Tag: presidential election

Translation: Election annulment’s confidential police report

This article first appeared on Dhivehi Sitee. Republished with permission.

Just before midnight on 7 October 2013, the Maldives Supreme Court issued a ruling cancelling the first round of the second democratic elections held on 7 September 2013.

Although the election was found to free and fair by over a thousand domestic and international observers, Jumhooree Party candidate Qasim Ibrahim filed a case at the apex court citing fraud and vote rigging during the election.

The 4:3 verdict cited a confidential police report submitted to the court allegedly claiming that 5600 votes were ineligible. The report has not previously been available to the public and was not shown to the Election Commission’s defence lawyers.

On the Supreme Court’s request, a team of ‘forensic experts’ from the Maldives Police Service worked from 26 September to 3 October inside the Supreme Court premises analysing ‘evidence’ of alleged fraud and vote rigging on 7 September.

It was cited in the Supreme Court ruling as the main basis on which the court ruled in Jumhooree Party’s favour. Dhivehi Sitee discovered a copy of the report online. The following is an English translation.

Maldives Police Service, Forensic Service Directorate, Male’, Republic of Maldives

Report No: K/JER/2013/0001

Report on discrepancies found in lists compared in the case submitted on vote rigging in the first round of the presidential election

1. Introduction

This is a report on the findings of the investigation into the validity of evidence submitted against Elections Commission by Jumhooree Party in case No. 42/C-SC/2013 being heard at the Supreme Court, conducted upon a request made by the Supreme Court in its letter 197-C1/171/2013/30 dated 26 September 2013.

A large number of Forensic Document Examiners, Digital Examiners and support staff participated in the analysis, gathering and compilation of the information contained in this report. The work was conducted in the Supreme Court of the Maldives, in the presence of Court staff, between 26 September 2013 and 03 October 2013.

2. Material compared

2.1 List of 470 ballot boxes described as containing (in separate boxes) List of People Who Voted in the 2013 Presidential Election (7 September 2013): (Note: Although this is how the box files sent by the Elections Commission were marked, the separate booklets contained in the box files were labelled ‘List of Eligible Voters in 2013 Presidential Election’. From now on, all references to this list or to the booklets in this report will be as ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’. Thus, in total, the number of booklets or lists were contained in 44 box files, total 796 booklets.)

2.2 The following documents submitted to the Supreme Court by Jumhooree Party

2.2.1 Children under the age of 18 in the Eligible Voters List (41 names included);

2.2.2 List of dead people in the Eligible Voters list (list including 669 names);

2.2.3 Names of people repeated in the Eligible Voters List (list including 204 names);

2.2.4 List of people in the Eligible Voters List not included in the ID card registry of the Department of National Registration (List in which names of 1818 people are included);

2.2.5 List of people in the Eligible Voters List registered at addresses without knowledge of the home owner (Including information on 1187 people).

2.3 Personal information of citizens stored by the Department of National Registration (DNR Database);

2.4 Access logs of the computer software Ballot Progress Reporting System (or B.P.R.S) used in the Elections Commission on polling day;

2.5 Copy of the Eligible Voters List provided to the Jumhooree Party by the Elections Commission;

2.6 Eligible Voters List in the 2013 Presidential Election published in the Government Gazette.

3. Methodology of verifying validity of the lists

To establish the validity of the lists submitted to the Maldives Supreme Court by the Jumhooree Party, they had to be compared against the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ submitted to the court by the Elections Commission. The origins of the on-going case submitted to the Supreme Court by Jumhooree Party lie in doubts raised over the Voters Registry of the Elections Commission. Hence, assessing the validity of the Elections Commission’s ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ was also seen as essential and efforts were made to do so. Thus, information contained in the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ was compared with personal information stored by the Department of National Registratin (DNR Databse) and discrepancies found are included in this report.

Further, the ‘Presidential Election 2013 – Eligible Voters List’ published in the Government Gazette Vol.42, No.94 of 30 May 2013; ‘Amendments made to the 2013 Presidential Election Eligible Voters List of 30 May 2013 following complaints received’ published on 29 June 2013; and the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ submitted to the Supreme Court by the Elections Commission were also compared and the findings are included.

To conduct this work, separate lists in the 470 boxes of ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ were re-typed into computers and compared with the DNR database. As more than 1 (one) list was included in one ballot box, information in such lists were looked at and analysed individually.

Further, the lists referred to in 2.2 of this report were individually compared with the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ and the DNR Database.

Access logs of the computer software Ballot Progress Reporting System (or B.P.R.S) used by the Elections Commission on polling day were obtained.  But, due to the manner in which the system was used with access allowed from many IP addresses and the short time available for research, adequate analysis was not carried out.

In examining the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ efforts were made to establish how [officials] verified the identity of which person from the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ was casting the vote. This was done with reference to Chapter 3 (Taking Votes) of the ‘Officials Handbook – Presidential Election 2013’ compiled by the Elections Commission.

Moreover, efforts were made to assess information around the lists that we believed must be looked at in conducting work of this nature. Points of note from these efforts are also included in this report.

3.1 To establish that persons named in the ‘List submitted to the Supreme Court by Jumhooree Party of 41 children who were under 18 and ineligible to vote but are said to have been allowed to vote’, referred to in 2.2 of this Report, are Maldivian citizens, the list was compared with the DNR Database. To this effect, as those not included in the DNR database are people who have not obtained a national identity card, they have been regarded as people who not eligible to vote. If the people in this List were found in the DNR database, their ages were verified and it was established whether or not they were 18 years of age by 06 September 2013 and therefore eligible to vote.

3.2 Information relating to the 669 people who are said to be dead were compared, as stated in the previous point, to the DNR Database. In addition, it was checked whether those people from the 669 whose information was found to be in the DNR database were included in the Eligible Voters List said to have been used in the polling stations of the presidential election held on 7 September 2013. It was also checked whether such an individual had voted in the presidential election on 7 September 2013.

3.3 The list submitted by the Jumhooree Party of 1187 people from the Eligible Voters List in the Presidential Election on 7 September 2013 said to have been registered at a different ballot box without the knowledge of the voter cannot be verified through data comparison work such as this. Therefore, this work could not get to the bottom of it. But, we state that the issue must be addressed in concluding this case and propose that it be verified by the relevant complaints (elections) office or committee records.

3.4 Information relating to the 102 people noted by Jumhooree Party as repeated in the lists of eligible voters in the presidential election of 7 September 2013 were compared with the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’.

3.5 Checked whether any individual’s name was repeated in the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’. It was also checked whether such a person voted more than once.

3.6 To verify Jumhooree Party’s claim that 1818 people described by Jumhooree Party were entered into the List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election without valid information, their details were checked against data comparison [sic], DNR database and the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’.

3.7 Checked whether any person was included in the lists of eligible voters used in the polling stations in the presidential election of 7 September 2013 that was not in the DNR Database or had invalid information. Clerical evidence available was used to verify whether or not any such individual voted in the presidential election of 7 September 2013.

Findings

4.1 Following are the findings of note resulting from examination of the lists submitted as evidence by Jumhooree Party

4.1.1 The ‘List of children under the age of 18 included in the Eligible Voters List’ submitted by the Jumhooree Party did not give the identity card number of the 41 children named in the list. When this list was compared with the DNR Database, 32 of them were found to have been under the age of 18 by 7 September 2013. The remaining 9 people’s information could not be verified because the list did not contain identity cards. That is, their names could not be found by the work conducted using their permanent addresses, names and ballot boxes as the basis. List of People Who Voted in the Presidential Election of 7 September 2013 notes that 12 of those 32 children voted. Information relating to the 32 persons identified are listed in Annex 1 of this report.

