the bill because it involved his personal interests and that his party GIP would be one of the first few parties to be dissolved after soon the law came into force.

However, Deputy Leader of Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) MP Riyaz Rasheed spoke in favor of President Waheed’s decision to reject the bill, claiming that the top four parties are trying to destroy the remaining political parties operating in the country – including the DQP, of which Home Minister Mohamed Jameel and Waheed’s Special Advisor Hassan Saeed are members.

According to the constitution, if a bill sent back to parliament by the president is passed again without making any changes, the bill automatically becomes law without the need of a presidential ratification.

Upon ratification, the bill will provide a three month period for any political party with fewer than 10,000 members to reach the required amount or face being dissolved.

Article 11 of the bill states that at least 10,000 signatures would be needed to register a party at the Elections Commission (EC), which would be mandated to ensure that membership does not fall below the figure.

Parties unable to sign 10,000 members would be dissolved.

The legislation passed today also stipulates that the Male’ City Council (MCC) must provide a 1,000 square feet plot in the capital for parties with membership exceeding 20,000.  The plot would be used as an administrative office or meeting hall, for which the party would be required to pay rent.

Earlier, an amendment proposed by MP Ibrahim Muttalib to lower the figure to 5,000 was defeated 59-6.

Of the 16 parties currently in existence, only five parties now have more than 10,000 registered members, including the formerly ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) as well as the government-aligned parties DRP, PPM, Business tycoon MP Gasim Ibrahim’s Jumhoree Party (JP) and most recently, the religious conservative party Adhaalath Party (AP).

Following the passage of the bill, Adhaalath Party leaders claimed the legislation was a direct attempt to dissolve the party and in the long run “eradicate” Islamic ideology from Maldivian politics and “defeat” the party’s efforts to oppose alleged attempts to secularise the country.

“This is a big political and legal challenge [they] placed before Adhaalath Party. The way the political sphere in the country is shaped today, it is very important for a political party like Adhaalath Party to exist,” said its leader Sheikh Imran Abdulla at the time.

However, on Monday, the Elections Commission informed the party that it had attained the needed 10,000 members. The party had carried out a vigorous membership campaign during which slogans such as “sign for Adhaalath party for Islam” and “defend Islam” were used.

DQP Leader Hassan Saeed followed the Adhaalath Party in warning that he would seek to invalidate the bill through the Supreme Court if it was ratified. Latest statistics shows that the DQP’s membership currently stands less than 3,000 members.

“While it is a constitutional right for anybody to form political parties, I do also believe that a right could be limited through legislation. But such a limit should be placed in accordance to principles justified in other free and democratic societies. The current bill demanding a certain membership size in order for a political party to be registered is a big problem,” Saeed was quoted saying in local media.

Political parties were first authorised in the Maldives in May 2005 following an executive decree by then-President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

The regulation required 3,000 members for registration and did not stipulate whether parties with membership numbers falling below the figure would be dissolved.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Chair of Parliament’s Executive Oversight Committee claims CNI report “flawed” based on the findings “so far”

The Chair of Parliament’s Executive Oversight Committee, MP Ali Waheed, has claimed the August 2012 report produced by the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) was “flawed” based on the findings of the committee “so far”.

The Commonwealth-backed report investigated the circumstances surrounding the controversial transfer of power in February 2012.

MP Waheed, of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), made the claim in a press conference held by the parliament select committee in the early hours of Saturday.

Waheed said many interviewed by the committee claimed the CNI report lacked “key information they had given [the CNI panel]”.

“Some have even claimed their information was wrongly presented,” he said, but declined to reveal the identity of those who made the claim.

The committee previously requested President Mohamed Waheed Hassan to hand over statements of key figures of the former government and military officials given to CNI. The request was rejected and a bid by the committee to issue a legal order demanding the information failed when a vote was put to the members.

MP Waheed on Saturday described the president’s refusal to share the information as a “blessing in disguise”.

“Some people who attended the committee [meeting] have told us that key information they gave was missing from the CNI report, and said they did not accept its findings,” he said.

The opposition-controlled committee is conducting a parliamentary inquiry on the controversial transfer of power, while also reviewing the CNI report.

A 22 day continuous anti-government protest led by then opposition figures, religious scholars and mutinying police and military officials, following the controversial detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed, led to the sudden resignation of then-President Mohamed Nasheed. Nasheed and his party later alleged he was forced out of office in a coup d’etat.

However in August 2012 the CNI formed by incoming President Mohamed Waheed Hassan and backed by the Commonwealth released a report declaring the transfer of power was legitimate.

As part of its present inquiry, the parliament’s committee has summoned former intelligence heads of the police and the Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF), including Superintendent Mohamed ‘MC’ Hameed and Brigadier General Ahmed Nilam.

Last Friday the committee summoned former SAARC Secretary General and Human Rights Minister Dhiyana Saeed, former Commissioner of Police Ahmed Faseeh and former Police Superintendent Mohamed Jinah. It has also announced that two international experts will take part in assisting the inquiry for a period of two weeks.

“Huge crime against the state”

According to Waheed the parliamentary inquiry was “revealing” information suggesting a “huge crime against the state” involving individuals, leaders of political parties and senior figures within the police and the military.