4.1.2 When the ‘List of Dead People Included in the Eligible Voters List’ containing names of 669 people submitted as evidence by the Jumhooree Party was compared with the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’, information relating to 637 people were found. 14 of them were noted in the List of People Who Voted in the presidential election 2013 (7 September 2013). 2 of the 14 people were recorded as having voted using an identity card that was no issued in their names. Moreover, when the Elections Commission official noted the identity card of one of the two people using a pen, one digit from the identity card number was omitted. DNR database shows that 156 people recorded as deceased died on 01 January 1800. This information is in Annex 2.

4.1.3 When the names of 204 people submitted by the Jumhooree Party as list of people repeated in the Eligible Voters List was compared with the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ 174 matching entries were found. This includes 22 people the DNR Database had noted as repeated and entered “REPEAT / REPEAT.REPEAT” as their permanent address. This information is in Annex 3.

4.1.4 When the list submitted by Jumhooree Party as containing information of 1818 people who are not in the Department of National Registration’s ID Card Registry were compared with the DNR Database it showed that DNR has not issued 1637 of these people with ID cards. Efforts to find the remaining people by matching other information were unsuccessful. This also includes 7 people referred to in Point 4.22. Records show that of the people identified, 207 did vote. 96 of them voted using identity cards that were not the same as listed in the gazetted list. Information relating to this is in Annex 4.

4.1.5 When the information relating to 1187 people listed as registered to certain addresses in the Eligible Voters List without the knowledge of the homeowners was compared with the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ and the DNR database, 1186 records were found. 44 of these people were registered some place other than their home islands. While these 44 people voted, the Registry shows 1115 people in the list voted. It is believed that more information about this list cannot be found by data comparison. Information relating to people with such discrepancies is included in Annex 5.

4.2 It is noted that the ID card numbers of some people in the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ did not match with some of the ID card numbers written in pen on the list as voted. In this regard, 815 individuals had identity card numbers that did not match. Information relating to such discrepancies are given in Annex 6.

4.3 In instances where people’s information contained in the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ did not match their information in the DNT Database, it must be noted that, they were given the opportunity to vote by changing such information with a pen to match that contained in the DNR Database. Information relating to such individuals are contained in Annex 7.

4.4 In sorting the names in the two lists of Ballot Box Number T03.1.4 different methods were used. While one of the lists was sorted according to the addresses on the identity cards the other was sorted according to the order of identity card numbers. Therefore, the names on the two lists were topsy-turvy and the two lists had lost their order.

4.5 Some people’s names were added to the ‘List of People who Voted in the Presidential Election 2013 (7 September 2013)’ with a pen and given the opportunity to vote. It can be noted from the lists that 07 people were given such an opportunity. Information relating to such individuals is contained in Annex 8.

4.6 It was noted that the list used to highlight people who voted in Ballot Box No. Z33.1.1 installed on “Vivanta by Thaj Coral Reef Maldives” was similar to the list gazetted by the Elections Commission. Therefore, the list did not contain important voter information such as Identity Card and Date of Birth. This is a list different from the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ and similar to the list gazetted by the Elections Commission.

4.7 It was noted that the methods used to note those who voted on the Eligible Voters List varied at different polling stations. The following are methods used to note people who voted:

4.7.1 Using highlight markers to note who voted;

4.7.2 A tick against the name of the person who voted in pencil or pen instead of using a highlight marker;

4.7.3 Writing the voter’s identity card number with pen or pencil instead of using a highlight marker;

4.7.4 Putting a cross (x) beside the name with a pen or pencil after using a highlight marker;

4.7.5 Using a highlight marker to denote a person having voted and not at all entering their identity card numbers;

4.7.6 Using a highlight marker to denote that a person had voted, then using a different coloured highlight marker to denote the person had not voted; and

4.7.7 Having noted a person as voted by writing the person’s identity card number in pen, then crossing it out with a pen, then connecting it to an identity card number against someone else’s name with a line.

“Officials Handbook – Presidential Election 2013, Chapter 3 (Taking Votes) states that it should be done thus: ‘After checking the voter’s name in the list, note the voter’s identity card number in the allocated box and, once the person who issues the ballot paper has done so, note the person’s name in the list with a highlighter marker.’

4.8 It was noted that while two or three lists were used with the ballot boxes at some polling stations, others used only one list.

4.9 While it was noted that 690 people recorded as dead on the DNR Database was included in the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’, records show that 18 people recorded as dead in the DNR database voted. Information relating to these 18 people are on Annex 9.

4.10 It was noted that the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ included information related to minors under the age of 18. 39 such children were included in the list. 07 of them voted after changing their age. It is evident from the Identity Card numbers entered into the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ with a pen that 4 out of these 7 children voted using another Identity Card belonging to someone over the age of 18. One such person voted at a ballot box abroad, in Malaysia. Information related to persons noted in this point are included in Annex 10.

4.11 It was noted that votes were cast using the same identity card (repeatedly) in the lists of eligible voters in 07 September 2013 presidential election. It was noted that three identity cards (ID Card Number: A047595, A100910, A263120) were used to vote repeatedly.

4.12 ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ repeated 07 different identity cards. Information relating to such persons is in Annex 11.

4.13 Of the people included in the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ 2273 people had Dates of Birth different from that listed in the DNR Database. Information relating to people in the eligible voters lists whose dates of birth were listed differently in the DNR Database is included in Annex 12.

4.14 There were 1804 people in the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ whose addresses were typed in the DNR Database as “REPEAT / REPEAT.REPEAT”. The registry of people who voted in the presidential election show that 225 of these people voted in the 07 September 2013 election using this identity. Detailed information relating to such persons is included in Annex 13.

4.15 Of the people included in the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ 4032 were found to have permanent addresses different from their addresses listed in the DNR Database. 2830 of these people voted. People whose permanent addresses listed in the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ were different from that listed in the DNR database are included in Annex 14.

4.16 Of the people included in the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’, 319 people’s gender was listed as different from that listed in the DNR Database. Information relating to these people is in Annex 15.

4.17 Of the people included in the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’, 1164 individuals were found to have names different from the DNR Database. Registry of Voters shows that 952 such people voted on 7 September 2013. Information relating to people whose names were different is in Annex 16.

4.18 It was noted that carelessness when writing in identity card numbers of those who voted from ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’, meant some digits were missing or illegible. The information of 162 people were noted this way. Moreover there were 815 people in the registry of voters whose ID card numbers written in pen by the polling stations did not match the ID card numbers printed in the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’. This figure includes the 162 Identity Card numbers previously mentioned. This information can be seen in Annex 07 of this report.

4.19 Of people in the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ 07 people were completely missing from the DNR Database. Of those 07 people, one person voted in the 07 September 2013 presidential election. As this person has a passport, it is believed that the person voted using the passport. Nevertheless, no information relating to this person is in the DNR database. Information relating to the 7 people is included in Annex 17.

4.20 It was noted that there were differences between the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ published in the government gazette and list given to Jumhooree Party candidate by the Elections Commission. As such, while the total number in the gazetted amended Voters registry (on the Elections Commission website) was 239956, the total number of eligible voters as per B.P.R.S was 239593. The list Elections Commission gave the Jumhooree Party contained the number 239593. The voters registry sent to the Supreme Court by the Elections Commission (on a CD) contained information relating to 239971 individuals. However, the booklets (used in the polling stations, printed on paper) containing ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ that the Elections Commission submitted to the Supreme Court to show the registry of people who voted contained a total of 239603.

4.21 Discrepancies were noted in results from ballot boxes. As such, there was a difference of 251 votes between the total number given in the ‘List of People Who Voted in the 2013 Presidential Election’ and results announced by the Elections Commission on its website and other forums. Total number of votes from 66 boxes was less than the number published by the Elections Commission. While 284 boxes had no problems, 120 boxes had more voters than announced by the Elections Commission. While the number which voted less is 123, the number of votes cast more than the total at the boxes was 254. Annex 18 contains a list which shows the discrepancies in the vote boxes.