“From what we have found out, the committee has come to the conclusion that the events very much involved the stakes of two pivotal figures. They are President Nasheed and President Waheed. This I say because the events involved people who were loyal to both Nasheed and Waheed,” he said.

He also admitted the names of several people have been floated within the committee who needed to be questioned in the course of the inquiry, including the former president and his successor. Others included former Home Minister Hassan Afeef, former Defense Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu and key senior officials of Nasheed’s administration.

MP Waheed also reiterated that a lot of people had been hesitant to speak to the CNI as it was formed by President Waheed’s government and included senior figures of the events of February 7. Some of those people cabinet positions, Waheed said.

“In light of what we have come to know, a lot of people were eager to raise their concern and share information regarding the [controversial transfer of power], but they were not sure of the right person to should share their concerns with,” he said.

A similar notion was put forward by Dhiyana Saeed in her personal memoir, in which she wrote of a plot by Nasheed’s political opponents to assassinate him.

“I desperately needed to consult someone but who? … I couldn’t go to my associates on this side because now I didn’t know whose hands were tainted and whose hands weren’t. The politics was so bitter, so deeply divided and so polarized that if I happened to confide in the wrong person I thought what I had to say would be reported to the wrong people and covered-up,” she wrote, in her memoir.

Meanwhile, Waheed noted security concerns raised by those who appeared before the committee, claiming they were “at risk” for sharing such confidential information.

“Some individuals who have given witness to the committee have raised concerns over their security and requested security. The committee has debated the matter and already informed the speaker [of its views],” he said.

“I don’t deny the fact that we may need to summon more people in the coming days. Some of the names of people we plan to summon may not be even mentioned in CNI report,” he said.

Asked of former SAARC Secretary General and Human Rights Minister Dhiyana Saeed’s allegations of assassination attempts against Nasheed, Waheed said the committee would look into the allegations.

“The committee will very seriously look into the concerns raised by Dhiyana of a plotted assassination of former President Mohamed Nasheed,” he said.

“Inquiry is not politically motivated” – MP Ali Waheed

Challenged as to the credibility of the report, given that the committee had an opposition majority, Waheed said that they had decided to look into the matter not based on any “political motives”, and that the inquiry was solely based upon “national interest”.

“The committee’s findings will not produce politicised results. We are summoning key stakeholders including those in senior positions in the government.  The findings will not be based on the word of one just one person. We will not include any allegation against anyone without verifying it,” he said.

He added that the inquiry was not about the two former presidents or about President Waheed.

“This is not about the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) or the MDP. This is not an inquiry carried out by putting key political actors in a single chart and drawing conclusions for political benefit.”

He also affirmed that no unverified claims would be included in the report.

“[The report] will be based on information given by key people in positions of the state, who by the constitution are obliged to give true information,” he said.

Waheed also expressed confidence the report will unveil the truth of what happened on February last year, and said the committee was even willing to go to a public debate with those who wished to challenge its findings.

Presidents Office Spokesperson Masood Imad was not responding at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Executive Oversight Committee summons former intelligence heads

Parliament’s Executive Oversight Committee has summoned the former intelligence heads of both the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) and the Maldives Police Service (MPS) as part of an inquiry into the controversial transfer of power in February 2012.

Brigadier General Ahmed Nilam and former Superintendent Mohamed ‘MC’ Hameed were separately summoned today to attend the closed door meetings.

Nilam was summoned first at 12:00pm, with Hameed addressing the committee at 1:00pm.

According to local media, chair of the committee, opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ali Waheed, said that the decision had been taken to hold the meeting behind closed doors to ensure any potentially sensitive intelligence information remained confidential.

The select committee last month agreed, with bipartisan support, to summon Nilam, Hameed and former SAARC Secretary General Fathimath Dhiyana Saeed.

The committee at the time decided that all three individuals would be summoned to parliament separately on January 9.  According to the local media, Saeed was to be summoned at 11:00am today, but requested that her hearing be postponed over personal issues.

Saeed is being summoned over a personal memoir released to the media last month.  The contents of the memoir included allegations that certain figures behind protests leading to the controversial transfer of power on February 7 had also planned to assassinate former President Mohamed Nasheed.

Failure to come to an understanding over issuance of a legal order

Meanwhile, the committee today failed to reach an agreement over issuing a legal order requiring President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik to provide evidence gathered by the Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CNI).

The CNI was charged to review the circumstances behind the change of government, concluding that the transfer of power took place constitutionally despite the MDP’s claims of a coup d’état.

The parliamentary committee had called for a vote amongst its members over whether to issue a legal order to obtain statements given to CNI by senior Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) figures and officials of the former government.  However, the vote failed to secure a required committee majority of 6 members to be passed.

Although backed by all five MDP members on the committee, the vote was short of a sixth and decisive supporter with government-aligned Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Ahmed Nihan Hassan Manik voting against the motion. His fellow party member MP Ahmed Shareef abstained from the vote.

The statements that the committee had intended to obtain from the government included the accounts given to the CNI of former Defense Minister Tholthath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu, former Home Minister Hassan Afeef and former Chief of Defense Force retired Major General Moosa Ali Jaleel.  The testimonies of former Male’ Area Commander retired Brigadier General Ibrahim Mohamed Didi and former Commissioner of Police Ahmed Faseeh would also have been requested among others.

The committee had previously sent a letter to President Waheed requesting for him to provide it members with the stated documents.  The request was denied.

Some sitting members of the committee at the time expressed their dismay with the president’s response, arguing that the only option left for the committee was to issue a legal order.

However, in order to issue a legal order, the matter should be approved by an absolute majority of at least six committee members.

Following the failure to obtain a legal order today, MDP Spokesperson MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor questioned the government’s decision not to supply the information.

“There is absolutely no way as per the constitution where the executive can hide its actions from the parliament. The constitution has given the parliament immense powers in terms of government accountability to the extent that the government cannot even take a loan without parliament’s consent,” he said.

Ghafoor added that while the MDP held a parliamentary majority, it was aiming to conduct the inquiry with bipartisan support.

“We don’t want to make this a political issue. This is a national issue. We are trying to confirm the legitimacy of an installed government. Party politics is not what we are interested in,” he added.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

State Minister for Finance Abbas Adil Riza labels parliament as “terrorist organization”

State Minister for Finance and steering committee member of the self-titled “National Movement” Abbas Adil Riza has labelled parliament as a “terrorist organization”, claiming the Maldives’ legislature has failed to work in the best interest of country.

Speaking to Minivan News today, Riza claimed that parliament was continuously failing to respect the sentiments of the public and that the “National Movement” sought to hold a referendum on the institution.

“The Maldives constitution clearly states that the power of the state is derived from the people and would remain with the people, so the National Movement representing the people are using our right to express our concerns over the parliament,” he said.

The National Movement announced earlier this week that a planned public referendum on parliament would be used to assess the public view towards the country’s legislature. During a press conference held Tuesday (December 25), senior figures of the movement claimed that they planned to hold the public ballot on January 25, 2013.

Riza clarified today that the vote would be carried out by the members of the National Movement, confirming that it would not be a public referendum taken by the government or any other state institution.

“Our members will conduct the ballot. We are formulating committees that would coordinate the vote in the islands. This referendum has no connection with the government or any other state institution,” he explained.

Riza added that the National Movement, led by the religious conservative Adhaalath Party (AP) and senior government officials, did not wish to dissolve parliament, but instead try to show the world a true reflection of the public’s attitude towards parliament.

“After voting, if the vote shows that people do not have confidence in the parliament someone may take the issue to the Supreme Court. But we are not planning to do that. We only want the world to know the truth,” he said.

According to fellow “National Movement” member Sobah Rasheed, a decision was yet to be taken on how the proposed referendum would be conducted, with further announcements expected at a later date.

The vote would help reveal whether the public had the confidence in their parliamentarians or not, Sobah claimed at the time.

“We are trying to conduct the vote in the most cost efficient, but yet transparent manner that would increase the public confidence on the fairness of the vote,” he told the press.

“National Movement” Vice President and State Minister for Home Affairs Abdulla Mohamed has previously claimed that its campaign to “reform Majlis (Parliament)” was not targeted at the entire 77 sitting MPs.  He also dismissed accusations that President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik was behind the movement.

According to Abdulla, the campaign was carried out to urge the authorities to take actions against MPs found not to pay tax, as well as those who have committed several criminal offences.

“The movement is run for the benefit of this country. While this movement is in the best interest of the nation, it may perhaps be detrimental to the president. But if the damage incurred by the president is lesser than the benefit that the country gets, then our purpose is served. Similarly if this movement benefits the whole nation more than the damage to parliament, our purpose is served,” Abdulla said.

Criticism

The “National Movement” has continued of late to criticise parliament, claiming it was not working in the best interest of the people.

Earlier in November, Abbas Adil Riza – then serving as a President’s Office spokesperson – warned that the “National Movement” would “break up” the parliament, should it go forward with no-confidence motion against President Waheed and his Defense Minister Mohamed Nazim.  The Supreme Court had at the time issued an injunction against parliament holding such votes.

Riza also directed harsh criticism towards Parliament Speaker Abdulla Shahid, dismissing his decision to “challenge” the Supreme Court’s ruling as a “cowardly act”.

“Unless Shahid immediately ceases his efforts to violate the constitution while holding the post of Speaker of Parliament, the National Movement will ensure that this comes to a stop,” he said at the time.

Parliament officials had earlier stated that Defence Minister Nazim had been given the required 14-day notice by Speaker Abdulla Shahid.

Responding to Riza’s comments at the time, Majlis Deputy Speaker and People’s Alliance (PA) MP Ahmed Nazim rejected claims parliament had challenged the Supreme Court’s injunction.  Nazim noted that parliament had given all those facing no confidence votes a full 14 days notice as stated by the law.

“We believe there is still time for Supreme Court to lift the temporary injunction, and I believe they will not see this as the parliament challenging the court. After 14 days, the motion will be put up on the agenda for discussion by party leaders. If the injunction remains then there is a possibility for party leaders to challenge the court,” Nazim told Minivan News at the time.

“A rather irrelevant group” – MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor

Responding to Riza’s remarks, opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Spokesperson MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor said that he did not believe that the “National Movement” was a force of the people, but rather an irrelevant group craving media attention.

“I don’t think any MP would wish to even comment on the remarks made by these people. We are ashamed of them. These people do not represent the people. Look at the number of people attending their rallies,” he said.