Conclusion

5.1 Of the issues noted in No.4 of this report, records show 773 people were allowed to vote despite discrepancies in identity card numbers, 7 people whose names were not on the list were added by pen, 18 people voted who were listed as dead in the DNR registry, according to the Registry 07 children voted, 3 people voted repeatedly, 225 people voted who were marked as ‘repeat’ in the DNR and were not issued with identity cards, 2830 people were given the opportunity to vote even though their permanent addresses did not match, 952 people voted despite discrepancies in their names, 7 people voted whose records were non-existent in DNR, and 819 people were included whose identity card numbers in the printed Voter Registry did not match the identity card numbers entered with insufficient care by Elections Commission officials. This is a total of 5623 votes. In relation to the announced results of this election, we see this as a massive figure.

5.2 While officials in the presidential election 2013 were given training, a particular procedure was set for them to follow, and an ‘Officials’ Handbook’ was printed and shared with them, it was noted that there was no consistency in how voters’ identity card numbers were entered and in drawing the required line with highlighter markers to denote people who voted. This created additional difficulties in entering this information into the computer.

5.3 We did not receive enough technical information necessary for analysing the Ballot Progress Reporting System. Therefore, we cannot explain the system’s process and data flow mechanisms and did not have the information to assess the importance of using such a system or to identify the vulnerabilities of the system if any. When we asked for the system’s server access log and audit trail, we only got the access log. Adequate information in this kind of work cannot be gathered this way. However, as access log shows that the software has been accessed by several IPs, it is our view that these access points be identified and their legitimacy established. From analysing the access logs, it can be seen that the Ballot Progress Reporting System is a server hosted in a way that allows access to it by the general public. That is, the server had been accessed by a large number of domestic and foreign IP addresses. As such, records show that it had also been accessed several times by IPs in countries that did not host ballot boxes on that day. The IP counts of the access log also shows up information that makes us believe that some Nets used at polling stations were also connecting to the server. It is also our opinion that additional people (third-party), too, can enter the server. As the Elections Commission did not provide the audit trail of the Ballot Progress Reporting System, we could not do the work to answer complaints raised by the public about its stoppage at various times on polling day.

5.4 As the database of the Ballot Progress Reporting System could not be obtained, we could not further verify the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ submitted to the Supreme Court by the Elections Commission.

5.5 As the clerical evidence obtained cannot get to the reality of the claims that votes had already been cast in their names when some people arrived at polling stations, and because there is no time to carry out such work, and as we do not have information on complaints filed at complaints bureaus, it was not possible for this report to get to the origins of those suspicions. For the same reasons the validity of the ‘List of 1187 people included in the Eligible Voters List who were registered at addresses without knowledge of homeowners’ could not be adequately verified.

5.6 Although the figure shown in point (5.1) is not a large percentage of the eligible voters, there is sufficient room to believe that it can affect the second round of the election. But, it must also be said that in relation to the error-margin this is not that big a number. When considering what has happened, it has to be said that there is vast opportunity to say that these things were done intentionally rather than unknowingly. That is, things like the inclusion of 1804 people in the Voter Registry to whom the Department of National Registration had not issued identity cards, a large number of dead people (690) being included in the Eligible Voters Registry and some of them casting votes, 39 children who were not 18 years of age according to the Roman calendar and 07 of them casting votes, 2830 people whose permanent addresses did not match being included in the Voters Registry, including in the Eligible Voters Registry 1164 people whose names contained huge discrepancies are issues which could have been, but were not, easily clarified from the Department of National Registration. For these reasons, it cannot be believed that this was an election in which work of the Elections Commission staff was sufficiently and cleverly supervised.

5.7 Since the issues listed above creates the room in which some people can see them as actions carried out for the benefit of a particular candidate, it is our view that ensuring that such matters are not repeated in future elections is vital for maintaining people’s trust in the young Maldivian democracy.

5.8 There is a difference of 251 people between the election results announced by the Elections Commission and the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’. Although we cannot say directly how this difference has emerged, this will also be added to the Registry of people who voted. But, as all officials did not mark the voters registry as outlined in the Officials’ Handbook, and did not act with consistency or use the same method in noting names of people on the list who turned up to vote [sic]. And, it could also have happened because people who were not on the registry were also given the opportunity to vote this time, differences existed in the various copies used at even the one ballot box, or some other reason that has not been noted in this work. Moreover, judging from other problems encountered in the Registry, it is our view that it is also possible that people could have cast extra votes.

6. Researchers

This proposal was researched by a team of people with knowledge in various fields. Thus, document examiners, computer forensic analysts and technical staff participated.

03 October 2013

[Signature]

Assistant Commissioner of Police Hussein Adam

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Ambassadors warned of international restrictions if no president by November 11: Nasheed

Foreign ambassadors have warned of international restrictions on trade and financial transactions if there is no president-elect by the end of the current presidential term on November 11, former President Mohamed Nasheed said at a press briefing yesterday (October 30).

To avert such a scenario, the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) presidential candidate suggested two solutions: the Supreme Court should review its judgment to annul the September 7 presidential election, or one of the two rival candidates should withdraw his candidacy “for the sake of the nation and Islam” ahead of the fresh polls scheduled for November 9.

“Ambassadors of foreign nations that I meet are now saying very openly that if there is no president-elect by November 11 they would have to take action under their normal rules or procedures,” Nasheed said.

A nation without an elected president is considered a dictatorship and prone to instability and unrest by the international community, he added.

Nasheed referred to financial sanctions imposed by the United States and Europe on troubled states such as Sudan and Myanmar.

If similar sanctions are imposed on the Maldives, Nasheed said the country would face difficulties in both importing essential goods, such as oil, medicine and foodstuffs, and continuing to export fish to Europe.

“If we cannot hold an election, we will be forced to conduct all business transactions overseas with cash,” he continued, as restrictions would apply to transactions through foreign financial institutions and banks.

“We are concerned because we can see Maldivians having to bear this burden. We are concerned that our rivals, even under these circumstances, are trying to stop the election and maintain the coup government,” said Nasheed.

The European Parliament in Strasbourg this week heard calls from UK MEP Charles Tannock to apply “maximum pressure”  to reverse what he described as a “judicial coup” in the Maldives.

Rival candidates only considered discussions to conclude the presidential election before November 11 after parliament “with a comfortable majority” passed the MDP’s proposal for the speaker of parliament to assume the presidency in the absence of a president-elect, Nasheed contended.

On the day parliament adopted the MDP resolution, he continued, the PPM and JP “realised that the coup government cannot be maintained even if they obstruct the election.”

“Even when we went to the Elections Commission, we all knew very clearly that it was unlikely that both rounds of the election could be held before November 11 while abiding by the Supreme Court guidelines,” Nasheed said.

Two options

Nasheed stressed that either a Supreme Court review or a candidate’s withdrawal was necessary to ensure a victor in one round to conclude the election by November 11.

As it was the Jumhooree Party that sought annulment of the September 7 election, Nasheed urged the party’s candidate Gasim Ibrahim to file a case at the apex court requesting a review of its decision.

“We are now at the mouth of a pit, on the edge of a razor blade,” said Nasheed, describing the consequences of repeated election delays.

Asked if either candidate had responded to his appeal for one of the pair to withdraw, Nasheed said he was hopeful but could not say he got “a clear answer.”

“I am certain that Gasim’s question will be, ‘why me?’ The answer is because you are the most sincere,” he said.

In lieu of a candidate dropping out of the race, Nasheed said the second option was for the Supreme Court to review its judgment and allow the second round to take place on November 9.

If none of the two scenarios came to pass, Nasheed expressed confidence of winning the election on November 9 “in one round” against the PPM and JP candidates.