Ghafoor claimed that even though parliament did not generally take into account the remarks made during the rallies held by the movement, they may consider action at a later date on the grounds of national security.

“If they are planning to attack the parliament or threaten the national security, then perhaps the parliament may look into it, but other than that they are not much of a force. I believe if there happens to be a time where they attempt to attack parliament, then the police and military would obviously not let that happen,” he added.

Ghafoor also accused the “National Movement” of not being a registered organization, alleging a possible conflict of interest in the Registrar of Clubs and Societies Abdulla Mohamed speaking as one of its members..

“The whole outfit is void ab initio,” he said

PPM discontinues its support

Meanwhile, the government-aligned former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), a key supporter of the movement, has decided to part ways with the National Movement claiming that it was “moving in another direction”.

“I question today whether this campaign under the name of national movement is sincere or not,” PPM MP Ahmed Mahloof said in parliament.

“I’m saying this because during the GMR issue, we said repeatedly that after that we should raise the issue of Nexbis [border control project]. But after that we saw them raise the issue of the People’s Majlis.”

Mahloof added that a speaker at a national movement rally on Sunday night “used obscene language” to attack PPM Parliamentary Group Leader MP Abdulla Yameen.

The speaker in question accused MP Yameen of “threatening” the Adhaalath Party, during a rally held Sunday (December 23) to celebrate the first anniversary of the December 23 “mega-protest.”

Local media reported that the remarks led to heated exchanges between the speaker and PPM supporters, a number of whom left the area in protest.

In his speech following the incident, Islamic Minister Sheikh Mohamed Shaheem Ali Saeed, a senior leader of the Adhaalath Party, spoke in defence of MP Yameen and urged speakers to respect political leaders.

The National Movement was formed by several government aligned political parties and a coalition of NGOs to oppose the Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) development being run by GMR.

The movement initially began as 23 December alliance, which held an enmasse demonstration to oppose certain policies of the President Mohamed Nasheed.  The protest was held just months before Nasheed resigned from office, later alleging he had been made to do so under “duress”.

The movement is headed by the religiously conservative Adhaalath Party (AP). AP Leader Sheikh Imran Abdulla is portrayed as the figure head of the movement.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Allegations of assassination plot “realistic”: former President Nasheed

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has said he believes allegations made in a personal memoir by former Human Rights Minister Fathimath Dhiyana Saeed of a plot to assassinate him are “realistic”.

In an exclusive interview with Minivan News, Nasheed said he hoped the allegations would prompt a thorough criminal investigation either from parliament or other institutions.

“I see Dhiyana Saeed’s allegations as realistic. I hope that the parliament and other institutions would conduct a thorough criminal investigation. Even the CNI [Commission of National Inquiry] report as well highlights the need for such an investigation,” he said.

The memoir, which the former SAARC Secretary General shared with Minivan News, levelled serious allegations against then opposition figures, who Saeed claimed had plotted Nasheed’s fall and conspired to assassinate him.

On the allegations of threats to his life, Nasheed said he had received information from government intelligence sources of plots to assassinate him.

“I did get information from the Ministry of Defence that the intelligence got reports of planned assassination attempts. I had knowledge of this before,” he revealed.

In her memoir, Dhiyana claimed that the notion of “taking out” the former president came up during a conversation she had with a friend and a “long-standing political affiliate” whom she referred as “X”.

Asked whether he knew the identity of X, Nasheed refused to speculate.

“I don’t personally know that person. It would not be very good for me to name the person before a proper investigation. But I too have got information,” he said.

Nasheed added that resigning from the presidency had not put an end to death threats.

“Yes, I do [get threats of assassination], quite a lot actually,” he said.

Dhiyana alleged in her memoir that the controversial transfer of presidential power on February 7 was the result of a premeditated and well-orchestrated plan and questioned the findings of the Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CNI).

Nasheed reiterated his belief that the accusations were accurate, in line with concerns he himself had previously raised over the findings of the CNI’s report.

“After the coup, I was seeing very dirty dealings within the government. According to information I get, even now, affairs of government are being carried out in an irregular mafia style. I don’t see things happening according to government procedures,” he claimed.

Bugging

Nasheed also dismissed allegations by current Defense Minister Mohamed Nazim that the former President had pressured his representative on the CNI, Ahmed ‘Gahaa’ Saeed, to influence the outcome of the inquiry.

“I did not even once call Ahmed Saeed. Not even once I called. I don’t really know how the procedure had gone from the government side,” he claimed.

Dhiyana Saeed also alleged that Defence Minister Nazim had admitted to “bugging” the office of the CNI panel in which witness testimonies were recorded.

However, Nazim dismissed the allegations in local media yesterday.

Nasheed claimed that he too had been told of the alleged surveillance measures by the government during the time the CNI was conducting its inquiry.

Nasheed was however reluctant to comment accusations Saeed had made regarding for Defense Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu’s alleged role in the controversial transfer of power on February 7.  He insisted that it was not proper to accuse someone without a thorough investigation.

The former President however reiterated his allegation that his former deputy, current President Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik, had been plotting his downfall for some time before February 7.

Asked why he had not taken any action taken to investigate allegations against the then-Vice President, Nasheed accused the country’s judiciary of being flawed and politicised, preventing his government from conducting an investigation.