“In my view, the Maldivian people’s patience has run out because of the efforts to stop the election from taking place. Fishermen can’t go fishing. People can’t leave on a holiday or for medical treatment overseas. And the campaign activists do not want in the slightest for their lives to return to normalcy,” he said.

Nasheed questioned the sincerity of the JP and PPM’s request for the Elections Commission to conclude the election before November 11 as both parties were insisting on following the Supreme Court guidelines whilst calling for Dr Waheed to remain in office.

Nasheed emerged the front-runner in the annulled September 7 election with 45.45 percent of the vote followed by Progressive Party of Maldives candidate Abdulla Yameen who polled 25.35 percent, necessitating a second round run-off.

Business tycoon Gasim narrowly missed out in a place in the run-off election with 24.07 percent of the vote and contested the results at the Supreme Court alleging widespread electoral fraud.

Meanwhile, at a press conference yesterday, JP Deputy Leader Ilham Ahmed emphatically dismissed Nasheed’s calls for Gasim to withdraw, calling instead for Nasheed to step back for the good of the nation.

“There is a fear that Islam will disappear if you [come to power]. There is a fear that there will be bloodshed here caused by introduction of other religions. There is a fear that you will sell of the nation’s assets,” he said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

EC maintains impossibility of expedited election after government request

Elections Commission (EC) President Fuwad Thowfeek has told Minivan News he does not believe it is possible to expedite the fresh round of presidential elections – currently scheduled for November 9 – despite requests to do so from the government and the three presidential candidates.

The candidates held a meeting on Sunday evening, agreeing to ask the EC for a November 2 poll. The EC, however, rejected the request stating that the commission does not have the facilities to do so in such a short period of time.

Vice President Mohamed Waheed Deen held discussions with the EC today (October 29), requesting – on behalf of the government – that the election date be brought forward.

Meeting at the EC offices, in addition to asking for an expedited poll, Waheed Deen enquired as to whether the EC needed further support to go forward with early elections.

“I have come here today to ask the EC what the government can do for them, whether we need to empty out some state institutions and give the EC extra space, or find more staff members for them,” Waheed Deen is quoted as saying to local media.

The Vice President is further quoted as saying that the commission members came across as being “very positive” in today’s meeting, and that they would get back to the government “very soon” with a list of what they require.

Waheed Deen further said that although he understands that there are some difficulties in bringing the polling date ahead from November 9th to the 2nd, he believed that it is possible to hold elections “somewhere around the 5th”.

President’s Office Media Secretary Masood Imad told Minivan News today that he has not received any information on the matter.

Earlier this afternoon, he was quoted in local media as confirming that the government had decided to give all possible assistance to the EC to speed up the preparations.

Masood was further quoted as saying that the government would like elections to be held in a manner which is in the best interests of the nation and to elect a president by November 11.

Earlier poll impossible, regardless of additional resources: Thowfeek

EC President Fuwad Thowfeek, however, feels that there is no possibility of bringing the date forward regardless of the support promised.

“In today’s meeting, we did provide them with all possible information that they requested for. However, since this is something we do together with the citizens, I do not believe it will be possible to bring the polling date forward, despite the offer to provide us with more resources, funds, equipment or manpower,” Fuwad told Minivan News today.

The EC announced November 9 as the date for a fresh first round of elections after the police forcibly brought a Supreme Court ordered re-vote to a halt on October 19.

The commission said then at the timea that if a second round was necessary, it would be held on November 16, 5 days after the date constitutionally mandated date for the swearing in of a new elected president.

At the time, EC President Fuwad Thowfeek said that the commission had held discussions with the president, the cabinet, and political parties on the earliest possible date for a new election before deciding on the date.

“We have said, when we get to a certain point, when a certain party doesn’t do what they must do, it should not affect the entire election. If that is the case, we will never be able to hold an election,” he said then, referring to the police obstruction of polls after Progressive Party of Maldives candidate Abdulla Yameen and Jumhooree coalition candidate Gasim Ibrahim failed to sign on the voters’ registry as mandated by the Supreme Court’s 16 point guideline.

“They assured us that they will not allow for these kind of obstructions in the upcoming election. Ministers have given us commitment that they will find a solution and facilitate this. That is why we have started work again.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Maldives’ Elections Commission calls on “all friends of democracy” for help conducting presidential poll as scheduled

The re-registration process for the presidential election first round – scheduled for November 9 – ends today at 10pm tonight (October 25).

Newly eligible voters and those who will be voting in a location other than their home island can collect forms from the Elections Commission Secretariat in Male’, from Island Council offices and online.

After re-registration is completed, the EC will receive rejected re-registration forms tomorrow (October 26). On the same day, the names of elections day officials will be sent to candidates for vetting as outlined in the SC guidelines.

“The Elections Commission of Maldives calls upon all friends of democracy to help us deliver a free, fair, transparent and inclusive presidential election as scheduled on 9 November 2013”, said a commission statement yesterday.

“So far over seventy million Maldivian Rufiyaa [US$ 4,566,240] has been spent on the unsuccessful attempts to hold the Presidential Election in the Maldives,” the Elections Commission (EC) stated in a press release issued Wednesday (October 23).

State-funded programs had to be halted in order to hold the October 19 re-vote, Minister of Finance and Treasury Abdulla Jihad has said previously.

This is the fourth time in two months the EC is preparing to hold a poll for the Maldives’ presidential election.

The September 7 first round poll received a unanimous positive assessment by more than a thousand local and international election observers, before Jumhooree Party (JP)’s leader, Gasim Ibrahim, who placed third in the poll refused to accept the results.

After agreeing to hear Gasim’s complaints, the Supreme Court then issued an injunction on September 23 to indefinitely delay the presidential election’s second round, before the police physically halted the EC’s ongoing preparations for the September 28 run-off.

The Supreme Court ultimately ruled to annul the first round – citing a secret police report which alleged electoral fraud, but was never presented to the EC’s lawyers – and delineated 16 guidelines to hold a revote by October 20.

With just 11 days to prepare for the next round of the presidential election – a process that usually requires a minimum of 45 days –  the Supreme Court issued subsequent rulings dictating managerial and administrative tasks the EC must undertake while preparing for the repeat first round.

The apex court’s guidelines also mandated police play a substantive role in handling the logistics and security of the election and ballot papers, as well as demanded that all parties sign the voter lists, effectively giving presidential candidates veto power.

The day before the scheduled October 19 election, candidates Abdulla Yameen and Gasim had still not signed the voter lists and were not responding to phone calls from the EC or officials sent to their homes. The pair subsequently demanded extensive fingerprint verification of the new voters’ registry – another stipulation of the Supreme Court midnight rulings.

The same evening both candidates sought a Supreme Court ruling demanding that the election be delayed.

Receiving only a brief instruction from the court to follow its guidelines, the EC prioritised the guideline requiring an election before Oct 20 and proceeded with the vote.

However, an hour before polls were due to open on October 19 police obstructed EC staff attempting to leave the commission’s office with ballot documents and equipment – later stating that police had decided not to provide cooperation to the EC as it had not followed the 16-point guidelines imposed by the court.

The Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) has since concluded that police illegally blocked the EC from conducting the re-vote of the presidential election on October 19 in contravention of the constitution, the Police Act, and the Elections Act.

Following the rescheduling of the election for November 9 – just two days before the end of the presidential term – Elections Commissioner Fuwad Thowfeek labelled the Supreme Court’s guidelines “restrictions” and expressed concern that they effectively allowed political parties to stop elections from happening.

The Elections Commission’s statement issued Thursday (October 24) recounts the presidential elections saga that has taken place over the last two months:

As mandated by the Constitution and Electoral Laws of the country, Elections Commission of the Maldives (ECM) held the first round of the presidential election 2013 on 7th September 2013. The conduction of the election was smooth and orderly without any serious cause for concern. National and international observers praised the election as free, fair, transparent and inclusive. In fact many international observers described the conduction of the election as one of the most peaceful and best they have observed. ECM was hailed for the way they have carried out such a smooth and peaceful election. One of the non-governmental organisations (NGO)’s stated that compilation of the voters’ list was excellent with a probable error rate lower than one percent. However one of the competing parties (Jumhooree Party) filed a case at the Supreme Court of Maldives to invalidate the election mostly arguing on the accuracy of the voters’ list. The Supreme Court after 22 days of deliberation found that the ECM had over five thousand (5000) fraudulent names on the voters’ list and annulled the result of the election. Since no candidate had achieved over 50 percent of the voters in the first round, ECM was on the verge of conducting the second round of the presidential election on 28th September 2013 when the Supreme Court ordered to annul the first round of the election. And as a consequence of annulment of the first round, the runoff was cancelled.

The main reason for the annulment of the election was based on discrepancies in the name or addresses of the voters. Nine hundred and fifty two (952) votes were invalidated due to slight differences in the name of the voters (some examples of discrepancies included Mariyam Sheran Mohamed Waheed Deen in the voters’ list as opposed to Mariyam Sheran Waheed Deen in the National Register and Ali Rila in the voters’ list was spelled as Ali Riza in the National Register etc.). Two thousand eight hundred and thirty (2830) votes were invalidated because the address in the voters’ list differed from their permanent addresses in the National Register even though their National Identity Card number and date of birth were the same and their National ID photo matched with the person who voted.

The Supreme Court ordered re-polling under a 16 point guideline set out by the Supreme Court and ordered that first round of the presidential election to be held before 20th October 2013 and should a runoff be required, to hold the second round before 3rd November 2013. One of the most contentious clauses in the guideline was clause number five which gives veto power to candidates to reject the voters’ list.

The first round of the presidential election was set to take place on 19th October 2013. After the lists were finalized candidates were given time to sign the final voters’ list. Mr Gasim Ibrahim (Jumhooree Party) and Mr Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom (Progressive Party of Maldives) refused to sign the voters’ list. The reason for refusal being that they were unable to verify the voters’ list. Mr Mohamed Nasheed (Maldivian Democratic Party) signed the voters’ list. Even though two candidates refused to sign the list, ECM was preparing to go ahead with the election as scheduled. However due to police action in the early hours of 19th October 2013 (polling day) ECM was prevented from conducting the election. The police refused to provide security to the ballot paper and also prevented election related materials being taken out of the ECM office making it impossible to hold the election.

ECM has now again rescheduled the first round of election to take place on 9th November 2013 and to hold the second round (if required) on 16th November 2013. ECM has requested assurances from President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik that this time, election should not be disrupted by security services and to facilitate the smooth conduction of the election.

So far over seventy million Maldivian Rufiyaa has been spent on the unsuccessful attempts to hold the presidential election in the Maldives. Elections Commission of Maldives calls upon all friends of democracy to help us deliver a free, fair, transparent and inclusive presidential election as scheduled on 9th November 2013. The runoff (if required) is scheduled to take place on 16th November 2013.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police stopped election illegally, in violation of constitution: Human Rights Commission

Police blocked the Elections Commission (EC) from conducting the re-vote of the presidential election on October 19 in contravention of the constitution, the Police Act, and the Elections Act, the Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) has said.

The commission said in a press statement yesterday (October 22) that it had replied to a letter sent by the Maldives Police Service (MPS) seeking to clarify which laws the police had violated and whether its claims on local media that police stopped the election were based on an investigation.

Police said on their website on Monday (October 21) that claims of the police acting outside their law enforcement mandate were “misleading” and were made “without considering the truth of the matter at all.”

The HRCM said in its reply that an investigation had been launched “immediately” upon learning that police had obstructed the EC on the morning of October 19 – an hour before polls were due to open.

The commission’s staff went to the EC offices, made inquiries and sought information from the EC secretary general as well as police officers.

“It was established with certainty through the commission’s inquiries that [police] stopped the Elections Commission from taking anything out [of its office],” HRCM said.

Announcing the cancellation of the polls on October 19, the EC said in a statement that its staff were told by police officers that “no document relating to the election can leave the commission’s offices”.

As HRCM deputy chair, Ahmed Tholal, was unable to contact the police focal point until 11:45am despite repeated calls. The commission’s letter dismissed as “false” the police’s contention that the HRCM’s condemnation in the media was made “without any consideration [of the facts].”

The HRCM also revealed that Acting Home Minister Ahmed Shafeeu told the commission that police had “acted upon an order given to them”.

Moreover, the HRCM noted that “the police stand” was made clear in a press conference by Chief Superintendent Abdulla Nawaz on the morning of October 19, in which he said that the police decided not to provide cooperation to the EC as it had not followed the 16-point guidelines imposed by the Supreme Court judgment that annulled the September 7 election.

Following the HRCM statement, former President Mohamed Nasheed tweeted today that he believes the prosecutor general should prosecute Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz for blocking the re-scheduled vote.

Appearing before the parliamentary Security Services ‘241’ Committee on Monday, Riyaz had however denied that police had blocked the election, insisting that the MPS only refused to provide security and cooperation.

Constitution and laws

The HRCM statement meanwhile listed the articles of the constitution and relevant laws that the police violated by obstructing the EC.

By blocking the election, the police “deprived all Maldivian citizens of the right to vote stated in article 26 of the constitution”.

Police also prevented the EC from carrying out its constitutionally mandated duties specified in article 170, which states that the powers and responsibilities of the commission include conducting, managing, supervising and facilitating all elections and public referendums, ensuring the proper exercise of the right to vote, and ensuring that “all elections and public referendums are conducted freely and fairly, without intimidation, aggression, undue influence or corruption.”

Consequently, the HRCM contended, “the Maldives Police Service on October 19, 2013 robbed the Elections Commission of its legal status”.

The commission noted that article 237 specifies the responsibilities of the security services as protecting the nation’s sovereignty, maintaining its territorial integrity, defending the constitution and democratic institutions, enforcing law and order, and rendering assistance in emergencies.

The HRCM argued that the proper role of the police on election day should be “acting upon the advice and consultation” of the EC to prevent the possible intimidation or aggression referred to in article 170.

Relevant laws, MoUs, and Supreme Court guidelines

The HRCM further contended that police violated article 7 of the Police Act (Dhivehi) by obstructing the election and “blocking the basic right of citizens to vote” as the law states that police must respect and protect the fundamental rights of citizens in the performance of duties.

Moreover, since article 13 of the police law states that police powers and discretions are derived from and restricted by the constitution, relevant laws and regulations, and court orders, the HRCM stated that on October 19 police acted “outside the bounds of the law and without a court order to stop the election”.

While police claimed that security and cooperation was withdrawn because the EC breached point five of the Supreme Court guidelines, “as point five of the guidelines does not definitively order the Maldives Police Service to do or not do anything, this commission believes that the police violated the aforementioned guidelines.”

As the Elections Act does not authorise any institution “to exert influence or power” over the EC’s work, the HRCM letter stated that police obstructed the EC in violation of the election law and “in a way that undermines the independence of the Elections Commission guaranteed by the constitution.”

The HRCM also noted that police breached the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding signed between the MPS and EC on September 3, which specified the role of the police in assisting the EC with election-related security.

As police were asked to maintain security and provide protection to the EC, the MoU “under no circumstances gave the power to police to obstruct the Elections Commission.”

The HRCM also argued that police contravened the Supreme Court guidelines as the first point ordered the EC and all state institutions to ensure that the first round of the presidential election was held by October 20.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Elections Commission restarts polling preparations

The Elections Commission (EC) has published the eligible voters list and accepted complaints regarding the voter registry, sourced from the Department of National Registration (DNR), from 9am until 6pm today.

Voter details can be checked in the Maldives by sending an SMS to 1414 in the format ‘VIS [ID#]’, or by calling the helpline on the same number. The eligible voter list can also be checked online at www.elections.gov.mv.