“I was getting information that [President] Waheed was plotting something like this. Due to the way the courts were functioning, the government were unable to conduct necessary criminal investigations,” he explained.

On Dhiyana’s suggestion that only an international criminal investigation that was “independent, impartial and comprehensive” could uncover the truth, Nasheed said he doubted a positive outcome from international intervention.

“I now have a very dim view towards international community. I don’t think there is a UN resolve or an imagination in doing something good and proactive to help a country move forward. I don’t think such a vision is anymore the vision of the UN,” Nasheed claimed.

Revolution

The former President has recently called for an Egyptian-style “popular uprising” to topple the “coup regime”.

“Our party now sees no other change other than a revolutionary change. We could not fire the imagination of the international community to bring an institutional change, a structural change. Their lethargy and their all time need to maintain the status-quo means we cannot bring reform to this country. So the way we see it, the best thing for the country is a revolutionary change,” he said.

Presidents Office Media Secretary Masood Imad said that he “did not wish to comment on what Nasheed had to say,” when contacted yesterday.

While Dhiyana in her memoir concurred with the formerly ruling Maldivian Democratic Party’s (MDP’s) insistence that Nasheed’s resignation was made “under duress” to avoid bloodshed in the capital, she stopped short of characterising the transfer of power as a “coup d’etat.”

“I weighed all this together and I could not ignore the logical conclusion – that key players had engineered and orchestrated the events, that President Nasheed had not resigned voluntarily as he asserted and that Waheed was possibly complicit. I believe further, that had President Nasheed not resigned ‘voluntarily’ that day he would have been killed in a way that would not be apparent as a killing – perhaps ‘accidentally’ in a cross-fire in the MNDF or at the hands of the enraged public in the manner of Amin Didi, the first President of the Republic,” Dhiyana concluded in her memoir.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

No plans to privatise airport, “might sublease”: Tourism Minister Ahmed Adheeb

Minister of Tourism Ahmed Adheeb has said the government is not planning to hand over full control of operations at Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA), but might sublease specific development projects to international parties through a “transparent” bidding process.

Minister Adheeb told Minivan News that privatising the only international airport allowed it to become a monopoly which was not in the best interests of the country.

“What we saw was that handing over operation of the only international airport in the country meant it was monopolised. What we are saying is that if the airport is given like that without any competition, it is not in the best interest of the country,” he said.

Adheeb admitted that INIA needed further development and refurbishment, including the addition of an extra runway, and said such projects would be subleased to developers through a transparent bidding process. He also maintained that “operation and control” of the airport would not be given away as he alleged the former government had done with GMR’s concession agreement.

President Mohamed Waheed Hassan also highlighted in an interview to India’s Business Standard that MACL would “open tenders for major development projects”.

“I think it’s too early to talk about the rebidding but, yes, MACL will open tenders for major development projects in connection with the airport modernisation program. GMR is eligible to participate. I don’t see any reason why Chinese companies should be barred from participating in the bidding process,” he told the Business Standard.

However, when contacted by Minivan News, MACL Managing Director Mohamed Ibrahim denied any knowledge of such bidding processes and said he did not wish to further comment on the matter.

Minister Adheeb said 75 percent of the tourists coming into the country were from Europe and following the “European [economic] crisis, the Maldives government should have provided an incentive to those tourists arriving to the country, but because of INIA being operated by GMR, several airport fees were raised.”

“Flight operators operate as a business. They will not consider us if we give no incentives in such a time of crisis and when the airport handling charges are too high. We have to understand that INIA is a tourist airport, it is not a shopping airport or a transit airport,” he explained.

Therefore, the Minister said that the country needed an efficient airport where tourists can go through quickly, with an efficient check-in system.

Earlier on February 2, Qatar Airways CEO Akbar Al Baker warned the airline will re-consider flying to the Maldives if the airport operator maintained its plan to raise airport handling fees at INIA by 51 percent.

Reuters at the time reported that the airline was “‘dismayed’” over what it understood to be GMR’s plan to increase the handling fee at a future date, and suggested such a move would “threaten Qatar Airways’ continued presence in the Maldives.”

However, the GMR Group at the time denied the allegations stating that it had had received no official communication from the airline about its concerns.

GMR spokesman Amir Ali responded at the time saying that the fee hike had already been made by MACL shortly before GMR assumed control of the airport, adding that while there were no plans for a further increase at present, prices were dependent on factors such as fuel costs.

Adheeb also alleged that the former government intended to rush the development process of the airport rather than a “well contemplated phase by phase development plan”.

“Why do we really need to develop the airport to cater to four million people? We could have done that through proper planning in a phase by phase development process,” he said.

The INIA concession agreement

In 2010, the government of Maldives through its Finance Ministry, Maldives Airports Company Limited (MACL) and GMR-MAHB entered into a concession agreement withINIA whereby the Malaysian-Indian consortium were to develop and operate the airport for a period of 25 years.

According to the concession agreement a “project company” under the name GMR International Airport Limited (GMIAL) was to carry out the development project.

However, a lengthy dispute between the new government of President Mohamed Waheed Hassan and the GMR Group led to the eviction of the agreement.