The voter registry will also be availabe on every inhabited island and Male’ residents can verify their information at the Elections Commission Voter Registration Section, located in the former Godown building.

Complaints forms can be downloaded from the EC’s website and are also available at the commission’s secretariat, Voter Registration Section, and at all Island Council offices.

The Elections Commission (EC) has begun preparations for the presidential election for the fourth time in two months. The police  forcibly brought a Supreme Court-ordered re-vote to a halt on Satyrday (October 19) after previously surrounding the EC to stop the September 28 second round run-off from taking place.

Last night the EC announced the first round of presidential elections will take place November 9 and the second round – if necessary – will be held November 16.

The Supreme Court annulled the first round of presidential polls held on September 7 citing electoral fraud despite unanimous domestic and international praise over a free and fair vote. The apex court delineated 16 guidelines to hold a revote by October 20.

The commission will continue to follow the Supreme Court’s guidelines, but will seek to change them in the future, EC Chairperson Fuwad Thowfeek said. In an October 20 interview on Television Maldives (TVM), he described the guidelines as “restrictions”.

The EC said that in the next three weeks it would allow registration for new eligible voters, and re-registration for those voting in a location other than their home island. Voters who re-registered for the October 19 poll will not need to submit re-registration forms again unless they wish to change their voting location.

Candidates signatures

According to the Supreme Court guidelines, the EC must obtain signatures from all candidates on the voter registry. However, the Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) and Jumhooree Party (JP) last week refused to approve the lists, leading police to stop the election an hour before polling was due to start.

The move has prompted widespread international concern and Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) protests.

However, the President, the cabinet and political parties have since assured the EC that “they will not allow for these kind of obstructions in the upcoming election”, explained Thowfeek yesterday.

EC Vice Chair Ahmed Fayaz has noted that candidates will be given a specific time period to sign the voter registry, after which the commission will continue with the election.

Thowfeek confirmed to Minivan News on October 19 that Defense Minister Mohamed Nazim had been appointed as the government’s focal point for anything election-related.

“I believe [his role] is to find agreement on the disputes between all the candidates,” Thowfeek said during an October 20 televised interview.

Voter registration process

Meanwhile, the Maldives’ Department of National Registration (DNR) has recently said there is a possibility that names of deceased people could be included in the electoral register as it “faces difficulties in obtaining information” to maintain a more current database.

However, the Supreme Court guidelines have mandated that the EC disregard its voter registry and use the DNR’s database as the primary source for the voter lists.

For the annulled first round as well as past elections, the EC compiled its voter registry by collecting current data from island council and city council offices, which was cross checked with the DNR database, and then updated after the commission publicly published the list and provided voters with an opportunity to amend any incorrect information.

“It has been very hard work over the last five years to come up with a voter registry of this standard,” Elections Commission Chairperson Fuwad Thowfeek explained to Minivan News in a previous interview.

The 17 member Commonwealth election observation team in particular praised the final voter registry, describing it as “accurate and robust”.

Election obstructions

“There are a group of people who want to block this [vote], those who know they may not do well, so they are trying to buy time and make the election difficult. It’s very sad,” Thowfeek noted a week prior to the halted October 19 election.

Both the Jumhooree Party (JP) and the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) filed cases with the Supreme Court on October 18 requesting that the October 19 re-scheduled election not go ahead without all parties having first signed the register.

The parties then refused to sign the registry without fingerprint verification of over 10,500 re-registration forms – PPM demanded a random 10 percent sample of forms verified, while JP wanted five percent.

Once the PPM and JP had submitted their letters to the EC after midnight on October 19, the party leaders then became unreachable, while the police refused to support the election taking place without the candidates’ signatures.

The PPM also requested the apex court order the annulment of the voters’ list used in the first round on September 7, threatening that the party would not accept the result if the existing list was used, according to local media.

This resulted in a midnight ruling from the Supreme Court on October 10, ordering the EC to disregard re-registration efforts for the annulled presidential elections, and restart the entire process with fingerprinted forms for all voters who wish to vote in a location other than their permanent address.

Prior to the first round, the PPM had called on the EC to make the voter registration process “more lenient” and requested access to the commission’s IT section.

“There is no rush”: Gasim

The PPM also sought an order at the Supreme Court on October 11 to block former President Mohamed Nasheed’s candidacy on the grounds of his criticism of the judiciary and his being “irreligious”.

Meanwhile, on October 16 the JP also raised concerns about the voter re-registration process, with the party’s representative on the EC’s National Advisory Committee accusing the MDP of being able to access the commission’s servers and directly register its own candidates – compromising the system.

The JP said it had filed a complaint with police over its allegations, demanding law enforcement officials address the concerns it had raised, according to local media.

Two days later (October 18) – on the same night JP and PPM filed cases to delay the October 19 poll – JP’s presidential candidate Gasim Ibrahim stated that the party will “accept elections readily if it is conducted in accordance with the guidelines issued by the SC” and that the party was ready to proceed with voting once it was “absolutely certain that the voter registry satisfactorily meets our standards”.

“There is no rush, it’s not like we are a soul caught in a life or death situation,” added Gasim.

Gasim has since called on President Mohamed Waheed to take action against Elections Commission members for allegedly violating the constitution “even by declaring a state of emergency”.

Meanwhile, an internal inquiry has been launched by the police professional standards command following allegations by EC Chair Thowfeek that Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz obstructed the EC from conducting the presidential election scheduled on October 19.

The Police Integrity Commission (PIC) declared on October 19 that the police had no legal mandate to intervene and stop elections this morning, local media has reported.

Riyaz has denied the allegations, insisting that police only refused to provide security as the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court judgment were not followed by the EC.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

United States, India, HRCM, multiple NGOs back Elections Commission, urge presidential polling to take place Saturday

The Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) has urged political parties to support the Elections Commission to hold the presidential election tomorrow, and called on “as many Maldivian citizens as possible to go out and vote”.

The United States has called on political leaders to ensure participatory democracy is not undermined, and expressed concern about the potential postponement of Saturday’s election.

The Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) and Jumhooree Party (JP) presidential candidates have demanded fingerprint verification of the finalised voter registry, with police refusing to support the election without the candidates’ signatures. After submitting letters to the Elections Commission (EC) soon after midnight, the party’s leaders have been unreachable.

Signing of the registry by the candidates is a new demand contained in the Supreme Court’s guidelines for the election, following its annulment of the first round of polls shortly before midnight on October 7.

“The Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) urges political parties to prioritise national interest and support the elections commission in this difficult moment to hold the presidential election as scheduled,” the commission declared in a press statement issued today.

“We call on as many citizens as possible to go out to vote and not to obstruct the vote,” it added.

Earlier this week the HRCM member and acting chairperson Ahmed Tholal told local media that the commission had complete confidence in the Elections Commission’s ability to conduct the upcoming presidential election freely, fairly and in a transparent manner.

Multiple Maldivian and international civil society organisations have also called for the presidential election to be held as scheduled tomorrow.

United States and India

The United States Embassy in Colombo has also expressed concern that the October 19 election may be postponed, and called on political leaders to ensure participatory democracy is not undermined in a press statement today.

“Political leaders must come together to ensure that participatory democracy is not undermined and that free, fair, credible and inclusive elections can take place peacefully and in line with international standards. Further efforts to delay the electoral process could undermine the will of the people to choose their representative,” the US Embassy stated.

“The Electoral Commission has made concerted efforts to comply with the Supreme Court’s requirements for a new first round, including the re-registration of thousands of voters,” it noted. “The United States is concerned that the re-organised first round of the Maldivian presidential election, set for October 19, may now be postponed.”

The US also highlighted the Maldives’ constitutional requirement that a new president be sworn in by November 11, 2013.

India echoed the United States’ “deep concerns” that the presidential election may be further delayed and “once again urged the government of Maldives and presidential candidates” to hold the election tomorrow and uphold the Maldives’ constitution, in a press release issued by the High Commission of India in Male’ tonight.

“We call upon all political parties to show a spirit of understanding, cooperation and accommodation by supporting the efforts for holding elections as scheduled, including by accepting the voters’ register,” stated the Indian High Commission. “Holding of free, fair and credible elections without further delay is essential for fulfilling the political aspirations of the people of Maldives.”

President Mohamed Waheed has meanwhile urged parties “not to act in a fashion that obstructs holding of the election and to prioritise national interest over personal interest”.

Transparency Maldives

Local NGO Transparency Maldives has reiterated its appeal for the presidential election to take place as scheduled.

“We have previously called for the presidential election to be held in the timeframe stipulated within the constitution,” Transparency Maldives’ Advocacy and Communications Manager Aiman Rasheed told Minivan News today.

“In resolving the rising tensions and disagreements in the country, Transparency Maldives appeals to all actors, especially the Supreme Court, to uphold the spirit of the Constitution and electoral deadlines and respect people’s electoral choice,” reads a September 28 Transparency Maldives press statement.

The NGO also previously appealed to “all actors and institutions to refrain from undermining the integrity of and confidence in the election day processes without credible evidence of fraud.”

Rasheed noted that “We have already missed two deadlines: holding a runoff election within 21 days after the first round and holding an election 30 days prior to the expiry of the existing presidential term November 11,” as stated in articles 111 and 110 of the constitution.

“The only deadline that has not been missed is holding the presidential election before October 20,” he continued.

“The Supreme Court’s verdict mandates all state institutions, including political parties, must work with the Elections Commission to ensure a free and fair election,” he explained.

“An election cannot be held without everyone joining together – civil society, political parties, media, state institutions – to support the Elections Commission,” he added.

Meanwhile, the anti-corruption NGO has stated that it is “fully ready for extensive observation of the October 19 presidential election”.

Transparency fielded a team of 400 election monitors during the first round of September 7, stating that the process was fair and credible and that incidents observed on the day would not have had a material impact on the outcome of the election.

In late August, Transparency Maldives expressed doubts over the integrity of the Supreme Court, urging it to “maintain its actions in such a fashion that the court does not allow further diminishing of its integrity and to be transparent in its functioning and sharing of information to strengthen the public trust towards the institution.”

The NGO also recently noted that the failure of parliament and the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to address alleged integrity issues of the Supreme Court judges have “created avenues for political and other actors to question the conduct, injunctions and verdicts of the Supreme Court”.

The Home Ministry this month announced that it would be investigating Transparency Maldives for challenging the Supreme Court, prompting the NGO’s international affiliate – Transparency International – to express its concern “grave concern” about staff and volunteer safety and “alarm” over the intimidation and public allegations threatening its Transparency Maldives chapter.

Maldives NGO Federation

In light of the HRCM statement, the Maldives NGO Federation, representing over 60 local civil society organisations, also reiterated its support for the Elections Commission.

“The NGO Federation of course appreciates the hard work of the Elections Commission and we fully trust in the work they are doing,” NGO Federation President Ahmed Nizam told Minivan News today.

“Given the Supreme Court’s verdict, it’s will not be very easy for the EC to go ahead and hold the election without political parties signing the voter registry. We are hopeful that the talks held tonight will help solve the issue,” he noted.

“I would like to believe that the political leaders of this country will be responsible people,” he continued. “And we stay hopeful that we will get the opportunity to exercise our constitutional right [to vote] tomorrow.”

“The EC Chairperson has said that even if the political parties sign the registry by 7:30am tomorrow morning the election can still be held,” he added.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling to indefinitely delay the presidential election’s September 28 second round until a verdict in the JP case against the EC had been reached, the NGO expressed concern over the election delay and urged the Supreme Court to deliver a speedy verdict and to allow elections to proceed as per the constitution.

The Home Ministry subsequently demanded the NGO provide a copy of its press release regarding the Supreme Court.

The NGO Federation also recently expressed its concern that political parties have been attempting to discredit the Elections Commission by inciting hatred toward the institution in an effort to obstruct the holding of a free and fair presidential election.

The NGO Federation declared their confidence in the EC and noted the essential role the commission has played in holding free and fair elections over the past five years.

International Federation of Human Rights

International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) NGO said it is continuing to observe developments in the Maldives, and is calling for the outgoing government to ensure Maldivian people were given their right to vote in a free and fair election held in accordance with international standards.

Expressing concern about “mixed signals” being given to Maldivian people and the international community about holding an election, the international NGO said there was growing anxiety around the world for voting to be held without further delays.

FIDH said it continued to hold particular concern over the decision by the country’s Supreme Court to annul the first round of the presidential election held on September 7 – an order it claimed, in a joint statement with the Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN), was “unjustifiable”.

“The unjustifiable delay and judicially forceful suspension of the second round of the election, due on 28 September, indicates an encroachment of the judiciary over the powers of the Elections Commission, an independent constitutional body answerable to the Parliament of the Maldives,” read the statement from MDN and FIDH on October 8.

The statement described the court’s verdict as being founded on “materially baseless arguments”, after the first round was “applauded as a success by the international community.”

“Maldivian authorities must swiftly bring the electoral process to an end, in a free and fair manner,” said FIDH President Karim Lahidji at the time.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Elections Commission unable to reach PPM and JP leaders to sign off on electoral register

The Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) and Jumhooree Party (JP) presidential candidates have demanded fingerprint verification of the finalised voter registry, with police refusing to support the election without the candidates’ signatures.

After submitting letters submitted to the Elections Commission (EC) after midnight, the party’s leaders have been unreachable.

The EC is ready to hold the re-run of the presidential election’s first round tomorrow (October 19) as soon as the candidates approve the voter registry.

The Supreme Court’s controversial annulment of the presidential election’s first round held September 7 gave the the EC less than 12 days to prepare for the repeat poll, and mandated the commission adhere to 16 guidelines, which included obtaining every presidential candidates’ signature on the finalised voter registry and having the police play a substantive role in handling the logistics and security of the election and ballot papers.

The EC has been unable to reach JP’s candidate Gasim Ibrahim or the PPM’s candidate Abdulla Yameen or their representatives to sign the lists.

The commission told a press conference this morning (October 18) that it has called, texted,  and sent officials to individual’s houses – as well as to the homes of JP representatives Umar Naseer and Hassan Shah – but has received no answer.

“We are trying our best to have the election as per the verdict of the Supreme Court,” said EC Vice Chairperson Ahmed Fayaz. “But with all the hard work of the last 11 days, now the process has almost been halted.”

“Although we’ve invited all the candidates to sign the voter registry, so far we have not been able to reach PPM and JP. However, MDP sent their representatives and signed the registry,” he noted.

Minivan News understand that certain PPM MPs have expressed their determination to prevent Saturday’s election from taking place.

“Without their signatures, the Maldives Police Service is not willing to support us. They will not give protection to conduct the election and if we hold polls it will be invalidated by the Supreme Court,” explained EC Chairperson Fuwad Thowfeek.

“The police need signatures of all three candidates or their representatives [before they will allow elections officials to depart to their respective polling stations with the printed ballot papers and voter lists],” said Thowfeek.

Thowfeek noted that he had spoken to Supreme Court’s Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain about the difficulty of meeting the deadline immediately following the October 8 ruling.

“I spoke to Faiz again today about the lack of response from two candidates regarding approving the voter lists. He told me to keep trying. Send people to their homes and keep trying. He did not say what else we should do,” said Thowfeek.

Fingerprint verification demands

After midnight last night the EC received letters from the PPM and JP demanding fingerprint verification of the voter registration forms.

“PPM wants fingerprint verification of 10 percent of reregistration forms, which is over 7000 forms,” said Thowfeek.