On November 27, President Mohamed Waheed’s cabinet declared the agreement void, and gave the company a seven day ultimatum to leave the country.

Attorney General (AG) Azima Shukoor stated the government reached the decision after considering “technical, financial and economic” issues surrounding the agreement.

She also claimed the government had obtained legal advice from “lawyers in both the UK and Singapore as well as prominent local lawyers – all who are in favor of the government’s legal grounds to terminate the contract.”

The INIA was handed over to the government on December 8, in an invitation-only press conference; Finance Minister Abdulla Jihad presented the official handover documents to MACL Managing Director Mohamed Ibrahim, and said that the Maldives would pay whatever compensation was required “however difficult”.

With arbitration proceedings 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, a day prior to its eviction, the 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.”

That verdict, 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”, he said at the time.

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.

Scott Wilson Plan

Minister Adheeb said the Scott Wilson master plan produced during former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s administration would have been “a better master plan to develop the airport.”

“Sir Scott Wilson’s master plan to development of INIA was a good master plan. We actually did not require a plan to be implemented immediately. The plan was to develop the airport in a phase by phase development process. Some of the development projects had already been completed at the time the airport was given to GMR for development,” he explained.

Following the signing of the concession agreement of INIA with India’s GMR group, the Scott Wilson master plan was abandoned for a new master plan produced by the International Finance Corporation (IFC) through another foreign consultancy firm – Halcrow – which the current government claimed was more costly.

“Scott Wilson’s phase one cost us US$390 million, and all the three phases summed up came to a figure around US$590 million. The IFC did not provide this information to the government. We are talking about a development of 30 years,” former Civil Aviation and Communications Minister Dr Ahmed Shamheed said previously.

The current government criticised the IFC for abandoning the Scott Wilson plan for a more “costly master-plan”  and alleged that the World Bank affiliated group had been “irresponsible” and “negligent” in advising the former government of President Mohamed Nasheed in the concession of INIA by Indian infrastructure giant GMR.

However the IFC denied the allegations, stating that its advice was geared towards achieving the “objective of upgrading the airport and ensuring compliance with applicable international regulations” and providing the Maldives government “with the maximum possible revenue”.

“A competitive tender was organised with the objective of selecting a world-class, experienced airport operator, who would rehabilitate, develop, operate and maintain the airport,” said an IFC spokesperson at the time.

Airport Development Charge

Highlighting the Airport Development Charge (ADC) that the former government intended to charge – prompting criticism from the opposition parties who are now currently in government of President Waheed – Adheeb said that the former administration proceeded to taking ADC without legislation.

“The way they intended to charge ADC was not a mechanism established in anywhere in the world. ADC is taken through a proper legislation and should be flexible and adjustable in parallel with the inflation rate,” he contended.

On November last year, former President Mohamed Nasheed’s government’s Transport Minister Adil Saleem announced that GMR will begin charging international passengers a US$25 (MVR 385.5) ADC at the departure check-in counters of INIA for all flights scheduled after 12:00am on January 1, 2012.

Saleem stated at the time that the fee had been previously approved by the government as part of its contract with GMR.

The matter was soon taken to Civil Court by then opposition Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) – led by current Special Advisor of President Waheed, Dr Hassan Saeed. The DQP claimed that a pre-existing Airport Service Charge (ASC) of US$18 (MVR 277.56) invalidated the ADC.

The Civil Court in December 2011 invalidated the ADC charge, ruling that the clause in the concession agreement with GMR violated the Airport Service Charges Act of 1978, which was amended in 2009 to raise the charge to US$18 for foreign passengers and US$12 for Maldivians above two years of age.

The current government, after ascension to power, claimed in a “cabinet-committee report” that it was “not in the best interest of the country” to appeal the Civil Court decision to High Court, and thereby ignored the decision.

The former government had honoured the concession agreement following the civil court ruling, and,  under instruction from a letter sent by MACL, had been deducting ADC revenue from concession fees due the government.

Following the ousting of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)-led government on February 7, the new government – which included the DQP – inherited the crippled concession revenues, under which it was effectively obliged to pay GMR to develop the airport.

The new government received a succession of bills from the airport developer throughout 2012. In the first quarter of 2012 the government received US$525,355 of an expected US$8.7 million, after the deduction of the ADC. That was followed by a US$1.5 million bill for the second quarter, after the ADC payable eclipsed the revenue due the government.

Combined with the third quarter payment due, the government owed the airport developer US$3.7 million (MVR 57.05 million).

On May 8, GMR offered to exempt Maldivian nationals from paying the contentious ADC in a bid to end a legal and contractual stalemate that had given rise to MACL going bankrupt and the deprivation of the majority of all airport revenue that the government was to generate through the agreement.

However, despite attempts to renegotiate the issue, the government decided to terminate the agreement at risk of compensation. The ADC case is still pending in the Singapore Arbitration Court.

Adheeb stressed that such major projects that is pivotal to the country’s economy should not be taken without thorough research and proper consultation and analysis. The current government, he said, would address these issues “with patience and with a proper plan.”

He also added that the current government of President Waheed would seek towards a “balanced economic and foreign policy” that would be in the best interest of the country.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court issues injunction to withhold no confidence vote on president

The Supreme Court has issued an injunction ordering parliament to withhold the impending no-confidence motions against both Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim and President Mohamed Waheed Hassan.

The ruling was made after a case concerning the legality of the no confidence motions had been filed by Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) council member and lawyer Mohamed ‘Wadde’ Waheed Ibrahim.

The Supreme Court in its injunction today ordered parliament to withhold the no-confidence motion until it could decide on the legality of the matter after looking into the “necessary constitutional principles that had to be followed”.

Earlier this month, Ibrahim filed the case in the Supreme Court contending that the parliament’s decision to make impeachment votes a secret ballot was unlawful.

Speaking to local media after filling the case, Ibrahim said that Article 85 of the constitution clearly articulates that a session of parliament can only be held in ‘closed doors’ only if the issue debated in parliament concerns the national security of the state and if not the sessions should be held open to public.

He said therefore parliament does not have the authority to come to a decision outside its jurisdiction laid down in the constitution and sought the Supreme Court to invalidate the decision.

No-confidence motion

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) had proposed a no-confidence motion against President Mohamed Waheed Hassan in October claiming that the police and the military had “brutalised” its supporters on February 8 under direct orders from the president himself.

The MDP also alleged that President Waheed had destroyed the sensitive economy of the nation and adversely impacting investor confidence in the Maldives.

Other reasons, the MDP alleged, included the failure of President Waheed’s administration to curb gang violence in the country, as well as his government taking a loan worth MVR 300 million (US$19.5 million) from the Bank of Maldives (BML) without prior approval from parliament – a violation of Public Finance Act and Public Finance Regulation.

The MDP subsequently proposed the amendment to parliamentary regulation which would pave the way for a secret ballot in the vote to impeach President Waheed. However, the first attempt, despite approval from parliament’s General Affairs Committee was defeated in parliament by 39 to 34 votes.

Parliament this month passed the amendment when it was again re-submitted and approved with a 41 to 34 majority. The approval was backed by two government aligned parties, the Jumhoree Party (JP) and Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP).

Legality of two DRP seats

Meanwhile, Ibrahim has also raised doubts over the legality of the secret ballot decision, claiming it was passed by the votes cast by two DRP MPs Ahmed Nashiz and Ali Azim, whose seats he claimed were in question.

JP’s Policy and Legal Committee member Mohamed Haleem Ali had previously filed a case in the Supreme Court asking it to rule the concerned parliamentarians “unfit to stay in their elected seats” over the Bank of Maldives (BML)’s foreclosure on their loans.

“The Civil Court’s ruling number 935 of 2009 asks them to pay back the debts to BML. They didn’t. So I have submitted this case in accordance with subclause one of Article 73(c) and 74 of the constitution,” Haleem said at the time.

Subclause 1 of Article 73 of the Constitution of the Maldives states that a candidate for membership or a sitting member of the parliament would be disqualified if he has a decreed debt which is not being paid as per court rulings.

Article 74 states that any question concerning the qualifications or removal of a member of the People’s Majlis shall be determined by the Supreme Court.

Both MPs Nashiz and Azim were elected to parliament in 2009 general elections, the same year in which the civil court ordered them to pay the BML debts. The case was accepted by Supreme Court on December 10.

Supreme Court decision ‘void ab initio’: Ibra

Following the decision, former MP and Chair of Drafting Committee of Constitutional Assembly (Special Majlis) Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail stated that the decision was “void ab initio” (void from the beginning).

“They cannot suspend the decisions of the parliament. Parliament should not adhere to the decisions of Supreme Court,” he said.

“Parliament is free to conduct its business anyway they want to. Only the public can reprimand the parliament,” he added.

Counsel General of Parliament Fathimath Filza and Parliamentary Speaker Abdulla Shahid were not responding to calls at time of press.

No one should meddle with the courts: Supreme Court

In a previous bid, the Supreme Court issued an order quashing the decision of Parliament’s Independent Institutions Oversight Committee to not recognize the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Supreme Court in the order stated that while the Maldivian constitutional system broadly entertained the principle of separation of powers, no one power of the state can go beyond the limits set out in the constitution.

“According to articles 5, 6 and 7 of the constitution that came to force on 7 August 2008, the Maldivian constitutional system has explicitly set out that the executive power, legislative power and the judicial power is independent from one another and the boundaries of each power being clearly set out, it is unconstitutional for one power of the state to go beyond its constitutional boundaries as stated in article 8 of the constitution,” read the order.

The Supreme Court also in its order maintained that as per the constitution, the judicial power of the state was the sole constitutional authority in settling legal disputes between the institutions of the state or private parties.

“The judiciary established under the constitution is an independent and impartial institution and that all public institutions shall protect and uphold this independence and impartiality and therefore no institution shall interfere or influence the functioning of the courts,” it added.

Speaking to Minivan News yesterday, Former Foreign Minister and UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Iran Dr Ahmed Shaheed identified the “pathetic state of the judiciary” as one of the key human rights concerns he believed needed to be addressed in the Maldives.

“[The judiciary] is not only corrupt, but also coming under the influence of radical Islam, even to the extent of violating codified laws of the Maldives and clear international obligations,” Dr Shaheed claimed yesterday.