“It will take at least 20 days,” added EC Member Ali Mohamed Manik. “PPM also asked for rejected forms to be resubmitted. PPM said they will only sign list when these requests are attended to.”

“JP’s letter asked for verification of 5 percent of forms, which is over 3500 forms,” Thowfeek continued. “Each form has four people’s fingerprints, the voter, witnesses and the bearer’s fingerprint.”

“We asked if there are any suspicious forms submitted by specific people, so we can send those forms for verfication, but neither PPM or JP has provided a list like that,” he noted.

“This is not really practical at all, even the police only have fingerprints for some people, not everyone [eligible to vote],” Thowfeek added. “The Department of National Registration (DNR) says they don’t have the technical expertise, it’s not possible [to verify fingerprints].”

“This is going to take many days. We don’t have that many days. This is the last day to finish updating the forms [with candidate’s signatures], after that there is only one day to do everything, like sending personnel and materials.”

“It is an impossible demand they are making again,” lamented Thowfeek. “I don’t know why they don’t understand we don’t have time to do all these things [and adhere to the Supreme Court’s verdict].”

“We have not yet given a deadline. By giving a deadline it may make things more difficult,” he continued. “For example, if deadline of 12:00pm is given, and they don’t sign, then it may cause problems. The EC is willing to wait until last minute for signatures.”

“Up until today, we hoped Gasim and Yameen will cooperate with us. We have very little time. There is doubt if we can proceed without solving these problems,” stated Thowfeek.

“We urge [Qasim and Yameen] to sign the lists. The election is now in their hands.”

“We want to work until the last minute. We do not want to create a hopeless situation,” he declared.

Overseas vote and party responses

“Fortunately, Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz gave his approval for us to send election officials and materials to Delhi, India this morning on the condition that the EC sign a letter stating we will not allow polling to take place without signatures of all the candidates,” explained Thowfeek. “Instead the EC will send a PDF copy of the approved registry.”

This afternoon the elections officials need to depart for evening flights to London and Singapore, Thowfeek continued. The EC may need to seek approval from Riyaz to send officials and materials to these locations under the same conditions.

“We have not yet come to a situation where we cannot hold an election. We hope now and we continue to hope that the election proceeds. We are just trying to reach the candidates and their representatives,” added Commissioner Manik.

The opposition MDP announced yesterday (October 17) that it had accepted the modified voter registry despite finding some minor irregularities contained within, to ensure the re-run of the annulled 2013 presidential election goes ahead as scheduled on Saturday (October 19).

Ghafoor accused both the PPM and JP of deliberately trying to avoid a vote without giving sufficient reasons for their reservations.

“The situation is ridiculous, they have run away from the vote,” he said.

After attempts to contact senior JP leadership, Minivan News was advised to call party Spokesman Ibrahim Khaleel whose phone was switched off at the time off press.

Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Presidential candidate Abdulla Yameen told Minivan News this morning that the party still had not seen the amended voter registry, while questioning why the MDP had signed the list ahead of Saturday’s scheduled vote.

“I fail to understand the MDP’s readiness to sign the list before seeing the list,” he said today.

In a correspondence obtained by Minivan News that was sent by Yameen to Elections Commissioner Fuwad Thowfeek this morning, the PPM expressed concern that it not even seen or had the chance to verify the registry.

“Please allow us 72 hours to verify [the list] and please comply with our request to authenticate the sample specimens of thumb prints,” stated the message. Today, a PPM team will visit you and request to physically see the 71,000 re-registered forms.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“No rest, no sleep” until deadline: EC Commissioner

Additional reporting by Mohamed Naahii

“We are very certain the election will be held as scheduled, but not everything is within our control,” Elections Commissioner (EC) Fuwad Thowfeek told a press conference tonight (October 16).

“We are giving our maximum effort to reach the deadline. No rest, no sleep, two hours [maximum]. We were working 24 hours straight, then 36, now 48. Our officials are doing everything humanly possible. International observers are even surprised [at the intensive effort put forth],” said Thowfeek.

Following the Supreme Court’s annulment of the first round of presidential elections, the EC had been given less than 12 days to prepare for the repeat poll – scheduled to take place this Saturday (October 19).

The commission has said it normally requires 45-60 days of preparation to hold a presidential election in accordance with the Maldives’ constitution and general elections law.

The Supreme Court’s verdict delineated 16 guidelines the EC must follow in holding a new round of polling before October 20, including using the DNR’s database as the “main source to determine eligible voters”.

Currently, the commission is primarily working on processing voter re-registration forms and entering the information into its database, Thowfeek explained.

With the commission not yet having completed the process, it has extended its complaints filing deadline to 2:ooam.

“We are receiving complaints and will correct the mistakes based on the voter re-registration forms,” said EC Commission Member Ali Mohamed Manik. “The problem is that a large number of people want to be registered to vote at different locations [other than their home islands].”

Whether the EC can finish processing the re-registration forms by its goal of tomorrow morning has not yet been confirmed.

Deadline looms

Thus far, 56,243 forms have been processed and the EC expects over 60,000 people to have re-registered – leaving approximately 10,000 forms remaining. After this process is finished, the commission hopes to begin printing the final voter registry tomorrow morning.

The EC has already provided political parties with the voter lists and will give them the finalized voter registry once it is completed.

“We hope the candidates will sign the voter registry, as responsible people. If they don’t then we will determine what to do at that point in time,” said Thowfeek. “We do not know what to say if they do not sign the registry. We don’t know whether the election can be held or not if that occurs.”

Meanwhile, the EC has completed printing the ballot papers – with candidate number two, President Mohamed Waheed having been removed – and is in the process of verifying and checking the ballots.

However, the commission cannot seal the ballots for transportation until after the voter registry has been finalised.

Additionally, all the elections officials have been selected and trained, however they cannot be sent to the polling station locations until the voter list is finalized, noted EC Secretary General Asim Abdul Sattar.

The EC is aiming for officials to depart to polling station locations on the islands tomorrow.

“If elections officials do not leave for London tomorrow night, there will be no ballots in London,” said Manik.

“For example, it would be really strange if you were asked to build a 10 story building in 10 days and then hand over the keys, but such a thing we are doing,” he continued. “This is not something we have ever experienced, we apologise for everything.”

“Last time we formed a timetable and followed it, but now we have minimal time, so we are trying to finish things as fast as we can,” he noted. “We are doing everything as per the Supreme Court guidelines.

“We need to consider the ongoing Cambridge O’Level examinations – that is also why we will hold the election Saturday,” he continued.

Ongoing challenges

The EC noted that the holiday period had made their task even more difficult.

“Some temporary officials took leave for Hajj and Eid, however we cannot hire new staff because it each person requires two hours of training,” said Thowfeek.

“The government is giving a lot of assistance, which is the only reason the EC can keep going,” he noted. “We are working around the clock to hold the election on October 19.”

The Department of National Registration (DNR) provided the EC with the details of their database, however they have since amended some of the information and still need to provide their updated registry to the commission, explained Manik. We are still talking with the DNR to resolve the issue.

He also noted that the EC is working with the DNR to verify individuals’ records and address complaints the commission has received.

“For example, according to the DNR, Moomina Haleem [the country’s first female cabinet minister] is deceased, however we met with her and determined it was actually her husband that died. So we have to make sure people like Moomina Haleem do not lose their right to vote, explained Thowfeek.

“Now an individual can only cast their vote if all their personal information is correct [in accordance with the DNR’s database,” he noted.

Today the DNR admitted it had “faced difficulties in obtaining information on people who have passed away abroad”.

“We are following the Supreme Court guidelines; we are doing everything as they’ve said,” Thowfeek emphasised. “We will take action against those who conduct fraud.”

“By the will of Allah we will do everything we can to hold the election on October 19,” he added.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)