“Disregard for rule of law has also meant that a culture of impunity is deeply entrenched, rendering many of the human rights of the people meaningless.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: India’s inconsistent commitment to Maldivian democracy cost the GMR deal

The Maldives and India have always shared strong bilateral relations in terms of strategic, economical and military cooperation. The diplomatic bond has remained firm despite the vast difference between the two states in size, population and economy. India remains a major destination for many Maldivians who travel abroad for education, medical and business purposes.

A significant number of Maldivians reside in Indian cities such as Bangalore, Thiruvananthapuram, Mysore and several others. Similarly, a large portion of the Maldives’ expatriate workforce including teachers, doctors, engineers and other technical expertise are Indians, who have contributed to the country’s economy.

If not for the timely decision by the Indian government to intervene, the 1988 terrorist attack on the Maldives’ national defense force base by the mercenaries of the Sri Lanka-based terrorist organisation People’s Liberation of Tamil Elam (PLOTE), would have cost the Maldivian people their civilian government.

19 Maldivians lost their lives, but if not for the successful ‘Operation Cactus’ led by the Indian armed forces, the death toll could have been more, and a possible military junta could have taken control over the affairs of the state. Neither the Maldives nor its history will forget this brotherly act by India that symbolised the strong bilateral bond between the two states.

However, India’s decision to recognise the regime that took charge of the country after it toppled the Maldives’ first democratically elected government on February 7 shocked many. Of course, it would have been completely irrational to expect another ‘Operation Cactus’, but on diplomatic grounds India could have done better.

Having had a diplomatic office established in the Maldives and the rebellion broadcast live on television, the decision showed India’s failure in grasping the local political environment of the country, despite it being a base to large Indian investments worth millions. This failure did not only bring dismay to the local populace, but to international spectators as well.

For instance, Indian journalist Sumon K Chakrabarti in his article in the South Asia Monitor described the misstep as India losing “the mango as well as the sack”.

“With lost credibility and a history of dumping friends – from Burma to Bangladesh and now Maldives, the reality is stark – India has, as the saying goes, lost the mango as well as the sack in the Maldives,” he wrote.

Another journalist, B Raman for the Eurasia Review, put it as “badly damaging” to India’s “traditional position as the sole arbiter of political fortunes”.

He writes – “the government of India’s traditional position as the sole arbiter of political fortunes in the Maldives has been badly damaged and a number of international actors from the UK, the US, the European Union and the United Nations have rushed to the Maldives to try their hand in internal peace-making, thereby marginalising the traditional role of India. Only China and Pakistan have not yet entered the political fray in the Maldives. If they do, that will be ultimate humiliation for Indian diplomacy at its southern door-step.”

For a regime installed through illegitimate means, an assent from the region’s major player would obviously be the perfect gift. A gift that took the country back three years  in terms democratic progress it achieved following the transition from a remorseless dictatorship. A gift that brought back the culture of state-sponsored torture, intimidation and harassment.

The accession of Vice-president Waheed Hassan resulted in a rudderless, clueless and mandate-less regime which neither entertained the popular support of the people nor had a contemplated plan to run the affairs of the state.

The unprecedented alteration to the dynamics of local politics saw the return of elements of past dictatorship back to power, which had previously been voted out in the country’s first free and fair presidential election in 2008.

Cabinet portfolios were divided among political parties with diverse political thinking, each of which had its own ambitions to come to power. Most of them do not carry any political weight or have any representation in parliament, including those with an religious element such as the Adhaalath Party.

Similarly ex-president Gayoom had his daughter and son appointed as state-minister level positions in the regime, much to the disappointment of those who had voted him out in 2008. But in Waheed’s words this was a “national unity government”.

A national unity government, whose elements while in opposition had made their antagonism towards Indian investments public, especially against infrastructure giant GMR, which was awarded a concession agreement to manage and develop Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) but was declared an economic enslaver.

India should have foreseen the consequences its investments would later face in endorsing a regime consisting of elements that had previously shown its disapproval towards major Indian investments. India should have taken its time to assess the political situation of the country and should have confirmed the legitimacy of the controversial regime before accepting it.

However, failure to do so resulted in the scrapping of its single largest investment by the very government it had recognised.

India’s concerns over the Maldives should have come earlier. Not when senior officials of the regime it give assent to nine months previously mocked, insulted and even accused its High Commissioner of indulging in bribery. Not when its largest investment in the country was evicted. None of which would have taken place had India taken a ‘prevention than cure’ approach towards the Maldives.

One must hesitantly agree to the point raised by the very ambitious Special Advisor to Waheed, Dr Hassan Saeed in his ‘candid’ letter to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

He observes: “The Indian Foreign Secretary’s visit to our country in February [2012] failed to resolve the political crisis largely because India is no longer seen as a friendly and fair neighbour who could broker an honest and fair deal.”

Hailed as the world’s largest democracy, India’s inconsistency in its commitment towards democracy in the Maldives not only cost the eviction of its single largest investment in the country, but also gave rise to noisy anti-India rhetoric led by religious fundamentalists and politicians sided with the current regime.

In nine months time, the Maldives will hold its second multi-party presidential elections. Perhaps it these will be the country’s last chance in the near future to overcome what it lost in terms of democracy. It might also be a golden opportunity for India to reassure its commitment towards the democratic process of the country, by pressuring Waheed’s regime towards a free and fair ballot.

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)